Cargando…

Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nutting, Christopher M, Morden, James P, Harrington, Kevin J, Urbano, Teresa Guerrero, Bhide, Shreerang A, Clark, Catharine, Miles, Elizabeth A, Miah, Aisha B, Newbold, Kate, Tanay, MaryAnne, Adab, Fawzi, Jefferies, Sarah J, Scrase, Christopher, Yap, Beng K, A'Hern, Roger P, Sydenham, Mark A, Emson, Marie, Hall, Emma
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lancet Pub. Group 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21236730
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4
_version_ 1782197597525508096
author Nutting, Christopher M
Morden, James P
Harrington, Kevin J
Urbano, Teresa Guerrero
Bhide, Shreerang A
Clark, Catharine
Miles, Elizabeth A
Miah, Aisha B
Newbold, Kate
Tanay, MaryAnne
Adab, Fawzi
Jefferies, Sarah J
Scrase, Christopher
Yap, Beng K
A'Hern, Roger P
Sydenham, Mark A
Emson, Marie
Hall, Emma
author_facet Nutting, Christopher M
Morden, James P
Harrington, Kevin J
Urbano, Teresa Guerrero
Bhide, Shreerang A
Clark, Catharine
Miles, Elizabeth A
Miah, Aisha B
Newbold, Kate
Tanay, MaryAnne
Adab, Fawzi
Jefferies, Sarah J
Scrase, Christopher
Yap, Beng K
A'Hern, Roger P
Sydenham, Mark A
Emson, Marie
Hall, Emma
author_sort Nutting, Christopher M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. METHODS: We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. FINDINGS: 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).
format Text
id pubmed-3033533
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Lancet Pub. Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30335332011-03-14 Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial Nutting, Christopher M Morden, James P Harrington, Kevin J Urbano, Teresa Guerrero Bhide, Shreerang A Clark, Catharine Miles, Elizabeth A Miah, Aisha B Newbold, Kate Tanay, MaryAnne Adab, Fawzi Jefferies, Sarah J Scrase, Christopher Yap, Beng K A'Hern, Roger P Sydenham, Mark A Emson, Marie Hall, Emma Lancet Oncol Fast track — Articles BACKGROUND: Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. METHODS: We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. FINDINGS: 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005). Lancet Pub. Group 2011-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3033533/ /pubmed/21236730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4 Text en © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
spellingShingle Fast track — Articles
Nutting, Christopher M
Morden, James P
Harrington, Kevin J
Urbano, Teresa Guerrero
Bhide, Shreerang A
Clark, Catharine
Miles, Elizabeth A
Miah, Aisha B
Newbold, Kate
Tanay, MaryAnne
Adab, Fawzi
Jefferies, Sarah J
Scrase, Christopher
Yap, Beng K
A'Hern, Roger P
Sydenham, Mark A
Emson, Marie
Hall, Emma
Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
title Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
title_full Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
title_short Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
title_sort parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (parsport): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial
topic Fast track — Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21236730
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4
work_keys_str_mv AT nuttingchristopherm parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mordenjamesp parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT harringtonkevinj parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT urbanoteresaguerrero parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT bhideshreeranga parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT clarkcatharine parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mileselizabetha parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT miahaishab parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT newboldkate parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT tanaymaryanne parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT adabfawzi parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT jefferiessarahj parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT scrasechristopher parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT yapbengk parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ahernrogerp parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT sydenhammarka parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT emsonmarie parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT hallemma parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT parotidsparingintensitymodulatedversusconventionalradiotherapyinheadandneckcancerparsportaphase3multicentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial