Search

Background and Purpose: Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres., Materials and Methods: We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT., Results: Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%)., Conclusion: Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx was published in 2020. It was therefore decided by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) to convene a special, virtual guidelines meeting in July 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2020 guidelines to consider the potential ethnic differences associated with the treatment of SCCs of the head and neck (SCCHN) in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with SCCHN (excluding nasopharyngeal carcinomas) representing the oncological societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug access restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter was discussed when appropriate. This manuscript provides a series of expert recommendations (Clinical Practice Guidelines) which can be used to provide guidance to health care providers and clinicians for the optimisation of the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with SCC of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx across Asia., Competing Interests: Disclosure BK declares grants or contracts from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) Oncology, Ono Pharmaceutical and AstraZeneca, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, ABL Bio, Genexine, Cellid, Handok, Celid, Trial Informatics and CBS Bio, payment or honoraria from MSD Oncology and Merck. J-PM declares consulting fees/honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Innate, Merck Serono, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, Janssen, Incyte, Cue Biopharma, ALX Oncology, iTEOS, TheRNA and NEKTAR, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Pfizer and MSD and participation at a Safety or Advisory Board for PsiOxus. LL declares institutional grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene International, Eisai, Exelixis Inc, Debiopharm International SA, Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., IRX Therapeutics Inc., Medpace Inc., Merck-Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Spa and Buran and receipt of honoraria or fees (for public speaking/teaching in medical meetings and/or for providing expert opinion in Advisory Boards) for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Merck-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffman La Roche Ltd., Novartis, Roche, Debiopharm International SA, Sobi, Incyte Biosciences Italy SRL, Doxa Pharma, Amgen, Nanobiotics and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). CB declares payment or honoraria from Merck KGaA, BMS and Roche. MT declares consulting fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals, MSD, BMS and Merck Biopharma, and honoraria from Eisai, Ono Pharmaceuticals, BMS and Merck Biopharma. MA declares consulting fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, DKSH, Eisai, Roche, Novartis and Merck, payment or honoraria from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, DKSH, Eisai, Roche, Novartis and Merck, support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Roche, Elekta/Abex and AstraZeneca, and is the president of the Malaysian Oncological Society. MKA declares honoraria for presentations from Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim, sponsorship for meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and DKSH. QSNg declares support for attending meetings and or travel from BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Astellas, and participation in Safety or Advisory Boards for MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. WIWZ declares honoraria for lectures from Amgen Malaysia, DKSH Malaysia, Eisai Malaysia, Eli Lilly Malaysia, Ipsen Malaysia, MSD Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Merck Serono Malaysia, Pfizer Malaysia and Roche Malaysia, travel grants from Amgen Malaysia, Celgene Malaysia, Eisai Malaysia, Eli Lilly Malaysia, MSD Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Roche Malaysia, participation on an Advisory Board for Celgene Malaysia, Roche Malaysia, Eli Lilly Malaysia, Eisai Malaysia and MSD Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and is a member of ASCO AP Regional Council and Greater Petaling Cancer City Challenge UICC. NK declares institutional grants or contracts from Ono Pharmaceutical, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Rakuten Medical, Bayer and Adlai Nortye, payment or honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical, BMS, Merck Biopharma, MSD, Eisai and Bayer, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Bayer and Adlai Nortye. GC declares institutional grants from Merck, consulting fees from BMS, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis and Seattle Genetics, payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche and Daichii Sankyo. SP declares fees for consultancy/advisory roles from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Imedex, Incyte, Janssen, Medscape, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, speaker roles for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, PER, Pfizer, Prime, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Takeda and the receipt of grants/research support: (Sub) investigator in trials (institutional financial support for trials) sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, GSK, Illumina, Lilly, MSD, Merck Serono, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech. TWK declares institutional grants or contracts from Roche, and sanofi-aventis. TY declares institutional grants or contracts from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Parexel International, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo and Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Head and neck reconstructive surgery using a flap is increasingly common. Best practices and outcomes for postoperative radiotherapy (poRT) with flaps have not been specified. We aimed to provide consensus recommendations to assist clinical decision-making highlighting areas of uncertainty in the presence of flaps., Material and Methods: Radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists were assembled from GORTEC and internationally with the Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG). The