Prospective functional outcomes in sequential population based cohorts of stage III/ IV oropharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with 3D conformal vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy

Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery

Andrew L Cooke¹  Pascal Lambert²  Mohamed Alessa²  James Butler³  Candace L Myers²  Paul Kerr⁴ 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, 675 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg R3E 0 V9, Manitoba, Canada;Cancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada;Department of Radiology, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada;Department of Otolaryngology, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

关键词: Functional outcomes;    Intensity modulated;    Oropharyngeal;   

Others  :  1204338
DOI  :  10.1186/s40463-015-0068-4

 received in 2015-02-13, accepted in 2015-04-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background and purpose

To compare early (3 and 6 month) and later (12 and 24 month) functional outcomes of stage III and IV (M0) oropharyngeal squamous cancer patients treated in sequential cohorts with 3D conformal (3DCRT) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Patients and methods

200 patients in sequential population based cohorts of 83 and 117 patients treated at a single institution with 3DCRT and then IMRT respectively were prospectively assessed at pre-treatment and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post treatment. A standard functional outcomes protocol including performance status (KPS, ECOG), 3 Performance Status scales for Head and Neck (PSS-HN), the Royal Brisbane Hospital Outcome Measure for Swallowing (RBHOMS), Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) and self-rated xerostomia were applied.

Results

Mean age at diagnosis was 59 years. The primary site was base of tongue in 77 and tonsil or soft palate in 123 patients. Median follow up was 2.5 years for the second cohort. Concomitant therapy was used in 159 (79.5%). Overall survival at 3 years was 75.6% and 71.5% for IMRT and 3DCRT cohorts respectively (not significant). A multiple imputation technique was used to estimate missing values in order to avoid a healthy patient bias. KPS and ECOG reached nadirs at 3 to 6 months but approached baseline values at 12 to 24 months and did not differ by treatment. The 3 PSS-HN scales, Eating in Public (p < 0.001), Understandability of Speech (p = 0.009) and Oral Diet Texture (p = 0.002) and all showed significantly better outcomes in favor of IMRT. The RBHOMS showed a difference in favor of IMRT which appeared during 3 to 6 months (p < 0.001). The VHI-10 also showed a difference in favor of IMRT (p = 0.015). Self-rated xerostomia did not differ at 3 and 6 months but was significantly better in favor of IMRT after 12 months p = 0.005

Conclusions

A prospectively administered functional outcomes protocol showed meaningful differences in favor of IMRT over 3DCRT early (3–6 months) and later (12–24 months) in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma with equivalent survival. These data support the adoption of IMRT as the standard radiation treatment method for patients with stage III and IV (M0) oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma. KPS and ECOG may not be sensitive to oropharyngeal cancer patients’ functional outcomes by treatment.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Kerr et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Starmer HM, Tippett D, Webster K, Quon H, Jones B, Hardy S, Gourin CG. Swallowing outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer undergoing organ preservation treatment. Head Neck. 2014; 36(10):1392-7.
• [2]Saba NF, Edelman S, Tighiouart M, Gaultney J, Davis LW, Khuri FR, Chen A et al.. Concurrent chemotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx and oropharynx: a retrospective single-institution analysis. Head Neck. 2009; 31(11):1447-1455.
• [3]Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, Palta JR. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the standard management of head and neck cancer: promises and pitfalls. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(17):2618-2623.
• [4]Vergeer MR, Doornaert PA, Rietveld D, Leemans CR, Slotman B, Langendijk J et al.. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces radiation-induced morbidity and improves health-related quality of life: results of a nonrandomized prospective study using a standardized follow-up program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74(1):1-8.
• [5]Peponi E, Glanzmann C, Willi B, Huber G, Studer G. Dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients following intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Radiat Oncol. 2011; 6:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Gupta T, Agarwal J, Jain S, Phurailatpam R, Kannan S, Ghosh-Laskar S et al.. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomized controlled trial. Radiother Oncol. 2012; 104(3):343-348.
• [7]Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ, Urbano TG, Bhide SA, Clark C et al.. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(2):127-136.
• [8]Rathod S, Gupta T, Ghosh-Laskar S, Murthy V, Budrukkar A, Agarwal J. Quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT): evidence from a prospective randomized study. Oral Oncol. 2013; 49(6):634-642.
• [9]Lohia S, Rajapurkar M, Nguyen SA, Sharma AK, Gillespie MB, Day TA et al.. A comparison of outcomes using intensity-modulated radiation therapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in treatment of oropharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 140(4):331-337.
• [10]Graff P, Lapeyre M, Desandes E, Ortholan C, Bensadoun RJ, Alfonsi M et al.. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: matched-pair comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 67(5):1309-1317.
• [11]Huang TL, Tsai WL, Chien CY, Lee TF, Fang FM. Quality of life for head and neck cancer patients treated by combined modality therapy: the therapeutic benefit of technological advances in radiotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(9):1243-1254.
• [12]Tribius S, Bergelt C. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional and 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer: is there a worthwhile quality of life gain? Cancer Treat Rev. 2011; 37(7):511-519.
• [13]McBride SM, Parambi RJ, Jang JW, Goldsmith T, Busse PM, Chan AW et al.. Intensity-modulated versus conventional radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: long-term dysphagia and tumor control outcomes. Head Neck. 2014; 36(4):492-498.
• [14]Myers C, Kerr P, Cooke AW, Bammeke F, Butler J, Lambert P. Functional outcomes after treatment of advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma with radiation or chemoradiation. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 41(2):108-118.
• [15]Mor V, Laliberte L, Morris JN, Wiemann M. The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer. 1984; 53(9):2002-2007.
• [16]Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5(6):649-655.
• [17]List MA, Ritter-Sterr C, Lansky SB. A performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer. 1990; 66(3):564-569.
• [18]List MA, D'Antonio LL, Cella DF, Siston A, Mumby P, Haraf D et al.. The Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale. A study of utility and validity. Cancer. 1996; 77(11):2294-2301.
• [19]Ward EC, Conroy A-L. Validity, Reliability and Responsivity of the Royal Brisbane Hospital Outcomes Measure for Swallowing. Asia Pacific J Speech Language Hearing. 1999; 4:109-129.
• [20]Rosen CA, Lee AS, Osborne J, Zullo T, Murry T. Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10. Laryngoscope. 2004; 114(9):1549-1556.
• [21]Richardson LA, Jones GW. A review of the reliability and validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Curr Oncol. 2009; 16(1):55.
• [22]Curran D, Bacchi M, Schmitz SF, Molenberghs G, Sylvester RJ. Identifying the types of missingness in quality of life data from clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998; 17(5–7):739-756.
• [23]Royston P. Multiple imputations of missing values; further update with ICE, with an emphasis on interval censoring. Stat J. 2007; 4:445-464.
• [24]Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD. How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci. 2007; 8(3):206-213.
• [25]Lassen P, Eriksen JG, Hamilton-Dutoit S, Tramm T, Alsner J, Overgaard J et al.. Effect of HPV-associated p16INK4A expression on response to radiotherapy and survival in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(12):1992-1998.
• [26]Eisbruch A, Schwartz C, Vineberg K, Damen E, Van As CJ, Marsh R et al.. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 60(5):1425-1439.