Search

The purpose of this study was to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of a 12- to 14-wk posttreatment PET/CT for 2-y progression-free survival (PFS) and locoregional control (LRC) in patients with p16-positive locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal cancer (LA-OPC). Study was a secondary endpoint in NRG-HN002, a noncomparative phase II trial in p16-positive LA-OPC, stage T1-T2, N1-N2b or T3, N0-N2b, and ≤10 pack-year smoking. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to reduced-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with or without cisplatin. Methods: PET/CT scans were reviewed centrally. Tumor response evaluations for the primary site, right neck, and left neck were performed using a 5-point ordinal scale (Hopkins criteria). Overall scores were then assigned as negative, positive, or indeterminate. Patients with a negative score for all 3 evaluation sites were given an overall score of negative. The hypotheses were NPV for PFS and LRC at 2-y posttreatment ≤ 90% versus >90% (1-sided P value, 0.10). Results: A total of 316 patients were enrolled, of whom 306 were randomized and eligible. Of these, 131 (42.8%) patients consented to a posttherapy PET/CT, and 117 (89.3%) patients were eligible for PET/CT analysis. The median time from the end of treatment to PET/CT scan was 94 d (range, 52-139 d). Estimated 2-y PFS and LRC rates in the analysis subgroup were 91.3% (95% CI, 84.6, 95.8%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 87.6, 97.5%), respectively. Posttreatment scans were negative for residual tumor for 115 patients (98.3%) and positive for 2 patients (1.7%). NPV for 2-y PFS was 92.0% (90% lower confidence bound [LCB] 87.7%; P = 0.30) and for LRC was 94.5% (90% LCB 90.6%; P = 0.07). Conclusion: In the context of deintensification with reduced-dose radiation, the NPV of a 12- to 14-wk posttherapy PET/CT for 2-y LRC is estimated to be >90%, similar to that reported for patients receiving standard chemoradiation. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the NPV is >90% for PFS.

PurposeReducing radiation treatment dose could improve the quality of life (QOL) of patients with good-risk human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Whether reduced-dose radiation produces disease control and QOL equivalent to standard chemoradiation is not proven.Patients and methodsIn this randomized, phase II trial, patients with p16-positive, T1-T2 N1-N2b M0, or T3 N0-N2b M0 OPSCC (7th edition staging) with ≤ 10 pack-years of smoking received 60 Gy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over 6 weeks with concurrent weekly cisplatin (C) or 60 Gy IMRT over 5 weeks. To be considered for a phase III study, an arm had to achieve a 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate superior to a historical control rate of 85% and a 1-year mean composite score ≥ 60 on the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI).ResultsThree hundred six patients were randomly assigned and eligible. Two-year PFS for IMRT + C was 90.5% rejecting the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS ≤ 85% (P = .04). For IMRT, 2-year PFS was 87.6% (P = .23). One-year MDADI mean scores were 85.30 and 81.76 for IMRT + C and IMRT, respectively. Two-year overall survival rates were 96.7% for IMRT + C and 97.3% for IMRT. Acute adverse events (AEs) were defined as those occurring within 180 days from the end of treatment. There were more grade 3-4 acute AEs for IMRT + C (79.6% v 52.4%; P < .001). Rates of grade 3-4 late AEs were 21.3% and 18.1% (P = .56).ConclusionThe IMRT + C arm met both prespecified end points justifying advancement to a phase III study. Higher rates of grade ≥ 3 acute AEs were reported in the IMRT + C arm.

PurposeBecause of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff.Methods and materialsA panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases.ResultsIn total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care.ConclusionsThis urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

PurposeBecause of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff.Methods and materialsA panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases.ResultsIn total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care.ConclusionsThis urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

Whether the nom de guerre is Mathematical Oncology, Computational or Systems Biology, Theoretical Biology, Evolutionary Oncology, Bioinformatics, or simply Basic Science, there is no denying that mathematics continues to play an increasingly prominent role in cancer research. Mathematical Oncology-defined here simply as the use of mathematics in cancer research-complements and overlaps with a number of other fields that rely on mathematics as a core methodology. As a result, Mathematical Oncology has a broad scope, ranging from theoretical studies to clinical trials designed with mathematical models. This Roadmap differentiates Mathematical Oncology from related fields and demonstrates specific areas of focus within this unique field of research. The dominant theme of this Roadmap is the personalization of medicine through mathematics, modelling, and simulation. This is achieved through the use of patient-specific clinical data to: develop individualized screening strategies to detect cancer earlier; make predictions of response to therapy; design adaptive, patient-specific treatment plans to overcome therapy resistance; and establish domain-specific standards to share model predictions and to make models and simulations reproducible. The cover art for this Roadmap was chosen as an apt metaphor for the beautiful, strange, and evolving relationship between mathematics and cancer.

Background: Tumor-immune interactions shape a developing tumor and its tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) resulting in either well-infiltrated, immunologically inflamed tumor beds, or immune deserts with low levels of infiltration. The pre-treatment immune make-up of the TIME is associated with treatment outcome; immunologically inflamed tumors generally exhibit better responses to radio- and immunotherapy than non-inflamed tumors. However, radiotherapy is known to induce opposing immunological consequences, resulting in both immunostimulatory and inhibitory responses. In fact, it is thought that the radiation-induced tumoricidal immune response is curtailed by subsequent applications of radiation. It is thus conceivable that spatially fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT), administered through GRID blocks (SFRT-GRID) or lattice radiotherapy to create areas of low or high dose exposure, may create protective reservoirs of the tumor immune microenvironment, thereby preserving anti-tumor immune responses that are pivotal for radiation success. Methods: We have developed an agent-based model (ABM) of tumor-immune interactions to investigate the immunological consequences and clinical outcomes after 2 Gy × 35 whole tumor radiation therapy (WTRT) and SFRT-GRID. The ABM is conceptually calibrated such that untreated tumors escape immune surveillance and grow to clinical detection. Individual ABM simulations are initialized from four distinct multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) slides, and immune related parameter rates are generated using Latin Hypercube Sampling. Results: In silico simulations suggest that radiation-induced cancer cell death alone is insufficient to clear a tumor with WTRT. However, explicit consideration of radiation-induced anti-tumor immunity synergizes with radiation cytotoxicity to eradicate tumors. Similarly, SFRT-GRID is successful with radiation-induced anti-tumor immunity, and, for some pre-treatment TIME compositions and modeling parameters, SFRT-GRID might be superior to WTRT in providing tumor control. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the pivotal role of the radiation-induced anti-tumor immunity. Prolonged fractionated treatment schedules may counteract early immune recruitment, which may be protected by SFRT-facilitated immune reservoirs. Different biological responses and treatment outcomes are observed based on pre-treatment TIME composition and model parameters. A rigorous analysis and model calibration for different tumor types and immune infiltration states is required before any conclusions can be drawn for clinical translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, ethmoid and maxillary sinuses, and salivary glands. Recommendations are also provided for occult primary of the H&N, and separate algorithms have been developed by the panel for very advanced H&N cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding evaluation and treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, ethmoid and maxillary sinuses, and salivary glands. Recommendations are also provided for occult primary of the head and neck (H&N), and separate algorithms have been developed by the panel for very advanced H&N cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding the increase in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer and the availability of immunotherapy agents for treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic H&N cancer.