consensus-building approach covered 59 topics across four domains: (1) identification of postoperative tissue changes on imaging for flap delineation, (2) understanding of tumor relapse risks and target volume definitions, (3) functional radiation-induced deterioration, (4) feasibility of flap avoidance., Results: Across the 4 domains, international consensus (median score ≥ 7/9) was achieved only for functional deterioration (73.3%); other consensus rates were 55.6% for poRT avoidance of flap structures, 41.2% for flap definition and 11.1% for tumor spread patterns. Radiation-induced flap fibrosis or atrophy and their functional impact was well recognized while flap necrosis was not, suggesting dose-volume adaptation for the former. Flap avoidance was recommended to minimize bone flap osteoradionecrosis but not soft-tissue toxicity. The need for identification (CT planning, fiducials, accurate operative report) and targeting of the junction area at risk between native tissues and flap was well recognized. Experts variably considered flaps as prone to tumor dissemination or not. Discrepancies in rating of 11 items among international reviewing participants are shown., Conclusion: International GORTEC and HNCIG-endorsed recommendations were generated for the management of flaps in head and neck radiotherapy. Considerable knowledge gaps hinder further consensus, in particular with respect to tumor spread patterns., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic around the world caused most healthcare services to turn substantial attention to treatment of these patients and also to alter the structure of healthcare systems to address an infectious disease. As a result, many cancer patients had their treatment deferred during the pandemic, increasing the time-to-treatment initiation, the number of untreated patients (which will alter the dynamics of healthcare delivery in the post-pandemic era) and increasing their risk of death. Hence, we analyzed the impact on global cancer mortality considering the decline in oncology care during the COVID-19 outbreak using head and neck cancer, a known time-dependent disease, as a model., Methods: An online practical tool capable of predicting the risk of cancer patients dying due to the COVID-19 outbreak and also useful for mitigation strategies after the peak of the pandemic has been developed, based on a mathematical model. The scenarios were estimated by information of 15 oncological services worldwide, given a perspective from the five continents and also some simulations were conducted at world demographic data., Results: The model demonstrates that the more that cancer care was maintained during the outbreak and also the more it is increased during the mitigation period, the shorter will be the recovery, lessening the additional risk of dying due to time-to-treatment initiation., Conclusions: This impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients is inevitable, but it is possible to minimize it with an effort measured by the proposed model.

Background: This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of intensive treatment for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) depends on the proportion of patients' overall event risk attributable to cancer., Methods: This study analyzed 22,339 patients with LAHNC treated in 81 randomized trials testing altered fractionation (AFX; Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH] data set) or chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] data set). Generalized competing event regression was applied to the control arms in MARCH, and patients were stratified by tertile according to the ω score, which quantified the relative hazard for cancer versus competing events. The classifier was externally validated on the MACH-NC data set. The study tested for interactions between the ω score and treatment effects on overall survival (OS)., Results: Factors associated with a higher ω score were a younger age, a better performance status, an oral cavity site, higher T and N categories, and a p16-negative/unknown status. The effect of AFX on OS was greater in patients with high ω scores (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P for interaction = .086). The effect of chemotherapy on OS was significantly greater in patients with high ω scores (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08; P for interaction = .011)., Conclusions: LAHNC patients with a higher risk of cancer progression relative to competing mortality, as reflected by a higher ω score, selectively benefit from more intensive treatment., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure JPM reports acting in an advisory role for Merck Serono and MSD; CRL reports acting in an advisory role for Rakuten Medical and MSD. LL reports participation for public speaking/teaching in medical meetings and/or for providing expert opinion in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, Debiopharm International SA, Sobi, Ipsen, Incyte Biosciences Italy SRL, Doxa Pharma, Amgen, Nanobiotics and GSK. All other authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest.

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) is increasing rapidly. The younger age, significantly improved prognosis, and relative morbidity of the standard-of-care cisplatin and radiotherapy in this population have led to the popularization of the concept of treatment de-escalation. The recent results of the first 3 randomized de-escalation trials, however, have shown a clear detriment in survival when cisplatin is omitted or substituted. In view of these results, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group identified the need to issue guidance regarding future de-escalation studies for patients with HPV-positive head and neck cancer to avoid the possibility of patients being harmed. We review the current state of the literature regarding HPV de-escalation trials and present a framework and guidance on future and existing clinical trials for treatment de-escalation of HPV-positive OPC. De-escalation paradigms of HPV-positive OPC should be evaluated in phase II studies, and results should be awaited before proceeding to phase III studies. Implementation into clinical practice before high-level evidence is available should not be undertaken in this context. Finally, harm-minimization techniques should also be evaluated as an alternative to de-escalation of treatment in these patient groups.

