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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |