Search

To test the hypothesis that radiation dose to key sites in the upper aerodigestive tract is associated with long-term functional outcome after (chemo)radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancers.This study examined the outcome for 27 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for definitive management of their head-and-neck cancer who were disease free for at least 1 year after treatment. Head-and-neck cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) was assessed before treatment and at 1 year after treatment. Type of diet tolerated, presence of a feeding tube, and degree of weight loss 1 year after treatment were also used as outcome measures. Radiation doses delivered to various points along the upper aerodigestive tract, including base of tongue, lateral pharyngeal walls, and laryngeal structures, were determined from each treatment plan. Radiation doses for each of these points were tested for correlation with outcome measures.Higher doses delivered to the aryepiglottic folds, false vocal cords, and lateral pharyngeal walls near the false cords correlated with a more restrictive diet, and higher doses to the aryepiglottic folds correlated with greater weight loss (p0.05) 1 year after therapy. Better posttreatment speech QoL scores were associated with lower doses delivered to structures within and surrounding the larynx.Our data show an inverse relationship between radiation dose delivered to laryngeal structures and speech and diet and QoL outcomes after definitive (chemo)radiation treatment. These findings suggest that efforts to deliver lower doses to laryngeal structures may improve outcomes after definitive (chemo)radiation therapy.

Purpose: To review the University of Iowa experience with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Methods and Materials: From October 1999 to April 2004, 151 patients with head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma were treated with IMRT for curative intent. One patient was lost to follow-up 2 months after treatment and therefore excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 150 patients, 99 were treated with definitive IMRT, and 51 received postoperative IMRT. Sites included were nasopharynx, 5; oropharynx, 56; larynx, 33; oral cavity, 29; hypopharynx, 8; nasal cavity/paranasal sinus, 8; and unknown primary, 11. None of the patients treated with postoperative IMRT received chemotherapy. Of 99 patients who had definitive IMRT, 68 patients received concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy. One patient received induction cisplatin-based chemotherapy, but no concurrent chemotherapy was given. Three clinical target volumes (CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3) were defined. The prescribed doses to CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 in the definitive cohort were 70–74 Gy, 60 Gy, and 54 Gy, respectively. For high-risk postoperative IMRT, the prescribed doses to CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 were 64–66 Gy, 60 Gy, and 54 Gy, respectively. For intermediate-risk postoperative IMRT, the prescribed doses to CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 were 60 Gy, 60 Gy, and 54 Gy. Results: The median follow-up was 18 months (range, 2–60 months). All living patients were followed for at least 6 months. There were 11 local–regional failures: 7 local failures, 3 regional failures, and 1 failure both in the primary tumor and regional lymph node. There were 16 patients who failed distantly, either with distant metastasis or new lung primaries. The 2-year overall survival, local progression-free survival, locoregional progression-free survival, and distant disease-free survival rates were 85%, 94%, 92%, and 87%, respectively. The median time from treatment completion to local–regional recurrence was 4.7 months (range, 1.8 to 15.6 months). Only one marginal failure was noted in a patient who had extensive tonsil cancer with tumor extension into the orbit and cavernous sinus. Patients with oropharyngeal cancer did significantly better than patients with oral cavity and laryngeal cancer, with a 2-year local–regional control rate of 98%, compared with 78% for oral cavity cancer and 85% for laryngeal cancer ( p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in local–regional control for patients who received postoperative radiation or definitive radiation ( p = 0.339) and for patients who had chemotherapy or not ( p = 0.402). Neither T stage nor N stage had a significant effect on local–regional control ( p = 0.722 and 0.712, respectively). Conclusions: Our results have confirmed the effectiveness of IMRT in head-and-neck cancer. It offers excellent outcomes in local–regional control and overall survival. More studies are necessary to further improve the outcomes of laryngeal cancer as well as oral cavity cancer.

Materials/Methods: From October 1999 to April 2004, 151 patients with head and neck cancer were treated with IMRT for curative intent. One patient was lost to follow-up 2 months after treatment and excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 150 patients, 99 were treated with definitive IMRT and 51 received postoperative IMRT. Sites included were nasopharynx, 5; oropharynx, 56; larynx, 33; oral cavity, 29; hypopharynx, 8; nasal cavity/paranasal sinus, 8; and unknown primary, 11. None of patients treated with postoperative IMRT received chemotherapy. Of 99 patients who had definitive IMRT, 68 patients received concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy. One patient received induction cisplatin-based chemotherapy but no concurrent chemotherapy was given. Three target volumes CTV1, CTV2 and CTV3 were defined. The prescribed doses to CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 in the definitive cohort were 70–74 Gy, 60 Gy and 54 Gy respectively. For high-risk postoperative IMRT, the prescribed doses to CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 were 64–66 Gy, 60 Gy and 54 Gy respectively. For intermediate-risk postoperative IMRT, the prescribed doses to CTV1, CTV2 and CTV3 were 60 Gy, 60 Gy and 54 Gy. Sixty-six patients had FDG PET in staging workup before treatment, and 59 of them had SUV of the primary site available. The outcomes of these 59 patients were analyzed using Cox proportional model to determine the prognostic significance of the SUV.

The output (cGy/mu) of a rectangular field from a linear accelerator is not always the same as that of its equivalent square field. We have summarized output variations with upper and lower collimator setting for 4, 6, and 24 MV X-rays. It is concluded that an error in output on the order of a few percent is introduced for elongated fields if lower set of collimator jaws is used for setting the longer dimension of the field, and computing the output using equivalent square method. It is recommended that specific guidelines be developed regarding rectangular field setting on high energy linacs.

Large radiation fields adjacent to each other require proper field matching to avoid overdosage at their junction. Various methods of determining optimum field separation have been discussed in the literature. However, these methods consider a perfectly flat surface of incidence throughout the irradiated area. In reality, it is more common for the patient thickness to vary within large fields, thus creating an uneven surface of incidence. In this paper, we have discussed the approach to gap calculation for an uneven surface of incidence. Dose measurements were made at the junction of two fields for 60Co, and 4, 6, and 24 MV X ray beams to verify this approach. Beam profiles measured under uneven surfaces indicated that the 50 percent dose decrement line did not shift towards the central axis for frequently encountered variations in patient thickness. Thus, careful geometric considerations could provide an optimum field separation. Ignoring the surface inhomogeneity may lead to field overlap and overdose at the junction.