Purpose: A workflow/planning strategy delivering low‐dose radiation therapy (LDRT) (1 Gy) to all polymetastatic diseases using conventional planning/delivery (Raystation/Halcyon = "conventional") and the AI‐based Ethos online adaptive RT (oART) platform is developed/evaluated. Methods: Using retrospective data for ten polymetastatic non‐small cell lung cancer patients (5‐52 lesions each) with PET/CTs, gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were delineated using PET standardized‐uptake‐value (SUV) thresholding. A 1 cm uniform expansion of GTVs to account for setup/contour uncertainty and organ motion‐generated planning target volumes (PTVs). Dose optimization/calculation used the diagnostic CT from PET/CT. Dosimetric objectives were: Dmin,0.03cc ≥ 95% (acceptable variation (Δ) ≥ 90%), V100% ≥ 95% (Δ ≥ 90%), and D0.03cc ≤ 120% (Δ ≤ 125%). Additionally, online adaptation was simulated. When available, subsequent diagnostic CT was used to represent on‐treatment CBCT. Otherwise, the CT from PET/CT used for initial planning was deformed to simulate clinically representative changes. Results: All initial plans generated, both for Raystation and Ethos, achieved clinical goals within acceptable variation. For all patients, Dmin,0.03cc ≥ 95%, V100% ≥ 95%, and D0.03cc ≤ 120% goals were achieved for 84.8%/99.5%, 97.7%/98.7%, 97.4%/92.3%, in conventional/Ethos plans, respectively. The ratio of 50% isodose volume to PTV volume (R50%), maximum dose at 2 cm from PTV (D2cm), and the ratio of the 100% isodose volume to PTV volume (conformity index) in Raystation/Ethos plans were 7.9/5.9; 102.3%/88.44%; and 0.99/1.01, respectively. In Ethos, online adapted plans maintained PTV coverage whereas scheduled plans often resulted in geographic misses due to changes in tumor size, patient position, and body habitus. The average total duration of the oART workflow was 26:15 (min:sec) ranging from 6:43 to 57:30. The duration of each oART workflow step as a function of a number of targets showed a low correlation coefficient for influencer generation and editing (R2 = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively) and high correlation coefficient for target generation, target editing and plan generation (R2 = 0.68, 0.63 and 0.69, respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates feasibility of conventional planning/treatment with Raystation/Halcyon and highlights efficiency gains when utilizing semi‐automated planning/online‐adaptive treatment with Ethos for immunostimulatory LDRT conformally delivered to all sites of polymetastatic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers. These Insights describe the different types of particle therapy that may be used to treat H&N cancers, in contrast to traditional radiation therapy (RT) with photons (x-ray). Research is ongoing regarding the different types of particle therapy, including protons and carbon ions, with the goals of reducing the long-term side effects from RT and improving the therapeutic index. For the 2015 update, the NCCN H&N Cancers Panel agreed to delete recommendations for neutron therapy for salivary gland cancers, because of its limited availability, which has decreased over the past 2 decades; the small number of patients in the United States who currently receive this treatment; and concerns that the toxicity of neutron therapy may offset potential disease control advantages.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck Cancers focuses on glottic laryngeal cancer, which is the most common type of laryngeal cancer and has an excellent cure rate. The lymphatic drainage of the glottis is sparse, and early stage primaries rarely spread to regional nodes. Because hoarseness is an early symptom, most glottic laryngeal cancer is early stage at diagnosis. Updates to these guidelines for 2014 include revisions to "Principles of Radiation Therapy" for each site and "Principles of Surgery," and the addition of a new section on "Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management."

Quality of organ at risk (OAR) autosegmentation is often judged by concordance metrics against the human-generated gold standard.However, the ultimate goal is the ability to use unedited autosegmented OARs in treatment planning,while maintaining the plan quality.We tested this approach with head and neck (HN) OARs generated by a prototype deep-learning (DL) model on patients previously treated for oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Forty patients were selected, with all structures delineated by an experienced physician. For each patient, a set of 13 OARs were generated by the DL model. Each patient was re-planned based on original targets and unedited DL-produced OARs.The new dose distributions were then applied back to the manually delineated structures. The target coverage was evaluated with inhomogeneity index (II) and the relative volume of regret. For the OARs, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of areas under the DVH curves, individual DVH objectives, and composite continuous plan quality metric (PQM) were compared. The nearly identical primary target coverage for the original and re-generated plans was achieved, with the same II and relative volume of regret values. The average DSC of the areas under the corresponding pairs of DVH curves was 0.97 ± 0.06. The number of critical DVH points which met the clinical objectives with the dose optimized on autosegmented structures but failed when evaluated on the manual ones was 5 of 896 (0.6%). The average OAR PQM score with the re-planned dose distributions was essentially the same when evaluated either on the autosegmented or manual OARs. Thus, rigorous HN treatment planning is possible with OARs segmented by a prototype DL algorithm with minimal, if any, manual editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/hypothesisThe purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with prophylactic placement of feeding tubes in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy as a part of treatment using multilevel models that account for patient-, physician-, and institution-level sources of variation.Study designA retrospective analysis using binary logistic regression and hierarchical linear models was run to evaluate independent predictors of prophylactic feeding tube placement.MethodsSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were used. Head and neck cancer patients diagnosed with locoregionally advanced stage disease from 2000 to 2005 were included in this study (N = 8,306).ResultsAcross all models, prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement was found to be more likely in patients who had cancer of the larynx or oropharynx compared with those with cancer of the nasopharynx or oral cavity; who had regional instead of local cancer; who did not receive surgery as a part of treatment, but did receive chemotherapy; and who were divorced, separated, or widowed. Additionally, although practice variation was observed to occur, its overall contribution in predicting prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement was minimal.ConclusionsAs health care enters an era of patient-centered care, further investigation of the potential role of social support (or lack of social support) in influencing treatment decisions of head and neck cancer patients and providers is warranted.