Background and Purpose: Tumor hypoxia plays an important role in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). Various positron emission tomography (PET) tracers promise non-invasive assessment of tumor hypoxia. So far, the applicability of hypoxia PET is hampered by monocentric imaging trials with few patients., Materials and Methods: Multicenter individual patient data based meta-analysis of the original PET data from four prospective imaging trials was performed. All patients had localized disease and were treated with curatively intended radio(-chemo)therapy. Hypoxia PET imaging was performed with 18 F-Fluoromisonidazole (FMISO, 102 patients) or 18 F-Fluoroazomycin-arabinoside (FAZA, 51 patients). Impact of hypoxia PET parameters on loco-regional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed by uni- and multivariable Cox regression., Results: Baseline characteristics between participating centers differed significantly, especially regarding T stage (p < 0.001), tumor volume (p < 0.001) and p16 status (p = 0.009). The commonly used hypoxia parameters, maximal tumor-to-muscle ratio (TMR max ) and hypoxic volume with 1.6 threshold (HV 1.6 ), showed a strong association with LRC (p = 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001). These findings were irrespective of the radiotracer and the same cut-off values could be applied for FMISO and FAZA (TMR max  > 2.0 or HV 1.6  > 1.5 ml). The effect size of TMR max was similar for subgroups of patients defined by radiotracer, p16 status and FDG-PET parameters for LRC and OS, respectively., Conclusion: PET measured hypoxia is robust and has a strong impact on LRC and OS in HNSCC. The most commonly investigated tracers FMISO and FAZA can probably be used equivalently in multicenter trials. Optimal strategies to improve the dismal outcome of hypoxic tumors remain elusive., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Because 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 Materials: A 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., Results: In 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., Conclusions: This 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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of chemotherapy added to a surgical locoregional treatment (LRT) for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC)., Materials and Methods: We studied the sub-group of trials with surgical LRT included in the meta-analysis on chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC). Data from published and unpublished randomized trials comparing the addition of chemotherapy to LRT in HNSCC patients were sought using electronic database searching for the period 1965-2000, hand searching and by contacting experts in the field. Trials with less than 60 patients, or preoperative radiotherapy or where the type of LRT could not be individually determined were excluded. All individual patient data were checked for internal consistency, compared with published reports, and validated with trialists. Data were pooled using a fixed-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane test and I 2 statistic., Results: Twenty-four trials were eligible (5000 patients). Chemotherapy improved overall survival (HR = 0.92 [95%CI: 0.85-0.99] p = 0.02). There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of chemotherapy (p = 0.08 at pre-specified threshold of 0.10) with a greater effect for concomitant chemotherapy (HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.69-0.92). The benefit of chemotherapy was greater in women (HR women  = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.50-0.80) compared to men (HR men  = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.89-1.04; p for interaction = 0.001)., Conclusions: This analysis confirmed the benefit of concomitant chemotherapy added to surgical LRT. The role of induction therapy as yet to be determined as it did not improve OS. Women may benefit more than men from chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Most Phase II and III clinical trials in head and neck cancer (HNC) combine two or more treatment modalities, which are based, in part, on knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance to monotherapy. In this review, we describe the range of tumor-cell autonomously derived (intrinsic) and tumor-microenvironment-derived (extrinsic) acquired-resistance mechanisms to various FDA-approved monotherapies for HNC. Specifically, we describe how tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME) respond to radiation, chemotherapy, targeted therapy (cetuximab), and immunotherapies [programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors] and adapt to the selective pressure of these monotherapies. Due to the diversity of adaptive responses to monotherapy, monitoring the response to treatment in patients is critical to understand the path that leads to resistance and to guide the optimal therapeutic drug combinations in the clinical setting. We envisage that applying such a rationale-based therapeutic strategy will improve treatment efficacy in HNC patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Radiotherapy treatment plan quality can influence clinical trial outcomes and general QA may not identify suboptimal organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. We retrospectively performed patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of 100 head-and-neck cancer (HNC) plans from the EORTC-1219-DAHANCA-29 study., Materials and Methods: A 177-patient RapidPlan (Varian Medical Systems) model comprising institutional HNC plans was used to QA trial plans (P trial ). RapidPlan plans (P rapidplan ) were created using RapidPlan and Eclipse scripting to achieve a high degree of automation. Comparison between P rapidplan mean predicted/achieved OAR doses, and P trial mean OAR doses was made for parotid/submandibular glands (PGs/SMGs) and swallowing muscles (SM)., Results: OAR predictions were made within 2 min per patient. Averaged PG/SMG/SM mean doses were 2.0/9.0/3.8 Gy lower in P rapidplan . Using