1
|
Ludmir EB, Hoffman KE, Jhingran A, Kouzy R, Ip MCP, Sturdevant L, Ning MS, Minsky BD, McAleer MF, Chronowski GM, Arzu IY, Reed VK, Garg AK, Roberts T, Eastwick GA, Olson MR, Selek U, Gabel M, Koong AC, Kupferman ME, Kuban DA. Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:e173-e179. [PMID: 38176466 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 12/05/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network. METHODS AND MATERIALS Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis. RESULTS Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan B Ludmir
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anuja Jhingran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ramez Kouzy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mee-Chung Puscilla Ip
- Quality Management Programs and Cancer Network, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Laurie Sturdevant
- Quality Management Programs and Cancer Network, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Matthew S Ning
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mary Frances McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Isidora Y Arzu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Valerie Klairisa Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amit K Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Presbyterian MD Anderson Radiation Treatment Center, Rio Rancho, New Mexico
| | - Terence Roberts
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona
| | - Gary A Eastwick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Camden, New Jersey
| | - Michael R Olson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baptist Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Ugur Selek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Treatment Center at American Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Molly Gabel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Summit Medical Group, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael E Kupferman
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Contrera KJ, Tam S, Pytynia K, Diaz EM, Hessel AC, Goepfert RP, Lango M, Su SY, Myers JN, Weber RS, Eguia A, Pisters PWT, Adair DK, Nair AS, Rosenthal DI, Mayo L, Chronowski GM, Zafereo ME, Shah SJ. Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:2331-2338. [PMID: 36581726 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-13029-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs). METHODS This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution. RESULTS The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin J Contrera
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Samantha Tam
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Kristen Pytynia
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eduardo M Diaz
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy C Hessel
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ryan P Goepfert
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Miriam Lango
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shirley Y Su
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffrey N Myers
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Randal S Weber
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Arturo Eguia
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Deborah K Adair
- Department of Global Business Development, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ajith S Nair
- Department of Global Business Development, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark E Zafereo
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Shalin J Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Contrera KJ, Tam S, Pytynia K, Diaz EM, Hessel AC, Goepfert RP, Lango M, Su SY, Myers JN, Weber RS, Eguia A, Pisters PWT, Adair DK, Nair AS, Rosenthal DI, Mayo L, Chronowski GM, Zafereo ME, Shah SJ. ASO Visual Abstract: Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:2341-2342. [PMID: 36720835 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13104-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/23/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin J Contrera
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Samantha Tam
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Kristen Pytynia
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eduardo M Diaz
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy C Hessel
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ryan P Goepfert
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Miriam Lango
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shirley Y Su
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffrey N Myers
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Randal S Weber
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Arturo Eguia
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Peter W T Pisters
- Office of the President, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Deborah K Adair
- Department of Global Business Development, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ajith S Nair
- Department of Global Business Development, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark E Zafereo
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Shalin J Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Barbon CE, Yao CM, Peterson CB, Moreno AC, Goepfert RP, Johnson FM, Chronowski GM, Fuller CD, Gross ND, Hutcheson KA. Swallowing After Primary TORS and Unilateral or Bilateral Radiation for Low- to Intermediate-Risk Tonsil Cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022; 167:484-493. [PMID: 34784256 PMCID: PMC9108124 DOI: 10.1177/01945998211059967] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 10/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The primary course of treatment for patients with low- to intermediate-risk tonsil cancer has evolved with a shift toward primary transoral robotic surgery (TORS) or radiation therapy (RT). While favorable outcomes have been reported after deintensification via unilateral TORS or RT (uniRT), comparisons of functional outcomes between these treatments are lacking. We compared clinical outcomes (Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity [DIGEST] and feeding tube [FT]) and patient-reported swallowing outcomes (MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory [MDADI]) based on primary treatment strategy: TORS, uniRT, or bilateral RT (biRT). STUDY DESIGN Secondary analysis of prospective cohort. SETTING Single institution. METHODS The study sample comprised 135 patients with HPV/p16+ T1-T3, N0-2b (American Joint Committee on Cancer, seventh edition), N0-1 (eighth edition) squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil were sampled from a prospective registry. Modified barium swallow studies graded per DIGEST, FT placement and duration, and MDADI were collected. RESULTS Baseline DIGEST grade significantly differed among treatment groups, with higher dysphagia prevalence in the TORS group (34%) vs the biRT group (12%, P = .04). No significant group differences were found in DIGEST grade or dysphagia prevalence at subacute and longitudinal time points (P = .41). Mean MDADI scores were similar among groups at baseline (TORS, 92; uniRT, 93; biRT, 93; P = .90), subacute (TORS, 83; uniRT, 88; biRT, 82; P = .38) and late time points (TORS, 86; uniRT, 86; biRT, 87; P = .99). FT placement and duration significantly differed among primary treatment groups (FT [median days]: TORS, 89% [3]; uniRT, 8% [82]; biRT, 37% [104]; P < .001). CONCLUSION While TORS and uniRT offer optimal functional outcomes related to dysphagia, results suggest that no measurable clinician-graded or patient-reported differences in swallow outcomes exist among these primary treatment strategies and biRT. Aside from baseline differences that drive treatment selection, differences in FT rate and duration by primary treatment strategy likely reflect diverse toxicities beyond dysphagia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carly E.A. Barbon
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christopher M.K. Yao
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christine B. Peterson
- Department of Biostatstics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amy C. Moreno
- Divison of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ryan P. Goepfert
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Faye M. Johnson
- Department of Thoracic–Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- Divison of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Clifton D. Fuller
- Divison of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Neil D. Gross
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Katherine A. Hutcheson
