Effectiveness of radiotherapy for head and neck skin cancers: a single-institution study

Brachytherapy in the Treatment of Non-Melanoma Skin Peri-Auricular Cancers-A Retrospective Analysis of a Single Institution Experience

The location of skin neoplasms in the area of the ears qualifies patients to the so-called high-risk group. The location of neoplasms within the auricle and around the ear often causes many problems in surgical treatment. This is due to the presence of cartilage, the difficulty of performing procedures with obtaining a visually satisfactory cosmetic effect, especially in the presence of extensive lesions and can lead to positive surgical margins which leads to a high risk of recurrence. In such cases, the use of brachytherapy, both as an independent method and as a complementary method after surgery, may be an effective method of local control with an acceptable risk of radiation complications. However, there are no large retrospective studies on the use of brachytherapy in this anatomical region. The aim of the study was to analyse the effectiveness, toxicity profile, and cosmetic effect of two different brachytherapy techniques (contact and interstitial brachytherapy). Methods: This paper presents the results of a retrospective analysis of 33 patients treated with contact or interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for skin cancers of the outer ear, involving the auricle and the skin of the adjacent area. Brachytherapy was used both as a definitive treatment (15 patients—43%) and adjuvant treatment after surgery (18 patients—57%). The basic criterion for adjuvant treatment was a positive or narrow (<1 mm) resection margin. Fraction doses from 3 to 7 Gy per fraction were used at intervals from six hours (interstitial brachytherapy) to a maximum of seven days (contact brachytherapy). The treatment time ranged from 1 to 42 days, and the total dose range was 7 to 49 Gy. The follow-up was 29.75 months (range 2−64). Results: In the group of patients treated with adjuvant therapy, in the patients with post-radiation reaction, the mean time from surgery to the start of brachytherapy was 7.72 ± 3.05 weeks, the median was 8 (6−12) weeks, and in the group without post-radiation reaction, the mean time was 11.13 ± 4.41 weeks, the median time was 11 weeks (8−14). The risk of a post-radiation reaction increased significantly more often in patients with more advanced disease. In the case of contact brachytherapy, the post-radiation reaction occurred significantly more often (14/21 patients—43%) than in the case of interstitial brachytherapy (3/11 patients—9.4%). In patients with post-radiation reactions, a significantly larger volume of the skin receiving a dose of 200% was found, and the volume receiving a dose of 150% was close to statistical significance. The mean volume of the skin receiving a 200% dose in the group with post-radiation reactions was 28.05 ± 16.56 cm3, the median was 24.86 (0.5−52.3) cm3, and the mean volume in the group without post-radiation reaction was 17.98 ± 10.96 cm3, median 14.95 (3.9−44.96) cm3. The result was statistically significant (Z = 2.035, p = 0.041). Conclusion: Interstitial HDR (high-dose-rate) brachytherapy for non-melanoma skin cancers around the ear is highly effective, short, and has a relatively low burden on the patient. The toxicity of the treatment was low. In the case of contact brachytherapy, the toxicity profile is slightly higher but acceptable for patients. This method is preferred in patients in whom interstitial brachytherapy is impossible to perform due to anatomical and logistical reasons. The unquestionable advantage of contact brachytherapy is its ability to be performed on an outpatient basis without the need to stay in the hospital. No severe and late CTCAE ≥III and late RTOG ≥III toxicity was observed. In patients after surgery, in order to minimise the risk of radiation reaction, it is optimal to start treatment at least eight weeks after surgery. In the presence of extensive lesions, the use of interstitial brachytherapy seems to be more advantageous, especially when the expected volume of healthy skin in the dose range of 200% and 150% is above 15 cm3 and 50 cm3, respectively.

New Challenges of Treatment for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers in the Covid-19 Pandemic Era

Locally advanced head and neck cancer is a unique challenge for cancer management in the Covid-19 situation. The negative consequences of delaying radio-chemotherapy treatment make it necessary to prioritize these patients, the continuation of radiotherapy being indicated even if SARS-CoV-2 infection is confirmed in the case of patients with moderate and mild symptoms. For an early scenario, the standard chemo-radiotherapy using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique is the preferred option, because it reduces the overall treatment time. For a late scenario with limited resources, hypo-fractionated treatment, with possible omission of chemotherapy for elderly patients and for those who have comorbidities, is recommended. Concurrent chemotherapy is controversial for dose values >2.4 Gy per fraction. The implementation of hypo-fractionated regimens should be based on a careful assessment of dose-volume constraints for organs at risks (OARs), using recommendations from clinical trials or dose conversion based on the linear-quadratic (LQ) model. Induction chemotherapy is not considered the optimal solution in this situation because of the risk of immunosuppression even though in selected groups of patients TPF regimen may bring benefits. Although the MACH-NC meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancers did not demonstrate the superiority of induction chemotherapy over concurrent chemoradiotherapy, an induction regimen could be considered for cases with an increased risk of metastasis even in the case of a possible Covid-19 pandemic scenario.