predicted P rapidplan combined mean OAR dose as the benchmark, a total of 60/27/4 trial plans could be improved by 3/6/9 Gy respectively., Discussion: Individualized QA indicated that OAR sparing could frequently be improved in EORTC-1219 study plans, even though they met the trial's generic plan criteria. Automated, patient-specific QA can be performed within a few minutes and should be considered to reduce the influence of planning variation on trial outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Quality improvement of care for patients with head and neck cancer remains a constant objective for the multidisciplinary team of physicians managing these patients. The purpose of quality assurance (QA) for head and neck surgical oncology and surgical trials however differs. While QA for the general head and neck patient aims to improve global outcome through structural changes of health-care systems, QA for surgical trials pursues the goal to help providing meaningful results from a clinical trial through the definition of structure, process and outcome measures within the trial. Establishing a QA program for surgical trials is challenging largely due to the variation in the execution of surgical techniques. Within this article, we describe the surgical QA program, which was developed for the phase III European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1420 study, a trial assessing swallowing function after transoral surgery compared with radiation therapy. We propose based on our experience to further develop surgical QA for surgical clinical trials by introducing two separate components, one adaptable and one non-adaptable. The adaptable is tailored to the scientific question and specific procedure; the non-adaptable consists of minimal structural requirements of the clinical unit to participate in surgical trials at EORTC as well as guidelines and incentives for protocol adherence based on our experience in EORTC 24954. Finally, we strongly believe that surgical QA designed for clinical trials may serve as a basis for the development of QA surgical guidelines in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The phase III EORTC 1219-DAHANCA 29 intergroup trial evaluates the influence of nimorazole in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer when treated with accelerated radiotherapy (RT) in combination with chemotherapy. This article describes the results of the RT Benchmark Case (BC) performed before patient inclusion., Materials and Methods: The participating centers were asked to perform a 2-step BC, consisting of (1) a delineation and (2) a planning exercise according to the protocol guidelines. Submissions were prospectively centrally reviewed and feedback was given to the submitting centers. Sørensen-Dice similarity index (DSI) and the 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD) were retrospectively used to evaluate the agreement between the centers and the expert contours., Results: Fifty-four submissions (34 delineation and 20 planning exercises) from 19 centers were reviewed. Nine (47%) centers needed to perform the delineation step twice and three (16%) centers 3 times before receiving an approval. An increase in DSI-value and a decrease in HD, in particular for the prophylactic Clinical Target Volume (pCTV), could be found for the resubmitted cases. No unacceptable variations could be found for the planning exercise., Conclusions: These BC-results highlight the need for effective and prospective RTQA in clinical trials. Even with clearly defined protocol guidelines, delineation and not planning remain the main reason for unacceptable protocol variations. The introduction of more objective quantitative analysis methods, such as the HD and DSI, in future trials might strengthen the evaluation by experts., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The last few years, in radiotherapy there has been a growing focus on speed of treatment delivery (largely driven by economical and commercial interests). This study investigates the influence of treatment time on plan quality for helical tomotherapy (HT), using delivery times with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT; Rapid Arc [RA]) as reference., Methods: In a previous study, double arc RA (Eclipse) and standard HT plans (TomoHD™) were created for five oropharyngeal cancer patients and reported according to ICRU 83 guidelines. By modifying the beam width from 2.5 to 5.0 cm, elevating the pitch and lowering the modulation factor, "TomoFast" (TF) plans were generated with treatment times equal to RA plans. To quantify the impact of TF's craniocaudal gradient, similar plans were generated on TomoEdge(TM) (TomoEdgeFast;TEF). The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), mean dose, Dnear-max (D2) and Dnear-min (D98) of the PTVs were analyzed as well as the mean dose, specific critical doses and volumes of 26 organs at risk (OARs). Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA., Results: With a mean treatment time of 3.05 min (RA), 2.89 min (TF) and 2.95 min (TEF), PTVtherapeutic coverage was more homogeneous with TF (HI.07;SE.01) and TEF (HI.08;SE.01) compared to RA (HI.10;SE.01), while PTVprophylactic was most homogeneous with RA. Mean doses to parotid glands were comparable for RA, TF, TEF: 25.62, 25.34, 23.09 Gy for contralateral and 32.02, 31.96, 30.01 Gy for ipsilateral glands, respectively. OARs' mean doses varied between different approaches not favoring a particular technique. TF's higher dose to OARs at the cranial-caudal edges of the PTVs and its higher integral dose, both due to the extended cranial-caudal gradient, seems to be solved by the new TomoEdge™ software. However, all these faster techniques lose part of standard TomoHD's OAR sparing capacity, Conclusion: It is possible to treat oropharyngeal cancer patients using HT (TF/TEF) within time-frames observed for RA maintaining comparable target coverage and sparing of OARs. This study indicates that treatment time is not technology specific, rather an operator's decision on balancing efficiency and quality.

Original Statement: Lymph node metastases in the neck are a major prognostic factor in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Assessment and treatment of lymph nodes in the neck are of utmost importance. Inappropriate management of lymph node metastases can result in regional failure. Radical neck dissection has been and is still considered the "gold standard" for the surgical management of lymph node metastases of HNSCC. However, the philosophy of treatment of the neck has evolved during the last decades. Surgeons progressively realized that extensive neck dissections were associated with a higher morbidity but not always with a better oncologic outcome than more limited procedures. Today, a comprehensive therapeutic approach of the neck is multidisciplinary, taking into account the patient's quality of life without jeopardizing cure and survival. A better understanding of the patterns of lymph node metastasis promoted the use of selective neck dissection in selected patients. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is a reliable diagnostic procedure for staging the neck in node-negative early oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. With increasing use of chemoradiation in locally advanced HNSCC, paradigms are evolving. Currently, there are strong arguments supporting the position that neck dissection is no longer justified in patients without clinically residual disease in the neck.

A decade after its first introduction into the clinic, little is known about the clinical impact of helical tomotherapy (HT) on head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. Therefore, we analyzed the basics of this technique and reviewed the literature regarding HT's potential benefit in HNC. The past two decades have been characterized by a huge technological evolution in photon beam radiotherapy (RT). In HNC, static beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has shown superiority over three-dimensional conformal RT in terms of xerostomia and is considered the standard of care. However, the next-generation IMRT, the rotational IMRT, has been introduced into the clinic without any evidence of superiority over static beam IMRT other than being substantially faster. Of these rotational techniques, HT is the first system especially developed for IMRT in combination with image-guided RT. HT is particularly promising for the treatment of HNC because its sharp dose gradients maximally spare the many radiosensitive organs at risk nearby. In addition, HT's integrated computed tomography scan assures a very precise dose administration and allows for some adaptive RT. Because HT is specifically developed for IMRT in combination with (integrated) image-guidance, it allows for precise dose distribution ("dose painting"), patient setup, and dose delivery. As such, it is an excellent tool for difficult HNC irradiation. The literature on the clinical results of HT in HNC all show excellent short-term (≤2 years) results with acceptable toxicity profiles. However, properly designed trials are still warranted to further substantiate these results.

