Search

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.

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.