Radiother Oncol 2020 Feb 07
Randomized clinical trial on reduction of radiotherapy dose to the elective neck in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; update of the long-term tumor outcome.
Abstract
Background and purpose
A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to investigate whether dose reduction to the elective nodal volume (PTVelect) in head and neck carcinoma reduces radiation-induced dysphagia, primary endpoint, without compromising tumor control, secondary endpoint. Here, we report on the long-term follow-up of the secondary endpoint (NCT01812486).
Materials and methods
Two hundred patients treated with primary (chemo)radiotherapy (RT) were randomized (1:1) between the standard arm, irradiation to PTVelect up to an equivalent dose (EQD2) of 50 Gy and the experimental arm, irradiation to PTVelect up to EQD2 of 40 Gy. The primary tumor and involved nodes were treated according to the standard of care, EQD2 70 Gy (PTVhigh). Regional recurrences (RR) were projected on the initial RT planning-CT to identify the recurrence localization.
Results
The 5-year (5Y) RR was 14.0% (CI95% 7.9; 21.8) in the 40 Gy arm versus 7.5% (CI95% 3.3; 14.0) in the 50 Gy arm (p = 0.10). Majority of RR in the 40 Gy arm (9/13) were projected in PTVhigh and 2 RR were seen outside the treated RT volume. Only 2 RR occurred in PTVelect irradiated up to 40 Gy which was the same number as RR occurring in the 50 Gy PTVelect. The 5Y-overall survival (OS) was 56.5% (CI95% 45.7; 65.9) in the 40 Gy arm versus 49.6% (CI95% 39.0; 59.2) in the 50 Gy arm (p = 0.56).
Conclusion
At 5-years, no statistically significant differences regarding OS, local recurrence, RR nor distant metastases were observed between both treatment arms. This study is underpowered to undoubtedly demonstrate non-inferiority. However, since in both arms only two RR in the PTVelect were observed, reducing the dose to PTVelect appears safe and should be further investigated.
Related Questions
In light of de-escalation data, for patients undergoing standard dose radiation for favorable HPV + oropharynx cancer, do you accept lower coverage of the low-dose RT field to better spare OARS?
I do not compromise PTV coverage to spare non-critical OARs in patients treated with curative intent for head and neck cancer. What is important to consider (and what I suspect this question may be getting at) is that dose and target selection are critical to reducing the dose to non-critical but fu...
For head and neck cancer radiation requiring boost, do you plan using simultaneous integrated boost technique vs cone down technique?
SIB always provides more conformal dose distributions compared with sequential boost IMRT, as the beam placement and intensity of the sequential boost do not take into account the dose distributions of the first plan. This issue, as well as the lower fraction doses to the normal tissue embedded in t...
Is it appropriate to dose de-escalate in low risk HPV+ SCC of the oropharynx outside of a clinical trial setting?
I am going to write specifically on de-escalating HPV-OPSCC in the adjuvant setting first, important caveats for adjuvant de-escalation, and then about the general philosophy on de-escalation in clinical trials.Concerning adjuvant treatment, after careful consent, we are de-escalating patients with ...