Overlapping volumes in re-irradiation for head and neck cancer - an important factor for patient selection

Re-irradiation versus systemic therapy for the management of local-regionally recurrent head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

The optimal management of local-regionally recurrent head and neck cancer that is not amenable to surgical resection is uncertain. We sought to compare outcomes among patients treated with and without re-irradiation in this setting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A review of institutional registries identified 65 patients with local-regionally recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who were ineligible for surgery. Forty patients (62 %) opted for re-irradiation with the remaining 25 patients (38 %) undergoing initial systemic therapy alone. All patients had measurable disease. Forty-three patients (66 %) were male and twenty-two (33 %) were female. The median age at the time of recurrence was 59 years (range, 39-84 years). The most common primary sites of disease were the oropharynx, (n = 25), oral cavity (N = 19), and nasopharynx (n = 11). The median interval from completion of prior radiation to the diagnosis of recurrent disease was 35 months (range, 2-102 months).

RESULTS

Re-irradiation improved 2-year overall survival, (32 % versus 11 %), progression-free survival (31 % versus 7 %), and local-regional control (39 % versus 3 %) compared to systemic therapy alone (p < 0.05, for both). The likelihood of developing any new grade 3+ toxicity was significantly higher among patients treated by re-irradiation compared to those treated by systemic therapy (53 % vs. 28 %, p < 0.001). There were 3 treatment-related fatalities, all of which occurred in the re-irradiation group. The incidence of grade 3+ late toxicity was 48 % and 12 % for patients in the re-irradiation and systemic therapy cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although re-irradiation improved overall survival compared to systemic therapy for appropriately selected patients with local-regionally recurrent head and neck cancer, the relatively high risk of toxicity must be considered.

Dose planning study of proton versus photon radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the primary and recurrent setting

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNCUP) are often treated with extensive radiotherapy (RT). Frequently, the bilateral nodal clinical target volume (nCTV) and the volumes of suspected mucosal primary sites (mCTV) of the pharynx and larynx is irradiated. This treatment is effective but toxic. New data suggest that omission of the contralateral nCTV and mCTV, results in few recurrences. The present study explores photon versus proton therapy, in the primary and recurrent setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of twelve patients previously treated for HNCUP was performed. A fictitious recurrence was defined in patients treated for unilateral disease. Independently a volumetric arc photon plan and an intensity-modulated proton plan was made for all cases and scenarios.

RESULTS

Compared to the standard bilateral treatment this study shows that limiting the target to unilateral nCTV leads to a significant decrease in dysphagia of 18% and 17% and xerostomia of 4.0% and 5% for photon and protons, respectively. Comparing photon RT directly to proton RT shows a small and often insignificant gain, using protons for both bilateral and unilateral targets. Focusing on re-irradiation, benefits from using protons in both the primary setting and at re-irradiation were limited. However, using protons for re-irradiation only leads to a decrease in the tissue volume receiving a specific dose outside the target overlapping region, e.g., V90Gymean was 31, 25, and 22 cm3 for photons-photons, photons-protons, and protons-protons, respectively. For V100Gy of the ipsilateral carotid artery, no differences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Omitting contralateral nCTV irradiation and mCTV irradiation will significantly reduce toxicity. The accumulated high dose volumes can be minimised using protons for re-irradiation. However, the use of protons for primary treatment provides limited benefit in most patients.

Efficacy and safety analysis in metastatic cancer patients treated with multiple courses of repeat radiation therapy

Background and purpose

Due to advances in oncology, a growing proportion of patients is treated with repetitive courses of radiotherapy. The aim of this study is to analyze whether radiotherapy maintains its safety and efficacy profile in patients treated with multiple repeat courses of irradiation.

Material and methods

All patients treated between 2011 and 2019 at our institution were screened for a minimum of five repeat irradiation courses, to analyze treatment characteristics, survival, safety and efficacy. The type of re-irradiation was classified according to ESTRO-EORTC consensus guidelines.

Results

A total of n = 112 patients receiving n = 660 radiotherapy courses were included in this retrospective cohort study. The most frequent primary tumors were lung cancer in 41.9 % (n = 47) and malignant melanoma in 8.9 % (n = 10). The most frequent re-irradiation types were repeat irradiation and Type 2 re-irradiation in 309 (46.8 %) and 113 (17.1 %) cases, respectively. Median survival after the first course of radiotherapy was 3.6 (0.3-13.4) years. Response to radiotherapy was observed in 548 (83.0 %) cases and CTCAE toxicity grade ≥ 3 was observed in 21 (3.2 %) cases. An increasing number of RT courses (HR: 1.30, p=<0.0001), Type 1 re-irradiation (HR 3.50, p = 0.008) and KPS ≤ 80 % (HR: 2.02, p = 0.002) were associated with significantly worse treatment responses. Toxicity rates remained stable with increasing numbers of RT courses.

Conclusion

Multiple courses of repeat radiotherapy maintain a favorable therapeutic ratio of high response combined with reasonable safety profile.

Re-irradiation for head and neck cancer: outcome and toxicity analysis using a prospective single institution database

Purpose

Re-irradiation (re-RT) in head and neck cancer is challenging. This study prospectively explored the feasibility of re-RT in patients with loco-regionally recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer (LRR/SP HNC).

Methods

From 2004 to 2021, 61 LRR/SP HNC patients were treated with re-RT, defined as having a second course of RT with curative intent resulting in a cumulative dose of ≥100 Gy in an overlapping volume. Postoperative or definitive dynamic intensity-modulated and/or volumetric modulated re-RT was administered using twice daily hyperfractionation to 60 Gy combined with cisplatin or carboplatin/5-fluorouracil. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and distant metastasis control (DMC) were analyzed and prognostic factors evaluated. Toxicity was prospectively recorded and graded.

Results

The median follow-up was 9.8 months. In 41 patients (67.1%), complete administration of the intended treatment was not feasible. In 9 patients (15%) re-RT was interrupted prematurely and in other 9, the complete re-RT dose was lower than 60 Gy, and 37 patients (61%) could not receive or complete chemotherapy. Two-year OS, PFS and LRC rates were 19%, 18% and 30%, respectively. 20 patients (33%) received the complete intended treatment, and 1- and 2-year OS rates were 70% and 47%, respectively. Charlson comorbidity index was an important predictor for treatment completion. Multivariate analysis revealed recurrent N stage 0-1, age, chemotherapy administration and re-RT dose of 60 Gy as prognostic factors for clinical outcomes. No grade 5 re-RT-related toxicity was observed. The most common new grade ≥3 acute toxicities were dysphagia (52%) and mucositis (46%). Late toxicity included grade ≥3 dysphagia in 5% and osteoradionecrosis in 10% of evaluable patients, respectively. 6 patients (10%) were alive after 9 years without progression and no late toxicity grade ≥3, except for 2 patients presenting with osteoradionecrosis.

Conclusion

Hyperfractionated re-RT with 60 Gy combined with platinum-based chemotherapy was a curative treatment option with acceptable toxicity in LRR/SP patients. Patients with higher comorbidity had a higher probability of failing to receive and complete the intended therapy. Consequently, they derived unsatisfactory benefits from re-RT, highlighting the importance of patient selection.

Re-Irradiation for Head and Neck Cancer: Cumulative Dose to Organs at Risk and Late Side Effects

Simple Summary

Local recurrences of head and neck cancer are unfortunately common and can be difficult to treat. The treatment is challenging, partly due to the location, with several important organs in the head and neck area, but also because recurrence often occurs in an area already treated with radiotherapy. It has been shown that repeat radiotherapy, re-irradiation, can offer long-lasting tumor control and sometimes even cure in selected patients. However, there is a risk of normal tissue close to the tumor being damaged by high cumulative doses of radiotherapy. In this study, we aim to establish levels of cumulative dose to specific organs that could be considered reasonably safe to deliver at re-irradiation without causing high rates of severe side effects. Increased knowledge in dose–response relationships in re-irradiation for head and neck cancer will facilitate a tailored treatment for the individual patient.

Abstract

Re-irradiation in head and neck cancer is challenging, and cumulative dose constraints and dose/volume data are scarce. In this study, we present dose/volume data for patients re-irradiated for head and neck cancer and explore the correlations of cumulative dose to organs at risk and severe side effects. We analyzed 54 patients re-irradiated for head and neck cancer between 2011 and 2017. Organs at risk were delineated and dose/volume data were collected from cumulative treatment plans of all included patients. Receiver–operator characteristics (ROC) analysis assessed the association between dose/volume parameters and the risk of toxicity. The ROC-curve for a logistic model of carotid blowout vs. maximum doses to the carotid arteries showed AUC = 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and a cut-off value of 119 Gy (sensitivity 1.00/specificity 0.89). The near-maximum dose to bones showed an association with the risk of osteoradionecrosis: AUC = 0.74 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.95) and a cut-off value of 119 Gy (sensitivity 1.00/specificity 0.52). Our analysis showed an association between cumulative dose to organs at risk and the risk of developing osteoradionecrosis and carotid blowout, and our results support the existing dose constraint for the carotid arteries of 120 Gy. The confirmation of these dose–response relationships will contribute to further improvements of re-irradiation strategies.

Carbon ion reirradiation compared to intensity-modulated re-radiotherapy for recurrent head and neck cancer (CARE): a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intensity-modulated re-radiotherapy (reIMRT) has been established as a standard local treatment option in patients with non-resectable, recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC). However, the clinical outcome is unfavorable and severe toxicities (≥grade III) occurred in 30-40% of patients. The primary aim of the current trial is to investigate carbon ion reirradiation (reCIRT) compared to reIMRT in patients with rHNC regarding safety/toxicity as well as local control, overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

The present trial will be performed as a single center, two-armed, prospective phase II study. A maximum of 72 patients will be treated with either reIMRT or reCIRT to evaluate severe (≥grade III) treatment-related toxicities (randomization ratio 1:1). The primary target value is to generate less than 35% acute/subacute severe toxicity (≥grade III), according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, within 6 months after study treatment. The total dose of reirradiation will range between 51 and 60 Gy or Gy (RBE), depending primarily on the radiotherapy interval and the cumulative dose to organs at risk. Individual dose prescription will be at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. The local and distant progression-free survival 12 months after reirradiation, the OS, and the QoL are the secondary endpoints of the trial. Explorative trial objectives are the longitudinal investigation of clinical patient-related parameters, tumor parameters on radiological imaging, and blood-based tumor analytics.

DISCUSSION

Recent retrospective studies suggested that reCIRT could represent a feasible and effective treatment modality for rHNC. This current randomized prospective trial is the first to investigate the toxicity and clinical outcome of reCIRT compared to reIMRT in patients with rHNC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT04185974 ; December 4th 2019.