Purpose: To propose an automatic atlas-based segmentation framework of the dental structures, called Dentalmaps, and to assess its accuracy and relevance to guide dental care in the context of intensity-modulated radiotherapy., Methods and Materials: A multi-atlas-based segmentation, less sensitive to artifacts than previously published head-and-neck segmentation methods, was used. The manual segmentations of a 21-patient database were first deformed onto the query using nonlinear registrations with the training images and then fused to estimate the consensus segmentation of the query., Results: The framework was evaluated with a leave-one-out protocol. The maximum doses estimated using manual contours were considered as ground truth and compared with the maximum doses estimated using automatic contours. The dose estimation error was within 2-Gy accuracy in 75% of cases (with a median of 0.9 Gy), whereas it was within 2-Gy accuracy in 30% of cases only with the visual estimation method without any contour, which is the routine practice procedure., Conclusions: Dose estimates using this framework were more accurate than visual estimates without dental contour. Dentalmaps represents a useful documentation and communication tool between radiation oncologists and dentists in routine practice. Prospective multicenter assessment is underway on patients extrinsic to the database., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: To assess the efficacy and safety of gefitinib given concomitantly and/or as maintenance therapy to standard cisplatin/radiotherapy for previously untreated, unresected, stage III/IV non-metastatic SCCHN., Materials and Methods: In this phase II, double-blind, study, 226 patients were randomized to gefitinib 250mg/day, 500mg/day or placebo in two phases: a concomitant phase (gefitinib or placebo with chemoradiotherapy), followed by a maintenance phase (gefitinib or placebo alone). Primary endpoint was local disease control rate (LDCR) at 2years; secondary endpoints were LDCR at 1year, objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety and tolerability., Results: Gefitinib (250 and 500mg/day) did not improve 2-year LDCR compared with placebo either when given concomitantly with chemoradiotherapy (32.7% vs. 33.6%, respectively; OR 0.921, 95% CI 0.508, 1.670 [1-sided p=0.607]) or as maintenance therapy (28.8% vs. 37.4%, respectively; OR 0.684, 95% CI 0.377, 1.241 [1-sided p=0.894]). Secondary efficacy outcomes were broadly consistent with the 2-year LDCR results. In both doses, gefitinib was well-tolerated and did not adversely affect the safety and tolerability of concomitant chemoradiotherapy., Conclusion: Gefitinib was well-tolerated, but did not improve efficacy compared with placebo when given concomitantly with chemoradiotherapy, or as maintenance therapy alone., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The population in developed countries is growing older, with the number of people over 85 years of age increasing especially rapidly. The incidence of a head and neck cancer increases with age, only a few patients are under 40 years of age and the highest incidence in many sites occurs in patients over 70 years of age. The aging population has increasing amounts of comorbidities. The treatment protocols for head and neck cancer have over the last two decades become intensified as a consequence of larger surgical resections with reconstruction, high dose radiotherapy often in combination with chemotherapy or targeted therapeutic drugs. Should the elderly and old patients be treated similarly to the younger counterparts or should the treatment be altered based on chronologic age? During the EUFOS Congress in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery in Vienna, Austria 2007, a panel addressed this issue and this is a summary of the conclusions.

Selective neck dissection (SND) is known to be a valid procedure to stage the clinically N0 neck but its reliability to control metastatic neck disease remains controversial. This study analysed if selective neck dissection is a reliable procedure to prevent regional metastatic disease in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We retrospectively analysed the medical records of 163 previously untreated patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx and hypopharynx treated initially in our department from January 1990 to December 2002. All patients had unilateral or bilateral SND, in combination with surgical resection of the primary tumour. SND was performed in 281 necks. Finally, 146 patients who underwent 249 SND (39 I-III, I-IV, 210 II-IV, II-V) had adequate follow-up and were assessed for the regional control. The median follow-up was 37 months (1-180 months). The end points of the study were neck control following SND and overall survival. Twenty-five percent (30/119) of patients staged cN0 had lymph node (LN) metastasis. Overall, regional recurrence was observed in 2.8% of the necks (7/249): 1.6% (4/249) in dissected field and 1.2% (3/249) in undissected field. Seventy-eight percent (194/249) of the necks were staged pN0 with a subsequent failure rate of 1.5% (3/194); 16% (39/249) were staged pN1 and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) was proposed in 21 of these patients. The failure rate with PORT was 9.5% and 5.5% without PORT. Six percent (16/249) of the necks were staged pN2b and all had PORT with one subsequent recurrence. Extracapsular spread (ECS) was reported in 16.5% of positive SND specimens (9/55); all by one were treated by PORT with a subsequent failure rate of 22% (2/9). At 3 years, overall survival for the whole population was 70% and statistically highly correlated with pN stage (p<0.001). These results support the reliability of SND to stage the clinically N0 neck. SND is a definitive operation not only in pN0 but also in most pN1 and pN2b necks. PORT is not justified in pN1 neck without ECS. In pN2b necks, the low rate of recurrence supports adjuvant PORT. The presence of ECS, despite adjuvant PORT, remains associated with a higher risk of recurrence.

The therapeutic index of highly conformal radiotherapy (RT) depends on adequate selection and delineation of the gross tumor volumes, the clinical target volumes, and the tissues and organs whose sparing is likely to gain clinical benefit. Decisions about target and tissue selection and delineation affect the balance of reward and the risk of highly conformal RT. Some of these issues relating to head and neck cancer, including target delineation after tumor shrinkage by induction chemotherapy or at midradiotherapy, are discussed in this article.

Background and Purpose: Because the locoregional control for HNSCC is still disappointing, research efforts focus on the exploration of new molecular markers located in both tumour and microenvironment, which could help stratify patients. The aim of the present work was therefore first to assess microsatellite alterations and hypoxia in HNSCC as possible molecular markers. Second, a relation between both was investigated, as hypoxia is known to select for genetic alterations., Material and Methods: Forty-eight patients with advanced HNSCC treated by surgery+/-radiotherapy were included. MSI and LOH were investigated with microsatellite markers using automatic fragment analysis. The presence of hypoxia was assessed by immunohistochemistry for pimonidazole, CA IX and GLUT-1. The mutual relationship between MSI/LOH and hypoxia was evaluated., Results: No MSI was detected in this patient group. LOH occurred mostly on chromosomal arms 3p, 5q, 9p, 17p and 17q. Patients with LOH at D17S799, located in the near environment of p53, showed a higher CA IX expression (p=0.01)., Conclusions: LOH is a possible molecular marker in HNSCC. The positive correlation between LOH at D17S799 and CA IX is in full concordance with previous publications linking hypoxia to selective pressure on the p53 gene.

Purpose: To review the value of extended diagnostic work-up procedures and to compare the results of comprehensive or volume-restricted radiotherapy in patients presenting with cervical lymph node metastases from clinically undetectable squamous cell carcinoma., Methods and Materials: A systematic review was undertaken of published papers up to May 2000., Results: Positron emission tomography (PET) has an overall staging accuracy of 69%, with a positive predictive value of 56% and negative predictive value of 86%. With negative routine clinical examination and computerized tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), PET detected primary tumors in 5-25% of patients, whereas ipsilateral tonsillectomy discovered carcinoma in about 25% of patients. Laser-induced fluorescence imaging with panendoscopy and directed biopsies showed some encouraging preliminary results and warrants further study. All together, the reported mucosal carcinoma emergence rates were 2-13% (median, 9.5%) after comprehensive radiotherapy and 5-44% (median, 8%) after unilateral neck irradiation. The corresponding nodal relapse rates were 8-45% (median, 19%) and 31-63% (median, 51.5%), and 5-year survival rates were 34-63% (median, 50%) and 22-41% (median, 36.5%), respectively. Retrospective single-institution comparisons between comprehensive and unilateral neck radiotherapy did not show apparent differences in outcome. Prognostic determinants for survival are the N stage, number of nodes, extracapsular extension, and histologic grade. No data were found to support the benefit of chemotherapy in this disease., Conclusion: Physical examination, CT or MRI, and panendoscopy with biopsies remain the standard work-up for these patients. Routine use of PET or laser-induced fluorescence imaging cannot be firmly advocated based on presently available data. Although combination of nodal dissection with comprehensive radiotherapy yielded most favorable results, its impact on the quality of life should be recognized, and the confounding effects of patient selection for various treatment modalities on therapeutic outcome cannot be ruled out. A randomized trial comparing the therapeutic value of comprehensive vs. volume-limited radiotherapy is being considered.

Background and purposeThe Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in squamous cell Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) demonstrated that concomitant chemotherapy (CT) improved overall survival (OS) in patients without distant metastasis. We report the updated results.Materials and methodsPublished or unpublished randomized trials including patients with non-metastatic carcinoma randomized between 1965 and 2016 and comparing curative loco-regional treatment (LRT) to LRT + CT or adding another timing of CT to LRT + CT (main question), or comparing induction CT + radiotherapy to radiotherapy + concomitant (or alternating) CT (secondary question) were eligible. Individual patient data were collected and combined using a fixed-effect model. OS was the main endpoint.ResultsFor the main question, 101 trials (18951 patients, median follow-up of 6.5 years) were analyzed. For both questions, there were 16 new (2767 patients) and 11 updated trials. Around 90% of the patients had stage III or IV disease. Interaction between treatment effect on OS and the timing of CT was significant (p