Neck management in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: where do we stand?

Head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) have a significant lymph node tropism. This varies considerably depending on the primary tumor site and the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) status of the disease. The best therapeutic option, between up-front lymph node dissection and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) +/− followed by lymph node dissection in case of persistent lymphadenopathy or regional relapse, remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to discuss the pros and cons related to the different approaches of the neck management in HNSCC. A narrative review of the management of the cervical lymph nodes was undertaken. Searches of PubMed database were performed using the terms ‘neck management’ OR ‘cervical lymphadenopathies’ AND ‘head and neck neoplasms’. Recent advances in imaging, pathological analysis, surgery and radiotherapy let to personalize the type of lymph node dissection and, the volumes of radiation therapy. Excluding inoperable patients and unresectable diseases, N3 lymphadenopathies, as well as bulky N2 stages, specifically HPV− or necrotic nodes, would be in favor of an up-front surgical approach, while HPV+ diseases, and lymphadenopathies of unknown primary would support CRT first. However, efficacy of such strategies is challenged by a significant morbidity in the medium and long terms. In the absence of higher level of evidence, the decision-making tools for the neck dissection before or after the CRT are based on the Mehanna’s trial and retrospective studies with significant biases. Consequently, the approaches and the ensuing outcomes remain not homogenous depending on the centers’ experience, in the context of limited data, especially for N2–3 HPV− HNSCC

Interval between planning and frameless stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: are our margins still accurate?

International audienceAbstractBackgroundAdvances in intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) have led to dramatically reduced planning target volume (PTV) margins. However, tumor growth between planning and treatment may lead to treatment failure. Our purpose was to assess the kinetics of tumor growth before SRS for brain metastases.MethodsThis retrospective, monocentric study included all consecutive patients (pts) treated for brain metastases secondary to melanoma (ML) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between June 2015 and May 2016. All pts underwent diagnostic brain imaging and a radiosurgery planning MRI, during which gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated. Linear and exponential models were used to extrapolate a theoretical GTV at first day of treatment, and theoretical time to outgrow the PTV margins.ResultsTwenty-three ML and 31 NSCLC brain metastases (42 pts, 84 brain imaging scans) were analyzed. Comparison of GTV at diagnosis and planning showed increased tumor volume for 20 ML pts (96%) and 22 NSCLC pts (71%). The shortest time to outgrow a 1 mm margin was 6 days and 3 days for ML and 14 and 8 days for NSCLC with linear and exponential models, respectively.ConclusionsPhysicians should bear in mind the interval between SRS planning and treatment. A mathematical model could screen rapidly progressing tumors

10-Year Locoregional Control with Postoperative External Beam Radiotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced High-Risk Non-Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma De Novo or at Relapse, a Propensity Score Analysis

(1) Background: To assess the role of postoperative external beam radiotherapy (pEBRT) on locoregional failure (LRF) for patients with locally advanced high-risk non-anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (naTC) at primary event or relapse. (2) Methods: Between 1995 and 2015, postoperative naTC patients with a theoretical indication for EBRT were included based on criteria that were common to American-British-French current guidelines, i.e., pT3-4, pN+, gross or microscopic residual disease. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) after multiple imputation was used to reduce selection biases. (3) Results: Of 254 naTC patients, 216 patients underwent pEBRT (106 de novo, 110 at relapse, median dose 60 Gy) and 38 underwent surgery only. pEBRT patients had more gross residual disease, a major prognostic factor (p = 0.027) but less perineural invasion (p = 0.008) or lymphovascular emboli (p = 0.009). pEBRT patients more frequently underwent radioiodine therapy (p = 0.026). The 10-year cumulative incidence of LRF was 56% (95% CI, 32–74%) in operated patients, and 23% (95% CI, 17–30%) in pEBRT patients. After IPTW method, pEBRT reduced the risk of LRF (hazard ratio 0.30; 95% CI [0.18–0.49], p < 0.001), but had no impact on OS. In the pEBRT group, non-Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy (IMRT) plans and interruption of the radiotherapy were associated with poorer survival, while extended versus limited field strategy and dose were not. (4) Conclusions: In naTC patients who have pT3-4, pN+ disease or R1-2 resection, pEBRT improved LRF. Limited-field IMRT is preferred

International assessment of interobserver reproducibility of flap delineation in head and neck carcinoma

International audienceBackground: Several reports have suggested that radiotherapy after reconstructive surgery for head and neck cancer (HNC), could have deleterious effects on the flaps with respect to functional outcomes. To predict and prevent toxicities, flap delineation should be accurate and reproducible. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the interobserver variability of frequent types of flaps used in HNC, based on the recent GORTEC atlas.Materials and methods: Each member of an international working group (WG) consisting of 14 experts delineated the flaps on a CT set from six patients. Each patient had one of the five most commonly used flaps in HNC: a regional pedicled pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, a local pedicled rotational soft tissue facial artery musculo-mucosal (FAMM) (2 patients), a fasciocutaneous radial forearm free flap, a soft tissue anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flap, or a fibular free flap. The WG’s contours were compared to a reference contour, validated by a surgeon and a radiologist specializing in HNC. Contours were considered as reproducible if the median Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was > 0.7.Results: The median volumes of the six flaps delineated by the WG were close to the reference contour value, with approximately 50 cc for the pectoral, fibula, and ALT flaps, 20 cc for the radial forearm, and up to 10 cc for the FAMM. The volumetric ratio was thus close to the optimal value of 100% for all flaps. The median DSC obtained by the WG compared to the reference for the pectoralis flap, the FAMM, the radial forearm flap, ALT flap, and the fibular flap were 0.82, 0.40, 0.76, 0.81, and 0.76, respectively.Conclusions: This study showed that the delineation of four main flaps used for HNC was reproducible. The delineation of the FAMM, however, requires close cooperation between radiologist, surgeon and radiation oncologist because of the poor visibility of this flap on CT and its small size