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Divison of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gunn GB, Garden AS, Ye R, Ausat N, Dahlstrom KR, Morrison WH, Fuller CD, Phan J, Reddy JP, Shah SJ, Mayo LL, Chun SG, Chronowski GM, Moreno AC, Myers JN, Hanna EY, Esmaeli B, Gillison ML, Ferrarotto R, Hutcheson KA, Chambers MS, Ginsberg LE, El-Naggar AK, Rosenthal DI, Zhu XR, Frank SJ. Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A 12-Year, Single-Institution Experience. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:108-118. [PMID: 34285940 PMCID: PMC8270083 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00065.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2020] [Accepted: 11/02/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To characterize our experience and the disease control and toxicity of proton therapy (PT) for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical outcomes for patients with HNC treated with PT at our institution were prospectively collected in 2 institutional review board-approved prospective studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes. Overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale. RESULTS The cohort consisted of 573 patients treated from February 2006 to June 2018. Median patient age was 61 years. Oropharynx (33.3%; n = 191), paranasal sinus (11%; n = 63), and periorbital tissues (11%; n = 62) were the most common primary sites. Patients with T3/T4 or recurrent disease comprised 46% (n = 262) of the cohort. The intent of PT was definitive in 53% (n = 303), postoperative in 37% (n = 211), and reirradiation in 10% (n = 59). Median dose was 66 Gy (radiobiological equivalent). Regarding systemic therapy, 43% had received concurrent (n = 244), 3% induction (n = 19), and 15% (n = 86) had both. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 88 patients (15%) had died and 127 (22%) developed disease recurrence. The overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival at 2 and 5 years were, respectively, 87% and 75%, 87% and 78%, and 74% and 63%. Maximum toxicity (acute or late) was grade 3 in 293 patients (51%), grade 2 in 234 patients (41%), and grade 1 in 31 patients (5%). There were 381 acute grade 3 and 190 late grade 3 unique toxicities across 212 (37%) and 150 (26%) patients, respectively. There were 3 late-grade 4 events across 2 patients (0.3%), 2 (0.3%) acute-grade 5, and no (0%) late-grade 5 events. CONCLUSIONS The overall results from this prospective study of our initial decade of experience with PT for HNC show favorable disease control and toxicity outcomes in a multidisease-site cohort and provide a reference benchmark for future comparison and study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G. Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Adam S. Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rong Ye
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Noveen Ausat
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kristina R. Dahlstrom
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - William H. Morrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - C. David Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jay P. Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shalin J. Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren L. Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stephen G. Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy C. Moreno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffery N. Myers
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ehab Y. Hanna
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bita Esmaeli
- Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Maura L. Gillison
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Renata Ferrarotto
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katherine A. Hutcheson
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark S. Chambers
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lawrence E. Ginsberg
- Department of Neuroradiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Adel K. El-Naggar
- Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David I. Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Xiaorong Ronald Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J. Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Smith GL, Fu S, Ning MS, Nguyen DK, Busse PM, Foote RL, Garden AS, Gunn GB, Fuller CD, Morrison WH, Chronowski GM, Shah SJ, Mayo LL, Phan J, Reddy JP, Snider JW, Patel SH, Katz SR, Lin A, Mohammed N, Dagan R, Lee NY, Rosenthal DI, Frank SJ. Work Outcomes after Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) versus Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy (IMRT) for Oropharyngeal Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:319-327. [PMID: 34285958 PMCID: PMC8270077 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00067.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 01/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose We compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Patients and Methods In 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores. Results Patient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT. Conclusion In patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shuangshuang Fu
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Matthew S Ning
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Diem-Khanh Nguyen
- University of California Riverside School of Medicine, Riverside, CA, USA
| | - Paul M Busse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic School of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Adam S Garden
- Willis-Knighton Proton Therapy Center, Shreveport, LA, USA
| | - Gary B Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Clifton D Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - William H Morrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shalin J Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren L Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jay P Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - James W Snider
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Samir H Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic School of Medicine and Science, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Sanford R Katz
- Willis-Knighton Proton Therapy Center, Shreveport, LA, USA
| | - Alexander Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | - Roi Dagan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Augustyn A, Reed VI, Ahmad N, Bhutani MS, Bloom ES, Bowers JR, Chronowski GM, Das P, Holliday EB, Delclos ME, Huey RW, Koay EJ, Lee SS, Nelson CL, Taniguchi CM, Koong AC, Chun SG. Implementation of a stereotactic body radiotherapy program for unresectable pancreatic cancer in an integrated community academic radiation oncology satellite network. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021; 27:147-151. [PMID: 33665384 PMCID: PMC7907676 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2021] [Revised: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PDSA methodology was used to implement a pancreas SBRT in an academic satellite network. Oncologic outcomes were favorable with no serious adverse events. This technical note provides groundwork for safe establishment of SBRT pancreas programs.
With increasing interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, quality improvement (QI) initiatives to develop integrated clinical workflows are crucial to ensure quality assurance (QA) when introducing this challenging technique into radiation practices. Materials/Methods: In 2017, we used the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) QI methodology to implement a new pancreas SBRT program in an integrated community radiation oncology satellite. A unified integrated information technology infrastructure was used to virtually integrate the planned workflow into the community radiation oncology satellite network (P – Plan/D – Do). This workflow included multiple prospective quality assurance (QA) measures including multidisciplinary evaluation, prospective scrutiny of radiation target delineation, prospective radiation plan evaluation, and monitoring of patient outcomes. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively study and report outcomes of patients treated in this program (S – Study). Results: There were 12 consecutive patients identified who were treated in this program from 2017 to 2020 with a median follow-up of 27 months. The median survival was 13 months, median local failure free survival was 12 months and median progression free survival was 6 months from SBRT. There were no acute or late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 5 toxicities ≥ Grade 3. Conclusion: We report the successful implementation of a community pancreas SBRT program involving multiple prospective QA measures, providing the groundwork to safely expand access to pancreas SBRT in our community satellite network (A – Act).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Augustyn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Valerie I. Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Neelofur Ahmad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Manoop S. Bhutani
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Elizabeth S. Bloom
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - John R. Bowers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, M.D. Anderson Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM, United States
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Marc E. Delclos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ryan W. Huey
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Sunyoung S. Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Christopher L. Nelson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Stephen G. Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Corresponding author.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ning MS, McAleer MF, Jeter MD, Minsky BD, Ghafar RA, Robinson IJ, Nitsch PL, Zaebst DJ, Todd SE, Nguyen J, Lin SH, Liao Z, Lee P, Gunn GB, Klopp AH, Dabaja BS, Nguyen QN, Chronowski GM, Bloom ES, Koong AC, Das P. Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on oncology: Clinical and operational lessons from a prospective radiation oncology cohort tested for COVID-19. Radiother Oncol 2020; 148:252-257. [PMID: 32474129 PMCID: PMC7256609 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2020] [Revised: 05/20/2020] [Accepted: 05/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic warrants operational initiatives to minimize transmission, particularly among cancer patients who are thought to be at high-risk. Within our department, a multidisciplinary tracer team prospectively monitored all patients under investigation, tracking their test status, treatment delays, clinical outcomes, employee exposures, and quarantines. MATERIALS AND METHODS Prospective cohort tested for SARS-COV-2 infection over 35 consecutive days of the early pandemic (03/19/2020-04/22/2020). RESULTS A total of 121 Radiation Oncology patients underwent RT-PCR testing during this timeframe. Of the 7 (6%) confirmed-positive cases, 6 patients were admitted (4 warranting intensive care), and 2 died from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Radiotherapy was deferred or interrupted for 40 patients awaiting testing. As the median turnaround time for RT-PCR testing decreased from 1.5 (IQR: 1-4) to ≤1-day (P < 0.001), the median treatment delay also decreased from 3.5 (IQR: 1.75-5) to 1 business day (IQR: 1-2) [P < 0.001]. Each patient was an exposure risk to a median of 5 employees (IQR: 3-6.5) through prolonged close contact. During this timeframe, 39 care-team members were quarantined for a median of 3 days (IQR: 2-11), with a peak of 17 employees simultaneously quarantined. Following implementation of a "dual PPE policy," newly quarantined employees decreased from 2.9 to 0.5 per day. CONCLUSION The severe adverse events noted among these confirmed-positive cases support the notion that cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19. Active tracking, rapid diagnosis, and aggressive source control can mitigate the adverse effects on treatment delays, workforce incapacitation, and ideally outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew S Ning
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
| | - Mary Frances McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Melenda D Jeter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Bruce D Minsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Robert A Ghafar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Ivy J Robinson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Paige L Nitsch
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Denise J Zaebst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Sarah E Todd
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Jennifer Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Steven H Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Zhongxing Liao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Percy Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - G Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Ann H Klopp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Bouthaina S Dabaja
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Elizabeth S Bloom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Albert C Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ludmir EB, Adlakha EK, Chun SG, Reed VK, Arzu IY, Ahmad N, Bloom E, Chronowski GM, Delclos ME, Mayo LL, Schlembach PJ, Liao Z, Koong AC, Herman JM, Shah SJ. Enhancing clinical trial enrollment at MD Anderson Cancer Center satellite community campuses. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1135-1137. [PMID: 30958082 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1600019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan B. Ludmir
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Erica K. Adlakha
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stephen G. Chun
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Valerie K. Reed
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Isidora Y. Arzu
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Neelofur Ahmad
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elizabeth Bloom
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Marc E. Delclos
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren L. Mayo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Pamela J. Schlembach
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zhongxing Liao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Joseph M. Herman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shalin J. Shah
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Stecklein SR, Babiera GV, Bedrosian I, Shaitelman SF, Ballo MT, Tereffe W, Arzu IY, Perkins GH, Strom EA, Reed VK, Dvorak T, Smith BD, Woodward WA, Hoffman KE, Schlembach PJ, Chronowski GM, Shah SJ, Kirsner SM, Nelson CL, Guerra W, Dibaj SS, Bloom ES. Abstract P2-11-12: Prospective comparison of late toxicity and cosmetic outcome after accelerated partial breast irradiation with conformal external beam radiotherapy or single-entry multi-lumen intracavitary brachytherapy. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p2-11-12] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose/Objective(s):
To prospectively compare late toxicity after accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with 3D-conformal external beam radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or single-entry multi-lumen intracavitary brachytherapy.
Patients/Methods:
Two hundred eighty-one patients with pTis or pT2N0 (≤3.0 cm) breast cancer treated with segmental mastectomy were prospectively enrolled on a multi-institution observational protocol from 12/2008 – 8/2014. Patients were enrolled and treated at primary, satellite, and affiliated academic institutions. APBI was delivered using 3D-CRT or with a Contura®, MammoSite®, or SAVI® brachytherapy catheter. 3D-CRT patients were treated to 34.0 Gy (7%) or 38.5 Gy (93%) at 3.4-3.85 Gy/fx BID and brachytherapy patients were treated to 34.0 Gy at 3.4 Gy/fx BID. Per protocol, patients were clinically evaluated at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and then annually. At each clinical evaluation the radiation oncologist scored cosmetic outcome (excellent/good/fair/poor according to the Harvard Cosmesis Scale), toxicity (seroma/infection/fat necrosis/pain/telangiectasia/radiation dermatitis/hyperpigmentation/hypopigmentation/fibrosis/induration/edema/other according to CTCAE v3.0) and recurrence status.
Results:
The median age was 61 years. Of 281 patients, 211 (75%) had invasive breast cancer and 70 (25%) had in situ disease. Among patients with invasive disease, 90% were HR+/HER2-, and among patients with in situ disease, 83% were HR+. APBI was delivered with 3D-CRT in 29 (10%) patients and with single-entry multi-lumen intracavitary brachytherapy in 252 (90%) patients. Among the brachytherapy patients, APBI was delivered with the SAVI®, Contura®, and MammoSite® devices in 176 (70%), 56 (22%), and 20 (8%) patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 49 months, rates of Grade 1 (G1) and Grade 2-3 (G2-3) toxicity are:
3D-CRTBrachytherapy G1G2-3G1G2-3G1G2-3 N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%) Fibrosis13 (46%)1 (4%)176 (72%)6 (2%)p=0.008p=0.54Fat Necrosis0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)4 (2%)p=1.00p=1.00Telangiectasia6 (21%)1 (4%)44 (18%)5 (2%)p=0.61p=0.48Seroma2 (7%)1 (4%)135 (55%)12 (5%)p<0.0001p=1.00
Mean skin dose of the maximally-irradiated 0.1 cc (D0.1cc) of skin was significantly higher in patients who developed telangiectasia (103.4% ± 16.1% compared to 96.5% ± 18.6% of prescription dose, p=0.007) and fibrosis (100.1% ± 15.5% compared to 92.8% ± 23.0% of prescription dose, p=0.02). Crude rates of fair or poor cosmetic outcome at 2-4 and 4-6 years were 6.9% and 14.8%, respectively, for 3D-CRT and 14.8% and 21.3%, respectively, for brachytherapy (p>0.05 at both timepoints). Five-year recurrence-free survival was 96.3% with 3D-CRT and 96.1% for brachytherapy (p>0.05).
Conclusion:
APBI with single-entry multi-lumen intracavitary brachytherapy is associated with increased rates of grade 1 fibrosis and seroma than APBI with 3D-CRT. Higher mean skin D0.1cc is associated with increased risk of telangiectasia and fibrosis. Despite increased low-grade fibrosis, there is no significant difference in radiation oncologist-reported fair or poor cosmetic outcome out to six years, or rate of five-year ipsilateral breast recurrence.
Citation Format: Stecklein SR, Babiera GV, Bedrosian I, Shaitelman SF, Ballo MT, Tereffe W, Arzu IY, Perkins GH, Strom EA, Reed VK, Dvorak T, Smith BD, Woodward WA, Hoffman KE, Schlembach PJ, Chronowski GM, Shah SJ, Kirsner SM, Nelson CL, Guerra W, Dibaj SS, Bloom ES. Prospective comparison of late toxicity and cosmetic outcome after accelerated partial breast irradiation with conformal external beam radiotherapy or single-entry multi-lumen intracavitary brachytherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-11-12.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- SR Stecklein
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - GV Babiera
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - I Bedrosian
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - SF Shaitelman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - MT Ballo
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - W Tereffe
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - IY Arzu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - GH Perkins
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - EA Strom
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - VK Reed
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - T Dvorak
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - BD Smith
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - WA Woodward
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - KE Hoffman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - PJ Schlembach
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - GM Chronowski
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - SJ Shah
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - SM Kirsner
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - CL Nelson
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - W Guerra
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - SS Dibaj
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| | - ES Bloom
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; UFHealth Cancer Center / Orlando Health, Orlando, FL
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shaitelman SF, Schlembach PJ, Arzu I, Ballo M, Bloom ES, Buchholz D, Chronowski GM, Dvorak T, Grade E, Hoffman KE, Kelly P, Ludwig M, Perkins GH, Reed V, Shah S, Stauder MC, Strom EA, Tereffe W, Woodward WA, Ensor J, Baumann D, Thompson AM, Amaya D, Davis T, Guerra W, Hamblin L, Hortobagyi G, Hunt KK, Buchholz TA, Smith BD. Acute and Short-term Toxic Effects of Conventionally Fractionated vs Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2016; 1:931-41. [PMID: 26247543 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 181] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The most appropriate dose fractionation for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE To assess acute and 6-month toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) with conventionally fractionated WBI (CF-WBI) vs hypofractionated WBI (HF-WBI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Unblinded randomized trial of CF-WBI (n = 149; 50.00 Gy/25 fractions + boost [10.00-14.00 Gy/5-7 fractions]) vs HF-WBI (n = 138; 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + boost [10.00-12.50 Gy/4-5 fractions]) following breast-conserving surgery administered in community-based and academic cancer centers to 287 women 40 years or older with stage 0 to II breast cancer for whom WBI without addition of a third field was recommended; 76% of study participants (n = 217) were overweight or obese. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 through February 2014 and observed for a minimum of 6 months. INTERVENTIONS Administration of CF-WBI or HF-WBI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Physician-reported acute and 6-month toxic effects using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, and patient-reported QOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Patients with Breast Cancer (FACT-B). All analyses were intention to treat, with outcomes compared using the χ2 test, Cochran-Armitage test, and ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS Of 287 participants, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 to HF-WBI. Treatment arms were well matched for baseline characteristics, including FACT-B total score (HF-WBI, 120.1 vs CF-WBI, 118.8; P = .46) and individual QOL items such as somewhat or more lack of energy (HF-WBI, 38% vs CF-WBI, 39%; P = .86) and somewhat or more trouble meeting family needs (HF-WBI, 10% vs CF-WBI, 14%; P = .54). Maximum physician-reported acute dermatitis (36% vs 69%; P < .001), pruritus (54% vs 81%; P < .001), breast pain (55% vs 74%; P = .001), hyperpigmentation (9% vs 20%; P = .002), and fatigue (9% vs 17%; P = .02) during irradiation were lower in patients randomized to HF-WBI. The rate of overall grade 2 or higher acute toxic effects was less with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI (47% vs 78%; P < .001). Six months after irradiation, physicians reported less fatigue in patients randomized to HF-WBI (0% vs 6%; P = .01), and patients randomized to HF-WBI reported less lack of energy (23% vs 39%; P < .001) and less trouble meeting family needs (3% vs 9%; P = .01). Multivariable regression confirmed the superiority of HF-WBI in terms of patient-reported lack of energy (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63) and trouble meeting family needs (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with HF-WBI appears to yield lower rates of acute toxic effects than CF-WBI as well as less fatigue and less trouble meeting family needs 6 months after completing radiation therapy. These findings should be communicated to patients as part of shared decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01266642.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Pamela J Schlembach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Isidora Arzu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Matthew Ballo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis
| | - Elizabeth S Bloom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Daniel Buchholz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando Health, Orlando
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Tomas Dvorak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando Health, Orlando
| | - Emily Grade
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Patrick Kelly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando Health, Orlando
| | - Michelle Ludwig
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - George H Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Valerie Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Shalin Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Michael C Stauder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Eric A Strom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Welela Tereffe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Joe Ensor
- Houston Methodist Research Institute, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Donald Baumann
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Alastair M Thompson
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Diana Amaya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Tanisha Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - William Guerra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Lois Hamblin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Gabriel Hortobagyi
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kelly K Hunt
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Thomas A Buchholz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gunn GB, Hansen CC, Garden AS, Fuller CD, Mohamed ASR, Morrison WH, Frank SJ, Beadle BM, Phan J, Chronowski GM, Sturgis EM, Lewis CM, Lu C, Hutcheson KA, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS, Rosenthal DI. Favorable patient reported outcomes following IMRT for early carcinomas of the tonsillar fossa: Results from a symptom assessment study. Radiother Oncol 2015; 117:132-8. [PMID: 26403258 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2015] [Revised: 08/25/2015] [Accepted: 09/06/2015] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A questionnaire-based study was conducted to assess long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) following definitive IMRT-based treatment for early stage carcinomas of the tonsillar fossa. METHODS Participants had received IMRT with or without systemic therapy for squamous carcinoma of the tonsillar fossa (T1-2 and N0-2b) with a minimum follow-up of 2years. Patients completed a validated head and neck cancer-specific PRO instrument, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Symptoms were compared between treatment groups of interest and overall symptom burden was evaluated. RESULTS Of 139 participants analyzed, 51% had received ipsilateral neck IMRT, and 62% single modality IMRT alone (no systemic therapy). There were no differences in mean severity ratings for the top-ranked individual symptoms or symptom interference for those treated with bilateral versus ipsilateral neck IMRT alone. However, 40% of those treated with bilateral versus 25% of those treated with ipsilateral neck RT alone reported moderate-to-severe levels of dry mouth (p=0.03). Fatigue, numbness/tingling, and constipation were rated more severe for those who had received systemic therapy (p<0.05 for each), but absolute differences were small. Overall, 51% had no more than mild symptom ratings across all 22 symptoms assessed. CONCLUSIONS The long-term patient reported symptom profile in this cohort of tonsil cancer survivors treated with definitive IMRT-based treatment showed a majority of patients with no more than mild symptoms, low symptom interference, and provides an opportunity for future comparison studies with other treatment approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
| | - Chase C Hansen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine, Lubbock, USA
| | - Adam S Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Clifton D Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Medical Physics Program, The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, USA
| | - Abdallah S R Mohamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Alexandria, Egypt
| | - William H Morrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Beth M Beadle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Erich M Sturgis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Carol M Lewis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Charles Lu
- Department of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Kate A Hutcheson
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Tito R Mendoza
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Charles S Cleeland
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lewis CM, Chronowski GM, Dong W, Gunn GB, Rosenthal DI, Weber RS. Analysis of Charges Associated with Definitive Nonsurgical Therapy for Early-Stage Lateralized Tonsil Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 22:2755-60. [PMID: 25519929 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4298-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2014] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The cost of treatment as it affects comparative effectiveness is becoming increasingly more important. Because cost data are not readily available, we evaluated the charges associated with definitive nonsurgical therapy for early-stage lateralized tonsil cancers. METHODS Patients treated with unilateral radiation therapy (RT) for T1 or T2 tonsil cancer between 1995 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Total and radiation-specific charges, from 3 months before to 4 months after radiation, were adjusted for inflation. All facets of treatment were evaluated for significant associations with total billing. RESULTS Eighty-four patients were identified. Three-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival were 97 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.99], 98 % (95 % CI 0.89-1), and 96 % (95 % CI 0.88-0.99), respectively. The median for radiation-specific charges was $60,412 (range $16,811-$84,792). The median for total charges associated with treatment was $109,917 (range $36,680-$231,895). Total billing for treatment was significantly associated with the year of diagnosis (p = 0.008), intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus wedge pair RT (p = 0.005), preradiation direct laryngoscopy (p < 0.0001), chemotherapy (p < 0.0001), gastrostomy tube placement (p = 0.004), and postradiation neck dissection (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS Although cost data for treatment are not readily available, historically, the recovery rate is approximately 30 %. The charges associated with definitive nonsurgical therapy for early-stage lateralized tonsil cancer have a wide range likely due to treatment-related procedures, the use of chemotherapy, and evolving RT technologies. These benchmark data are important given renewed interested in primary surgery for tonsil cancer. Cost of care, disease control, and functional outcomes will be critical for comparisons of effectiveness when selecting treatment modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol M Lewis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA,
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ballo MT, Chronowski GM, Schlembach PJ, Bloom ES, Arzu IY, Kuban DA. Prospective peer review quality assurance for outpatient radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2013; 4:279-284. [PMID: 25194094 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2013.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2013] [Revised: 11/08/2013] [Accepted: 11/12/2013] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We implemented a peer review program that required presentation of all nonpalliative cases to a weekly peer review conference. The purpose of this review is to document compliance and determine how this program impacted care. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 2988 patients were eligible for peer review. Patient data were presented to a group of physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists, and the radiation therapy plan was reviewed. Details of changes made were documented within a quality assurance note dictated after discussion. Changes recommended by the peer review process were categorized as changes to radiation dose, target, or major changes. RESULTS Breast cancer accounted for 47.9% of all cases, followed in frequency by head-and-neck (14.8%), gastrointestinal (9.9%), genitourinary (9.3%), and thoracic (6.7%) malignancies. Of the 2988 eligible patients, 158 (5.3%) were not presented for peer review. The number of missed presentations decreased over time; 2007, 8.2%; 2008, 5.7%; 2009, 3.8%; and 2010, 2.7% (P < .001). The reason for a missed presentation was unknown but varied by disease site and physician. Of the 2830 cases presented for peer review, a change was recommended in 346 cases (12.2%) and categorized as a dose change in 28.3%, a target change in 69.1%, and a major treatment change in 2.6%. When examined by year of treatment the number of changes recommended decreased over time: 2007, 16.5%; 2008, 11.5%; 2009, 12.5%; and 2010, 7.8% (P < .001). The number of changes recommended varied by disease site and physician. The head-and-neck, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal malignancies accounted for the majority of changes made. CONCLUSIONS Compliance with this weekly program was satisfactory and improved over time. The program resulted in decreased treatment plan changes over time reflecting a move toward treatment consensus. We recommend that peer review be considered for patients receiving radiation therapy as it creates a culture where guideline adherence and discussion are part of normal practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew T Ballo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Pamela J Schlembach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Elizabeth S Bloom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Isadora Y Arzu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deborah A Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Care Centers, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Frank SJ, Rosenthal DI, Petsuksiri J, Ang KK, Morrison WH, Weber RS, Glisson BS, Chao KSC, Schwartz DL, Chronowski GM, El-Naggar AK, Garden AS. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical node squamous cell carcinoma metastases from unknown head-and-neck primary site: M. D. Anderson Cancer Center outcomes and patterns of failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78:1005-10. [PMID: 20207504 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2009] [Revised: 08/14/2009] [Accepted: 09/09/2009] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Conventional therapy for cervical node squamous cell carcinoma metastases from an unknown primary can cause considerable toxicity owing to the volume of tissues to be irradiated. In the present study, hypothesizing that using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) would provide effective treatment with minimal toxicity, we reviewed the outcomes and patterns of failure for head-and-neck unknown primary cancer at a single tertiary cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS We retrospectively reviewed the records of 52 patients who had undergone IMRT for an unknown primary at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1998 and 2005. The patient and treatment characteristics were extracted and the survival rates calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Of the 52 patients, 5 presented with Stage N1, 11 with Stage N2a, 23 with Stage N2b, 6 with Stage N2c, 4 with Stage N3, and 3 with Stage Nx disease. A total of 26 patients had undergone neck dissection, 13 before and 13 after IMRT; 14 patients had undergone excisional biopsy and presented for IMRT without evidence of disease. Finally, 14 patients had received systemic chemotherapy. All patients underwent IMRT to targets on both sides of the neck and pharyngeal axis. The median follow-up time for the surviving patients was 3.7 years. The 5-year actuarial rate of primary mucosal tumor control and regional control was 98% and 94%, respectively. Only 3 patients developed distant metastasis with locoregional control. The 5-year actuarial disease-free and overall survival rate was 88% and 89%, respectively. The most severe toxicity was Grade 3 dysphagia/esophageal stricture, experienced by 2 patients. CONCLUSION The results of our study have shown that IMRT can produce excellent outcomes for patients who present with cervical node squamous cell carcinoma metastases from an unknown head-and-neck primary tumor. Severe late complications were uncommon.