Purpose: A planning strategy was developed and the utility of online‐adaptation with the Ethos CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system was evaluated using retrospective data from Head‐and‐neck (H&N) patients that required clinical offline adaptation during treatment. Methods: Clinical data were used to re‐plan 20 H&N patients (10 sequential boost (SEQ) with separate base and boost plans plus 10 simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)). An optimal approach, robust to online adaptation, for Ethos‐initial plans using clinical goal prioritization was developed. Anatomically‐derived isodose‐shaping helper structures, air‐density override, goals for controlling hotspot location(s), and plan normalization were investigated. Online adaptation was simulated using clinical offline adaptive simulation‐CTs to represent an on‐treatment CBCT. Dosimetric comparisons were based on institutional guidelines for Clinical‐initial versus Ethos‐initial plans and Ethos‐scheduled versus Ethos‐adapted plans. Timing for five components of the online adaptive workflow was analyzed. Results: The Ethos H&N planning approach generated Ethos‐initial SEQ plans with clinically comparable PTV coverage (average PTVHigh V100% = 98.3%, Dmin,0.03cc = 97.9% and D0.03cc = 105.5%) and OAR sparing. However, Ethos‐initial SIB plans were clinically inferior (average PTVHigh V100% = 96.4%, Dmin,0.03cc = 93.7%, D0.03cc = 110.6%). Fixed‐field IMRT was superior to VMAT for 93.3% of plans. Online adaptation succeeded in achieving conformal coverage to the new anatomy in both SEQ and SIB plans that was even superior to that achieved in the initial plans (which was due to the changes in anatomy that simplified the optimization). The average adaptive workflow duration for SIB, SEQ base and SEQ boost was 30:14, 22.56, and 14:03 (min: sec), respectively. Conclusions: With an optimal planning approach, Ethos efficiently auto‐generated dosimetrically comparable and clinically acceptable initial SEQ plans for H&N patients. Initial SIB plans were inferior and clinically unacceptable, but adapted SIB plans became clinically acceptable. Online adapted plans optimized dose to new anatomy and maintained target coverage/homogeneity with improved OAR sparing in a time‐efficient manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Radiation therapy (RT) is one of the most common anticancer therapies. Yet, current radiation oncology practice does not adapt RT dose for individual patients, despite wide interpatient variability in radiosensitivity and accompanying treatment response. We have previously shown that mechanistic mathematical modeling of tumor volume dynamics can simulate volumetric response to RT for individual patients and estimation personalized RT dose for optimal tumor volume reduction. However, understanding the implications of the choice of the underlying RT response model is critical when calculating personalized RT dose. Methods: In this study, we evaluate the mathematical implications and biological effects of 2 models of RT response on dose personalization: (1) cytotoxicity to cancer cells that lead to direct tumor volume reduction (DVR) and (2) radiation responses to the tumor microenvironment that lead to tumor carrying capacity reduction (CCR) and subsequent tumor shrinkage. Tumor growth was simulated as logistic growth with pre-treatment dynamics being described in the proliferation saturation index (PSI). The effect of RT was simulated according to each respective model for a standard schedule of fractionated RT with 2 Gy weekday fractions. Parameter sweeps were evaluated for the intrinsic tumor growth rate and the radiosensitivity parameter for both models to observe the qualitative impact of each model parameter. We then calculated the minimum RT dose required for locoregional tumor control (LRC) across all combinations of the full range of radiosensitvity and proliferation saturation values. Results: Both models estimate that patients with higher radiosensitivity will require a lower RT dose to achieve LRC. However, the two models make opposite estimates on the impact of PSI on the minimum RT dose for LRC: the DVR model estimates that tumors with higher PSI values will require a higher RT dose to achieve LRC, while the CCR model estimates that higher PSI values will require a lower RT dose to achieve LRC. Discussion: Ultimately, these results show the importance of understanding which model best describes tumor growth and treatment response in a particular setting, before using any such model to make estimates for personalized treatment recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]