Search

Purpose: Proton therapy is an emerging therapy for several malignancies owing to its favorable therapeutic ratio. There are very limited data on the use of proton therapy in the management of thyroid carcinoma. Our objective was to review the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of proton therapy for patients with thyroid cancer treated to the head and neck. Methods: From our institution's proton database from 2012 to 2021, we identified 22 patients with thyroid cancer treated with proton beam therapy. We evaluated outcomes and toxicities. Results: Median follow-up was 26 months. Of the 22 patients, 50% were female. The mean age was 65 years. Three patients had anaplastic cancer; 13, papillary carcinoma; 2, follicular carcinoma; and 2, poorly differentiated carcinoma. Forty-six percent had T4 disease. Primary targets were the central neck compartment, level VI, and upper mediastinum. Radiation dose was 60 GyRBE adjuvantly, and 70 GyRBE for gross disease (range, 6000-7600 GyRBE). Eight patients underwent upfront adjuvant radiation, and 3 received definitive radiation for unresectable disease upfront. Eleven patients received either salvage or palliative radiation. Fifty-nine percent of patients had extrathyroidal extension, and 64% of patients had gross disease in the neck before treatment. Fifty percent of patients had metastatic disease before treatment. Sixteen patients received concurrent chemotherapy, 63% of these patients received doxorubicin. For all patients, 1-year local regional recurrence (LRR) was 0%, and overall survival (OS) was 90%. Acute grade 3+ toxicities occurred in 27% of patients, the most frequent being dermatitis (27%). Three patients required a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube after radiation therapy (RT), 2 owing to progression. There were no grade 4+ toxicities. Conclusions: Proton therapy for thyroid cancer appears feasible and effective with minimal toxicities. Prospective studies comparing proton therapy with intensity-modulated RT, to evaluate the clinical efficacy of using proton therapy to reduce toxicities in patients undergoing radiation for thyroid cancer, are warranted.

Purpose: Treatment patterns for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) vary among older adults because of concerns about their health status. Geriatric assessment may guide treatment for older adults with HNSCC by assessing their health status. Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective review of adjuvant treatment received by older patients with HNSCC who completed a novel geriatric assessment, the electronic Rapid Fitness Assessment, before treatment. The electronic Rapid Fitness Assessment yields an accumulated geriatric deficits (AGD) score. Higher AGD score indicates greater frailty. Comparators were age and performance status. The Wilcoxon rank sum test compared differences between those who did and did not receive adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Results: The cohort included 73 patients, of whom 56 (77%) had oral cavity cancer. The most common geriatric deficits were major distress, social activity limitation, depression, and impaired activities of daily living. AGD score, age, and performance status were not associated with receipt of adjuvant radiation. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy had a significantly lower median AGD score than those who did not (3 vs 6; P = .044), but there was no association with age and performance status. Of the 17 patients with newly diagnosed disease and either positive margins or extranodal extension, only 9 received adjuvant radiation and only 3 received systemic therapy. Most often, systemic therapy was omitted because of patient preference or comorbidities and poor performance status. There was a nonstatistically significant lower AGD score between patients who did and did not receive standard fractionated radiation therapy (median, 4 vs 6.5; P = .13). Conclusions: Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with frailty. Rates of chemotherapy utilization were very low, indicating the need for novel strategies to mitigate the toxicity burden in this patient population. Receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy was not associated with frailty; however, there was a trend toward lower frailty among those who did receive radiation therapy.

Purpose: With improved technology, more patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) are receiving definitive treatment with proton therapy, which allows greater sparing of dose to normal tissues without compromising efficacy. As there is no randomized data, the purpose of this study was to systematically review the available literature on proton therapy in this setting, focusing on the toxicity endpoints. Materials and Methods: A systematic search using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was conducted in 5 databases: PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A total of 491 studies were found on the topic of NPC and proton therapy. Following independent study selection by 2 investigators, 9 studies were found to have sufficient focus and relevance to be incorporated into the systematic review. Results: All 9 studies were retrospective and examined only NPC patients except for one that also included paranasal sinus cancer. One study was a reirradiation study. Four studies used 3D or double scatter technique, while all others used intensity-modulated proton therapy. Oncologic outcomes were similar to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rates, with 2-year local and regional progression-free survival (LRFS) ranging from 84% to 100%, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from 75% to 88.9%, and 2-year overall survival (OS) ranging from 88% to 95% in the up-front setting. Four comparison studies with IMRT found significantly lower feeding tube rates (20% versus 65%, P = .015; and 14% versus 85%, P < .001) with proton therapy as well as lower mucositis (G2 46% versus 70%, P = .019; and G3 11% versus 76%, P = .0002). All other acute and late effects were largely improved with proton therapy but not statistically significant. Conclusions. NPC patients receiving proton therapy maintain good outcomes with improved toxicity profile, likely due to sparing of dose to normal structures. Prospective studies are ongoing to better quantify the magnitude.

Purpose: We compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: In 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores. Results: Patient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT. Conclusion: In patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.

Radiotherapy is a common treatment modality in the management of head and neck malignancies. In select clinical scenarios of well-lateralized tumors, radiotherapy can be delivered to the primary tumor or tumor bed and the ipsilateral nodal regions, while intentional irradiation of the contralateral neck is omitted. Proton beam therapy is an advanced radiotherapy modality that allows for the elimination of exit-dose through nontarget tissues such as the oral cavity. This dosimetric advantage is apt for unilateral treatments. By eliminating excess dose to midline and contralateral organs at risk and conforming dose around complex anatomy, proton beam therapy can reduce the risk of iatrogenic toxicities. Currently, there is no level I evidence comparing proton beam therapy to conventional photon radiation modalities for unilateral head and neck cancers. However, a growing body of retrospective and prospective evidence is now available describing the dosimetric and clinical advantages of proton beam therapy. Subsequently, the intent of this clinical review is to summarize the current evidence supporting the use of proton beam therapy in unilateral irradiation of head and neck cancers, including evaluation of disease site-specific evidence, unique challenging clinical scenarios, and ongoing clinical trials.

Purpose: Radiation treatment plans undergo peer review during chart rounds, but changes to treatment volumes would require replanning. Our group implemented weekly head and neck cancer “volume rounds” to peer review all target volumes for head and neck cancer before radiation therapy (RT) planning and chart rounds. Methods and Materials: We analyzed modifications made to planning target volumes (PTVs) at volume rounds for consecutive nonproton head and neck cancer cases from May 2020 to May 2021. Nine head and neck radiation oncologists participated in weekly volume rounds during this time. Recommendations were categorized as no changes, minor changes, major changes, additional workup (eg, biopsy or imaging), and consultation or tumor board discussion needed before the start of RT. Minor changes to PTVs generally did not require a second review before treatment planning while major changes did. Results: PTVs for 511 cases involving 432 patients underwent peer review and 298 (58.3%) of these cases did not require any modifications before treatment planning. Minor and major changes were recommended in 75 (14.7%) and 86 (16.8%) cases, respectively. Forty-five (8.8%) cases were recommended to have additional workup and 23 (4.5%) required additional consultation with nonradiation surgeons or medical oncologists. Of the 45 cases that were recommended for additional workup, 40 underwent biopsy or imaging. Positive findings on imaging or biopsy occurred in 13 patients, leading to a significant change in management, including 4 patients who underwent additional surgery after positive findings before the start of RT. Conclusions: Prospective peer review during head and neck cancer volume rounds led to frequent minor and major alterations to PTVs. Significant changes in the overall treatment plan, such as additional surgery before start of RT, occurred in a minority of patients.