A retrospective comparison of intensity-modulated arc therapy and 3-dimensional conformal approaches in the planning of grade 3 gliomas

Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) for high-grade gliomas is comparable with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in relation to the dose delivered to normal brain tissue (NBT), planning target volume (PTV) conformity and the dose delivered to brainstem and optic chiasma. Method: A total of 16 randomly selected 3DCRT treatment plans of grade 3 gliomas were re-planned using an IMAT planning technique and dose–volume histograms were compared. Primary outcomes were maximum, mean, 1/3 and 2/3 doses to NBT outside the PTV. Also the maximum, mean, D50 and D20 doses to PTV. Secondary outcomes were maximum and mean doses to the brainstem and optic chiasm. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare data. Results: IMAT led to a statistically significant increase in mean dose to NBT (34·4 versus 33·3 Gy, (p=0·047) but a statistically significant reduction in maximum dose to NBT (62·7 versus 63·8 Gy, p=0·004) compared with 3DCRT. IMAT led to statistically significant reductions in maximum, D50 and D20 doses to the PTV (63·3 versus 64·7 Gy, p=0·001; 60·0 versus 60·7 Gy, p=0·001 and 60·5 versus 61·8 Gy, p=0·002, respectively). No statistically significant differences were seen in doses to brainstem and optic chiasm. Conclusion: IMAT is at least comparable with 3DCRT in relation to minimising dose to NBT and ensuring good PTV conformity. Doses delivered to organs at risk using IMAT were also comparable with 3DCRT. This study supports the continued use of IMAT for the treatment of high-grade glioma

Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV):an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Background The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. Methods We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m(2)). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3-5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. Findings Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3-5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4.8 [95% CI 4.2-5.4] with cisplatin vs 4.8 [4.2-5.4] with cetuximab; p=0.98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29.2 [95% CI 27.3-31.0] with cisplatin vs 30.1 [28.3-31.9] with cetuximab; p=0.49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97.5% vs 89.4%, hazard ratio 5.0 [95% CI 1.7-14.7]; p=0.001) and 2-year recurrence (6.0% vs 16.1%, 3.4 [1.6-7.2]; p=0.0007). Interpretation Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. Funding Cancer Research UK. Copyright (c) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

Dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer (DARS): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most newly diagnosed oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers are treated with chemoradiotherapy with curative intent but at the consequence of adverse effects on quality of life. We aimed to investigate if dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) reduced radiation dose to the dysphagia and aspiration related structures and improved swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. METHODS: DARS was a parallel-group, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 22 radiotherapy centres in Ireland and the UK. Participants were aged 18 years and older, had T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer, a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and no pre-existing swallowing dysfunction. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm (balancing factors: centre, chemotherapy use, tumour type, American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT. Participants and speech language therapists were masked to treatment allocation. Radiotherapy was given in 30 fractions over 6 weeks. Dose was 65 Gy to primary and nodal tumour and 54 Gy to remaining pharyngeal subsite and nodal areas at risk of microscopic disease. For DO-IMRT, the volume of the superior and middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle or inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle lying outside the high-dose target volume had a mandatory 50 Gy mean dose constraint. The primary endpoint was MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score 12 months after radiotherapy, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients who completed a 12-month assessment; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN25458988, and is complete. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2016, to April 27, 2018, 118 patients were registered, 112 of whom were randomly assigned (56 to each treatment group). 22 (20%) participants were female and 90 (80%) were male; median age was 57 years (IQR 52-62). Median follow-up was 39·5 months (IQR 37·8-50·0). Patients in the DO-IMRT group had significantly higher MDADI composite scores at 12 months than patients in the standard IMRT group (mean score 77·7 [SD 16·1] vs 70·6 [17·3]; mean difference 7·2 [95% CI 0·4-13·9]; p=0·037). 25 serious adverse events (16 serious adverse events assessed as unrelated to study treatment [nine in the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nine serious adverse reactions [two vs seven]) were reported in 23 patients. The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (nine [16%] of 55 in the DO-IMRT group vs seven [13%] of 55 in the standard IMRT group), dry mouth (three [5%] vs eight [15%]), and dysphagia (three [5%] vs eight [15%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care for patients receiving radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancers. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK