Cargando…

A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation

Purpose: To compare the objective and patient-reported toxicities of concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT) and concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers. Methods and material: In this prospective study, 46 patients with histologically proven stage III-IV...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharma, Ritu, Vats, Siddharth, Seam, Rajeev, Gupta, Manish, Negi, Ratti R, Fotedar, Vikas, Singh, Kaalindi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37266055
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38362
_version_ 1785051467633131520
author Sharma, Ritu
Vats, Siddharth
Seam, Rajeev
Gupta, Manish
Negi, Ratti R
Fotedar, Vikas
Singh, Kaalindi
author_facet Sharma, Ritu
Vats, Siddharth
Seam, Rajeev
Gupta, Manish
Negi, Ratti R
Fotedar, Vikas
Singh, Kaalindi
author_sort Sharma, Ritu
collection PubMed
description Purpose: To compare the objective and patient-reported toxicities of concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT) and concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers. Methods and material: In this prospective study, 46 patients with histologically proven stage III-IVA head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to receive either concurrent chemoradiation to a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions over 6.5 weeks with concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2 IV weekly; control arm) or accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost radiotherapy (study arm) to a dose of 67.5 Gy in 40 fractions in five weeks. Acute toxicity was evaluated using RTOG toxicity criteria. The assessment was done weekly after initiation of treatment, at the first follow-up (six weeks), and at three months. The four main patient-reported symptoms of pain, hoarseness of voice, dryness of mouth, and loss of taste were also compared between the two groups to assess patient quality of life during treatment. Results: The mean treatment duration was 37 days in the CBRT arm and 49 days in the CRT arm. Treatment-related interruptions were less in the study group,17.3% in the study, and 27.2% in the control with insignificant P-value. Grade III laryngeal toxicity was significantly higher in the study group (P=0.029). Other acute grade I-III toxicities (pharyngeal, skin, mucositis, and salivary) were comparable in both CRT and CBRT arms. Grade IV toxicities were seen only in the CBRT arm but were resolved at the first follow-up. Haematological toxicities and renal toxicities were significantly higher in the CRT arm, with significant P-values of 0.0004 and 0.018, respectively. Conclusion: In patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, concomitant boost radiotherapy is well tolerated with acceptable local toxicity and minimal systemic toxicity as compared to conventional chemoradiation. It is a feasible option for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer not fit for concurrent chemoradiation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10230179
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102301792023-06-01 A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation Sharma, Ritu Vats, Siddharth Seam, Rajeev Gupta, Manish Negi, Ratti R Fotedar, Vikas Singh, Kaalindi Cureus Oncology Purpose: To compare the objective and patient-reported toxicities of concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT) and concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers. Methods and material: In this prospective study, 46 patients with histologically proven stage III-IVA head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to receive either concurrent chemoradiation to a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions over 6.5 weeks with concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2 IV weekly; control arm) or accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost radiotherapy (study arm) to a dose of 67.5 Gy in 40 fractions in five weeks. Acute toxicity was evaluated using RTOG toxicity criteria. The assessment was done weekly after initiation of treatment, at the first follow-up (six weeks), and at three months. The four main patient-reported symptoms of pain, hoarseness of voice, dryness of mouth, and loss of taste were also compared between the two groups to assess patient quality of life during treatment. Results: The mean treatment duration was 37 days in the CBRT arm and 49 days in the CRT arm. Treatment-related interruptions were less in the study group,17.3% in the study, and 27.2% in the control with insignificant P-value. Grade III laryngeal toxicity was significantly higher in the study group (P=0.029). Other acute grade I-III toxicities (pharyngeal, skin, mucositis, and salivary) were comparable in both CRT and CBRT arms. Grade IV toxicities were seen only in the CBRT arm but were resolved at the first follow-up. Haematological toxicities and renal toxicities were significantly higher in the CRT arm, with significant P-values of 0.0004 and 0.018, respectively. Conclusion: In patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, concomitant boost radiotherapy is well tolerated with acceptable local toxicity and minimal systemic toxicity as compared to conventional chemoradiation. It is a feasible option for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer not fit for concurrent chemoradiation. Cureus 2023-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10230179/ /pubmed/37266055 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38362 Text en Copyright © 2023, Sharma et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Oncology
Sharma, Ritu
Vats, Siddharth
Seam, Rajeev
Gupta, Manish
Negi, Ratti R
Fotedar, Vikas
Singh, Kaalindi
A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation
title A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation
title_full A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation
title_fullStr A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation
title_short A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation
title_sort comparison of the toxicities in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with concomitant boost radiotherapy versus conventional chemoradiation
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37266055
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38362
work_keys_str_mv AT sharmaritu acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT vatssiddharth acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT seamrajeev acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT guptamanish acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT negirattir acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT fotedarvikas acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT singhkaalindi acomparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT sharmaritu comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT vatssiddharth comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT seamrajeev comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT guptamanish comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT negirattir comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT fotedarvikas comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation
AT singhkaalindi comparisonofthetoxicitiesinpatientswithlocallyadvancedheadandneckcancerstreatedwithconcomitantboostradiotherapyversusconventionalchemoradiation