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M D Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Moeller BJ, Rana V, Cannon BA, Williams MD, Sturgis EM, Ginsberg LE, Macapinlac HA, Lee JJ, Ang KK, Chao KSC, Chronowski GM, Frank SJ, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Weber RS, Garden AS, Lippman SM, Schwartz DL. Prospective imaging assessment of mortality risk after head-and-neck radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78:667-74. [PMID: 20171802 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2009] [Accepted: 08/17/2009] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The optimal roles for imaging-based biomarkers in the management of head-and-neck cancer remain undefined. Unresolved questions include whether functional or anatomic imaging might improve mortality risk assessment for this disease. We addressed these issues in a prospective institutional trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ninety-eight patients with locally advanced pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell cancer were enrolled. Each underwent pre- and post-chemoradiotherapy contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging. Imaging parameters were correlated with survival outcomes. RESULTS Low post-radiation primary tumor FDG avidity correlated with improved survival on multivariate analysis; so too did complete primary tumor response by CT alone. Although both imaging modalities lacked sensitivity, each had high specificity and negative predictive value for disease-specific mortality risk assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimates confirmed that both CT and FDG-PET/CT stratify patients into distinct high- and low-probability survivorship groups on the basis of primary tumor response to radiotherapy. Subset analyses demonstrated that the prognostic value for each imaging modality was primarily derived from patients at high risk for local treatment failure (human papillomavirus [HPV]-negative disease, nonoropharyngeal primary disease, or tobacco use). CONCLUSIONS CT alone and FDG-PET/CT are potentially useful tools in head-and-neck cancer-specific mortality risk assessment after radiotherapy, particularly for selective use in cases of high-risk HPV-unrelated disease. Focus should be placed on corroboration and refinement of patient selection for imaging-based biomarkers in future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin J Moeller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Moeller BJ, Rana V, Cannon BA, Williams MD, Sturgis EM, Ginsberg LE, Macapinlac HA, Lee JJ, Ang KK, Chao KC, Chronowski GM, Frank SJ, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Weber RS, Garden AS, Lippman SM, Schwartz DL. Prospective risk-adjusted [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography assessment of radiation response in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:2509-15. [PMID: 19332725 PMCID: PMC2739610 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2008.19.3300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 142] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2008] [Accepted: 12/12/2008] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging may improve assessment of radiation response in patients with head and neck cancer, but it is not yet known for which patients this is most useful. We conducted a prospective trial to identify patient populations likely to benefit from the addition of functional imaging to the assessment of radiotherapy response. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ninety-eight patients with locally advanced cancer of the oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx were prospectively enrolled and treated with primary radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy. Patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT imaging 8 weeks after completion of treatment. Functional and anatomic imaging response was correlated with clinical and pathologic response. Imaging accuracy was then compared between imaging modalities. RESULTS Although postradiation maximum standard uptake values were significantly higher in nonresponders compared with responders, the positive and negative predictive values of FDG-PET/CT scanning were similar to those for CT alone in the unselected study population. Subset analyses revealed that FDG-PET/CT outperformed CT alone in response assessment for patients at high risk for treatment failure (those with human papillomavirus [HPV] -negative disease, nonoropharyngeal primaries, or history of tobacco use). No benefit to FDG-PET/CT was seen for low-risk patients lacking these features. CONCLUSION These data do not support the broad application of FDG-PET/CT for radiation response assessment in unselected head and neck cancer patients. However, FDG-PET/CT may be the imaging modality of choice for patients with highest risk disease, particularly those with HPV-negative tumors. Optimal timing of FDG-PET/CT imaging after radiotherapy merits further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin J. Moeller
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vishal Rana
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Blake A. Cannon
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Michelle D. Williams
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Erich M. Sturgis
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lawrence E. Ginsberg
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Homer A. Macapinlac
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - J. Jack Lee
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - K. Kian Ang
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - K.S. Clifford Chao
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Steven J. Frank
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - William H. Morrison
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David I. Rosenthal
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Randal S. Weber
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Adam S. Garden
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Scott M. Lippman
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David L. Schwartz
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology, Head and Neck Surgery, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Biostatistics, and Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Chronowski GM, Buchholz TA. Accelerated partial breast irradiation. Curr Probl Cancer 2007; 31:7-25. [PMID: 17254900 DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2006.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory M Chronowski
- Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Pelloski CE, Palmer M, Chronowski GM, Jhingran A, Horton J, Eifel PJ. Comparison between CT-based volumetric calculations and ICRU reference-point estimates of radiation doses delivered to bladder and rectum during intracavitary radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62:131-7. [PMID: 15850913 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.09.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 130] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2004] [Accepted: 09/16/2004] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare CT-based volumetric calculations and International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) reference-point estimates of radiation doses to the bladder and rectum in patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with definitive low-dose-rate intracavitary radiotherapy (ICRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Between November 2001 and March 2003, 60 patients were prospectively enrolled in a pilot study of ICRT with CT-based dosimetry. Most patients underwent two ICRT insertions. After insertion of an afterloading ICRT applicator, intraoperative orthogonal films were obtained to ensure proper positioning of the system and to facilitate subsequent planning. Treatments were prescribed using standard two-dimensional dosimetry and planning. Patients also underwent helical CT of the pelvis for three-dimensional reconstruction of the radiation dose distributions. The systems were loaded with 137Cs sources using the Selectron remote afterloading system according to institutional practice for low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Three-dimensional dose distributions were generated using the Varian BrachyVision treatment planning system. The rectum was contoured from the bottom of the ischial tuberosities to the sigmoid flexure. The entire bladder was contoured. The minimal doses delivered to the 2 cm3 of bladder and rectum receiving the highest dose (DBV2 and DRV2, respectively) were determined from dose-volume histograms, and these estimates were compared with two-dimensionally derived estimates of the doses to the corresponding ICRU reference points. RESULTS A total of 118 unique intracavitary insertions were performed, and 93 were evaluated and the subject of this analysis. For the rectum, the estimated doses to the ICRU reference point did not differ significantly from the DRV2 (p = 0.561); the mean (+/- standard deviation) difference was 21 cGy (+/- 344 cGy). The median volume of the rectum that received at least the ICRU reference-point dose was 2.1 cm3. In 66 (71%) of 93 cases, <5 cm3 was treated to this dose. However, for the bladder, the estimated doses to the ICRU reference point were significantly lower than the D(BV2) (p <0.001); the mean difference was 680 cGy (+/- 543 cGy). The median volume of the bladder that received at least the ICRU reference-point dose was 13.0 cm3. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggest that the estimated dose to the ICRU rectal point may be a reasonable surrogate for the DRV2. However, this result may not be applicable to other treatment guidelines and ICRT applicator systems. In contrast, the dose to the ICRU bladder point does not appear to be a reasonable surrogate for the DBV2. Correlation with late complications are needed to define the role of three-dimensional dosimetry in treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher E Pelloski
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Jagsi R, Chronowski GM, Buck DA, Kang S, Palermo J. Special report: results of the 2000–2002 association of residents in radiation oncology (arro) surveys. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59:313-8. [PMID: 15093928 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.12.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2003] [Accepted: 12/04/2003] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Between 2000 and 2002, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) conducted its 18th, 19th, and 20th annual surveys of all residents training in radiation oncology in the United States. This report summarizes these results. The demographic characteristics of residents in training between 2000 and 2002 are detailed, as are issues regarding the quality of training and career choices of residents entering practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Chronowski GM, Wilder RB, Levy LB, Atkinson EN, Ha CS, Hagemeister FB, Barista I, Rodriguez MA, Sarris AH, Hess MA, Cabanillas F, Cox JD. Second Malignancies After Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy for Hodgkin Disease. Am J Clin Oncol 2004; 27:73-80. [PMID: 14758137 DOI: 10.1097/01.coc.0000045853.73233.42] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
The purpose of this preliminary study was to determine the incidence of second malignancies after combined-modality therapy for adults with Hodgkin disease and relate it to the details of initial treatment. We retrospectively studied 286 patients ranging in age from 16 to 88 years with stage I or II Hodgkin disease who were treated between 1980 and 1995 with chemotherapy followed 3 to 4 weeks later by radiotherapy. Patients received a median of three cycles of induction chemotherapy. Mitoxantrone, vincristine, vinblastine, and prednisone was used in 161 cases, mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (MOPP) in 67 cases, Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine in 19 cases, lomustine, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone/doxorubicin, bleomycin, dacarbazine, and lomustine in 18 cases, and other chemotherapeutic regimens in the remaining 21 cases. The median radiotherapy dose was 40 Gy given in 20 daily 2-Gy fractions. Median follow-up of surviving patients was 7.4 years. There were 2,230 person-years of observation. Significantly increased relative risks (RR) were observed for acute myeloid leukemia (RR, 69.3; 95% CI, 14.3-202.6) and melanoma (RR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.5-21.3). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year actuarial risks of acute myeloid leukemia were 0.8%, 1.3%, and 1.3%, respectively. Patients treated with MOPP had the highest 15-year actuarial risk of leukemia (1.6%). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year actuarial risks of solid tumors were 1.9%, 9.3%, and 16.8%, respectively. Consolidative radiotherapy to both sides of the diaphragm resulted in a trend toward an increased risk of solid tumors relative to radiotherapy to only one side of the diaphragm (p = 0.08). In an effort to reduce the risk of second malignancies, we have stopped using the alkylating agents nitrogen mustard and procarbazine and elective paraaortic and splenic radiotherapy after chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Chronowski GM, Wilder RB, Tucker SL, Ha CS, Younes A, Fayad L, Rodriguez MA, Hagemeister FB, Barista I, Cabanillas F, Cox JD. Analysis of in-field control and late toxicity for adults with early-stage Hodgkin's disease treated with chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55:36-43. [PMID: 12504034 DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03915-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We analyzed in-field (IF) control in adults with early-stage Hodgkin's disease who received chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (RT) in terms of the (1) chemotherapeutic regimen used and number of cycles delivered, (2) response to chemotherapy, and (3) initial tumor size. Cardiac toxicity and second malignancies, particularly the incidence of solid tumors in terms of the RT field size treated, were also examined. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 1980 to 1995, 286 patients ranging in age from 16 to 88 years (median: 28 years) with Ann Arbor clinical Stage I or II Hodgkin's disease underwent chemotherapy followed 3 to 4 weeks later by RT. There were 516 nodal sites measuring 0.5 to 19.0 cm at the start of chemotherapy, including 134 cases of bulky mediastinal disease. NOVP, MOPP, ABVD, CVPP/ABDIC, and other chemotherapeutic regimens were given to 161, 67, 19, 18, and 21 patients, respectively. Patients received 1-8 (median: 3) cycles of induction chemotherapy. All 533 gross nodal and extranodal sites of disease were included in the RT fields. The median prescribed RT dose for gross disease was 40.0 Gy given in 20 daily 2.0-Gy fractions. There was little variation in the RT dose. Eighty-five patients were treated with involved-field or regional RT (to one side of the diaphragm), and 201 patients were treated with extended-field RT (to both sides of the diaphragm), based on the protocol on which they were enrolled. RESULTS Follow-up of surviving patients ranged from 1.3 to 19.9 years (median: 7.4 years). Based on a review of simulation films, there were 16 IF, 8 marginal, and 15 out-of-field recurrences. The chemotherapeutic regimen used and the number of cycles of chemotherapy delivered did not significantly affect IF control. IF control also did not significantly depend on the response to induction chemotherapy. In cases where there was a confirmed or unconfirmed complete response as opposed to a partial response or stable disease in response to induction chemotherapy for bulky nodal disease, the 5-year IF control rates were 99% and 92%, respectively (p = 0.0006). The 15-year actuarial risks of coronary artery disease requiring surgical intervention and of solid tumors were 4.1% and 16.8%, respectively. There was a trend toward a greater risk of solid tumors in patients who received extended-field RT rather than involved-field or regional RT (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS In patients with nonbulky disease, induction chemotherapy followed by RT to a median dose of 40.0 Gy resulted in excellent IF control, regardless of the chemotherapeutic regimen used, the fact that only 1-2 cycles of chemotherapy were delivered, and the response to chemotherapy. There was a trend toward a higher incidence of solid tumors in patients who received consolidation RT to both sides rather than only one side of the diaphragm. Ongoing Phase III trials will help clarify whether lower RT doses and smaller RT fields after chemotherapy can maintain the IF control seen in our study, but with a lower incidence of late complications in patients with Stage I or II Hodgkin's disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Chronowski GM, Wilder RB, Tucker SL, Ha CS, Sarris AH, Hagemeister FB, Barista I, Hess MA, Cabanillas F, Cox JD. An elevated serum beta-2-microglobulin level is an adverse prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with early-stage Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2002; 95:2534-8. [PMID: 12467067 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10998] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The relative importance of prognostic factors in patients with early-stage Hodgkin disease remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors among patients who received chemotherapy before radiotherapy. METHODS From 1987 to 1995, 217 consecutive patients ranging in age from 16 to 88 years (median, 28 years) with Ann Arbor Stage I (n = 55) or II (n = 162) Hodgkin disease underwent chemotherapy before radiotherapy at a single center. Most were treated on prospective studies. Patients received a median of three cycles of induction chemotherapy. Mitoxantrone, vincristine, vinblastine, and prednisone (NOVP), doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD), mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (MOPP), cyclophosphamide, vinblastine, procarbazine, prednisone, doxorubicin, bleomycin, dacarbazine, and CCNU (CVPP/ABDIC), or other chemotherapeutic regimens were given to 160, 18, 15, 10, and 14 patients, respectively. The median radiotherapy dose was 40 Gy. Serum beta-2-microglobulin (beta-2M) levels ranged from 1.0 to 4.1 mg/L (median, 1.7 mg/L; upper limit of normal, 2.0 mg/L). We studied univariate and multivariate associations between survival and the following clinical features: serum beta-2M level above 1.25 times the upper limit of normal (n = 12), male gender (n = 113), hypoalbuminemia (n = 11), and bulky mediastinal disease (n = 94). RESULTS Follow-up of surviving patients ranged from 0.9 to 13.4 years (median, 6.6 years) and 92% were observed for 3.0 or more years. Nineteen patients have died. Only elevation of the serum beta-2M level was an independent adverse prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.0009). CONCLUSIONS The prognostic significance of a simple, widely available, and inexpensive blood test, beta-2M, has not been studied routinely in patients with Hodgkin disease and should be tested prospectively in large, cooperative group trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wilder RB, Schlembach PJ, Jones D, Chronowski GM, Ha CS, Younes A, Hagemeister FB, Barista I, Cabanillas F, Cox JD. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte very favorable and favorable, lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2002; 94:1731-8. [PMID: 11920535 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin disease (LPHD) is rare and has a natural history different from that of classic Hodgkin disease. There is little information in the literature regarding the role of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage LPHD. The objective of this study was to examine recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of first recurrence in patients with LPHD who were treated with radiotherapy alone or with chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy. METHODS From 1963 to 1996, 48 consecutive patients ages 16-49 years (median, 28 years) with Ann Arbor Stage I (n = 30 patients) or Stage II (n = 18 patients), very favorable (VF; n = 5 patients) or favorable (F; n = 43 patients) LPHD, according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte (EORTC-GELA) criteria, received radiotherapy alone (n = 37 patients) or received chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 11 patients). The percentages of patients with VF disease (11% vs. 9% in the radiotherapy group vs. the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group, respectively) or F disease (89% vs. 91%, respectively) within the two treatment groups were similar (P = 1.00). A median of three cycles of chemotherapy with mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (MOPP) or with mitoxantrone, vincristine, vinblastine, and prednisone (NOVP) was given initially to six patients and five patients, respectively. A median total radiotherapy dose of 40 grays (Gy) given in daily fractions of 2.0 Gy was delivered to both treatment groups. RESULTS The median follow-up was 9.3 years, and 98% of patients were observed for > or = 3.0 years. RFS was similar for patients who were treated with radiotherapy alone and patients who were treated with chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (10-year survival rates: 77% and 68%, respectively; P = 0.89). The OS rate also was similar for the two groups (10-year survival rates: 90% and 100%, respectively; P = 0.43). MOPP or NOVP chemotherapy did not reduce the risk of recurrence outside of the radiotherapy fields. CONCLUSIONS MOPP or NOVP chemotherapy did not improve RFS or OS significantly in patients with VF or F LPHD, although the statistical power was limited. Ongoing clinical trials will help to clarify the role of a watch-and-wait strategy or systemic therapy, including anthracycline (epirubicin or doxorubicin), bleomycin, and vinblastine-based chemotherapy or antibody-based approaches, in the treatment of these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard B Wilder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030-4009, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Chronowski GM, Ha CS, Wilder RB, Cabanillas F, Manning J, Cox JD. Treatment of unicentric and multicentric Castleman disease and the role of radiotherapy. Cancer 2001. [PMID: 11505414 DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010801)92] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although surgery is considered standard therapy for unicentric Castleman disease, favorable responses to radiotherapy also have been documented. The authors undertook this study to analyze the clinical factors, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with unicentric or multicentric Castleman disease, and to report the outcomes of patients with unicentric Castleman disease treated with radiotherapy. METHODS The authors reviewed the medical records of 22 patients who had received a histologic diagnosis of Castleman disease at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1988 and 1999. One patient with a concurrent histopathologic diagnosis of nonsecretory multiple myeloma was excluded from the study. In all patients, the diagnosis of Castleman disease was based on the results of lymph node biopsies. Disease was categorized as being either unicentric or multicentric and further subdivided into hyaline vascular, plasma cell, or mixed variant histologic types. Clinical variables and outcomes were analyzed according to treatment, which consisted of surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. RESULTS Records from 21 patients were analyzed: 12 had unicentric disease, and 9 had multicentric disease. The mean follow-up time for the entire series was 51 months (median, 40 months). Four patients with unicentric disease were treated with radiotherapy alone: 2 remain alive and symptom free, 2 died of causes unrelated to Castleman disease and had no evidence of disease at last follow-up. Eight patients with unicentric disease were treated with complete or partial surgical resection, and all are alive and asymptomatic. All nine patients with multicentric disease were treated with combination chemotherapy: five are alive with no evidence of disease, and four are alive with progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS Surgery results in excellent rates of cure in patients with unicentric Castleman disease; radiotherapy can also achieve clinical response and cure in selected patients. Multicentric Castleman disease is a more aggressive clinical entity and is most effectively treated with combination chemotherapy, whereas the role of radiotherapy in its treatment remains unclear.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although surgery is considered standard therapy for unicentric Castleman disease, favorable responses to radiotherapy also have been documented. The authors undertook this study to analyze the clinical factors, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with unicentric or multicentric Castleman disease, and to report the outcomes of patients with unicentric Castleman disease treated with radiotherapy. METHODS The authors reviewed the medical records of 22 patients who had received a histologic diagnosis of Castleman disease at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1988 and 1999. One patient with a concurrent histopathologic diagnosis of nonsecretory multiple myeloma was excluded from the study. In all patients, the diagnosis of Castleman disease was based on the results of lymph node biopsies. Disease was categorized as being either unicentric or multicentric and further subdivided into hyaline vascular, plasma cell, or mixed variant histologic types. Clinical variables and outcomes were analyzed according to treatment, which consisted of surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. RESULTS Records from 21 patients were analyzed: 12 had unicentric disease, and 9 had multicentric disease. The mean follow-up time for the entire series was 51 months (median, 40 months). Four patients with unicentric disease were treated with radiotherapy alone: 2 remain alive and symptom free, 2 died of causes unrelated to Castleman disease and had no evidence of disease at last follow-up. Eight patients with unicentric disease were treated with complete or partial surgical resection, and all are alive and asymptomatic. All nine patients with multicentric disease were treated with combination chemotherapy: five are alive with no evidence of disease, and four are alive with progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS Surgery results in excellent rates of cure in patients with unicentric Castleman disease; radiotherapy can also achieve clinical response and cure in selected patients. Multicentric Castleman disease is a more aggressive clinical entity and is most effectively treated with combination chemotherapy, whereas the role of radiotherapy in its treatment remains unclear.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G M Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|