Few studies have reported large inter-observer variations in target volume selection and delineation in patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Consensus ...guidelines have been published for the neck nodes (see Grégoire et al., 2003, 2014), but such recommendations are lacking for primary tumour delineation. For the latter, two main schools of thoughts are prevailing, one based on geometric expansion of the Gross Tumour Volume (GTV) as promoted by DAHANCA, and the other one based on anatomical expansion of the GTV using compartmentalization of head and neck anatomy.
For each anatomic location within the larynx, hypopharynx, oropharynx and oral cavity, and for each T-stage, the DAHANCA proposal has been comprehensively reviewed and edited to include anatomic knowledge into the geometric Clinical Target Volume (CTV) delineation concept. A first proposal was put forward by the leading authors of this publication (VG and CG) and discussed with opinion leaders in head and neck radiation oncology from Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, North America and South America to reach a worldwide consensus.
This consensus proposes two CTVs for the primary tumour, the so called CTV-P1 and CVT-P2, corresponding to a high and lower tumour burden, and which should be associated with a high and a lower dose prescription, respectively.
Implementation of these guidelines in the daily practice of radiation oncology should contribute to reduce treatment variations from clinicians to clinicians, facilitate the conduct of multi-institutional clinical trials, and contribute to improved care of patients with head and neck carcinoma.
The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other healthcare providers on definitive-intent chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage ...II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).
The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) and ASCO convened an expert panel of radiation oncology, medical oncology, surgery, and advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2020. Outcomes of interest included survival, distant and locoregional disease control, and quality of life. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.
The literature search identified 108 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Five overarching clinical questions were addressed, which included subquestions on radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy sequence, and concurrent, induction, and adjuvant chemotherapy options.
Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address aspects of care related to chemotherapy in combination with RT for the definitive-intent treatment of stage II to IVA NPC.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.
Background
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)‐0129 recursive partitioning analysis was the basis for risk‐based therapeutic intensification trials for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). To the authors’ ...knowledge, the question of whether RTOG‐0129 overall survival (OS) estimates for low‐risk, intermediate‐risk, and high‐risk groups are similar in other data sets or applicable to progression‐free survival (PFS) is unknown. Therefore, the authors evaluated whether survival differences between RTOG‐0129 risk groups persist at 5 years, are reproducible in an independent clinical trial, and are applicable to PFS, and whether toxicities differ across risk groups.
Methods
Prospective randomized clinical trials were analyzed retrospectively. RTOG‐0129 evaluated standard versus accelerated fractionation radiotherapy concurrent with cisplatin. RTOG‐0522 compared the combination of cisplatin and accelerated fractionation with or without cetuximab. Patients with OPC with available p16 status and tobacco history were eligible.
Results
There was a total of 260 patients and 287 patients, respectively, from RTOG‐0129 and RTOG‐0522, with median follow‐ups for surviving patients of 7.9 years (range, 1.7‐9.9 years) and 4.7 years (range, 0.1‐7.0 years), respectively. Previous OS differences in RTOG‐0129 persisted at 5 years. In RTOG‐0522, the 5‐year OS rates for the low‐risk, intermediate‐risk, and high‐risk groups were 88.1%, 69.9%, and 45.1%, respectively (P for trend, <.001). The 5‐year PFS rates for the same 3 groups were 72.9%, 56.1%, and 42.2%, respectively. In RTOG‐0522 among a subgroup of patients considered to be at very good risk (p16‐positive disease, smoking history of ≤10 pack‐years, and classified with T1‐T2 disease with ipsilateral lymph nodes measuring ≤6 cm or T3 disease without contralateral or >6 cm lymph nodes), the 5‐year OS and PFS rates were 93.8% and 82.2%, respectively. Overall rates of acute and late toxicities were similar by risk group.
Conclusions
RTOG‐0129 risk groups persisted at 5 years and were reproducible in RTOG‐0522. However, there was variability in the estimates. These data underscore the importance of long‐term follow‐up and appropriate patient selection in therapeutic deintensification trials.
To the authors’ knowledge, the issue of whether Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)‐0129 overall survival estimates for low‐risk, intermediate‐risk, and high‐risk groups are similar in other data sets or applicable to progression‐free survival is unknown. In the current study, RTOG‐0129 risk groups appear to persist at 5 years, are reproducible in RTOG‐0522, and can be applied to progression‐free survival. However, there is variability in the estimates, which underscores the importance of long‐term follow‐up in therapeutic deintensification.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA analysis has been shown to be useful for early detection, prognostication, and monitoring of treatment response of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and the recent ...literature provides growing evidence of the clinical utility of EBV DNA testing, particularly to inform treatment decisions for NPC patients. Despite the fact that NPC is a rare disease, the NRG Oncology cooperative group has successfully activated a phase 2/3 randomized clinical trial for NPC with international partners and in that process has discovered that the development of a harmonized EBV DNA test is absolutely critical for integration into clinical trials and for future deployment in clinical and central laboratories. In November 2015, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of international experts in the treatment of NPC and EBV testing to provide a forum for discussing the state of EBV DNA testing and its clinical utility, and to stimulate consideration of future studies and clinical practice guidelines for EBV DNA. This review provides a summary of that discussion.
The Tonsillar Fossa Battleground Yom, Sue S
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics,
01/2017, Letnik:
97, Številka:
1
Journal Article
To present long-term results of RTOG 0915/NCCTG N0927, a randomized lung stereotactic body radiation therapy trial of 34 Gy in 1 fraction versus 48 Gy in 4 fractions.
This was a phase 2 multicenter ...study of patients with medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer with biopsy-proven peripheral T1 or T2 N0M0 tumors, with 1-year toxicity rates as the primary endpoint and selected failure and survival outcomes as secondary endpoints. The study opened in September 2009 and closed in March 2011. Final data were analyzed through May 17, 2018.
Eighty-four of 94 patients accrued were eligible for analysis: 39 in arm 1 and 45 in arm 2. Median follow-up time was 4.0 years for all patients and 6.0 years for those alive at analysis. Rates of grade 3 and higher toxicity were 2.6% in arm 1 and 11.1% in arm 2. Median survival times (in years) for 34 Gy and 48 Gy were 4.1 versus 4.6, respectively. Five-year outcomes (95% confidence interval) for 34 Gy and 48 Gy were a primary tumor failure rate of 10.6% (3.3%-23.1%) versus 6.8% (1.7%-16.9%); overall survival of 29.6% (16.2%-44.4%) versus 41.1% (26.6%-55.1%); and progression-free survival of 19.1% (8.5%-33.0%) versus 33.3% (20.2%-47.0%). Distant failure as the sole failure or a component of first failure occurred in 6 patients (37.5%) in the 34 Gy arm and in 7 (41.2%) in the 48 Gy arm.
No excess in late-appearing toxicity was seen in either arm. Primary tumor control rates at 5 years were similar by arm. A median survival time of 4 years for each arm suggests similar efficacy, pending any larger studies appropriately powered to detect survival differences.
Combining cisplatin or cetuximab with radiation improves overall survival (OS) of patients with stage III or IV head and neck carcinoma (HNC). Cetuximab plus platinum regimens also increase OS in ...metastatic HNC. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group launched a phase III trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to the radiation-cisplatin platform improves progression-free survival (PFS).
Eligible patients with stage III or IV HNC were randomly assigned to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Acute and late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features and markers.
Of 891 analyzed patients, 630 were alive at analysis (median follow-up, 3.8 years). Cetuximab plus cisplatin-radiation, versus cisplatin-radiation alone, resulted in more frequent interruptions in radiation therapy (26.9% v. 15.1%, respectively); similar cisplatin delivery (mean, 185.7 mg/m2 v. 191.1 mg/m2, respectively); and more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (43.2% v. 33.3%, respectively), rash, fatigue, anorexia, and hypokalemia, but not more late toxicity. No differences were found between arms A and B in 30-day mortality (1.8% v. 2.0%, respectively; P = .81), 3-year PFS (61.2% v. 58.9%, respectively; P = .76), 3-year OS (72.9% v. 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v. 25.9%, respectively; P = .97), or distant metastasis (13.0% v. 9.7%, respectively; P = .08). Patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), compared with patients with p16-negative OPC, had better 3-year probability of PFS (72.8% v. 49.2%, respectively; P < .001) and OS (85.6% v. 60.1%, respectively; P < .001), but tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression did not distinguish outcome.
Adding cetuximab to radiation-cisplatin did not improve outcome and hence should not be prescribed routinely. PFS and OS were higher in patients with p16-positive OPC, but outcomes did not differ by EGFR expression.
PDF
