Cargando…

A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events

BACKGROUND: To investigate acute and late toxicities comparing sequential (SEQ-IMRT) versus simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed stage I-IVB NPC patients were randomized to receive SEQ-IMRT or S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Songthong, Anussara P., Kannarunimit, Danita, Chakkabat, Chakkapong, Lertbutsayanukul, Chawalit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26253488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0472-y
_version_ 1782388046282358784
author Songthong, Anussara P.
Kannarunimit, Danita
Chakkabat, Chakkapong
Lertbutsayanukul, Chawalit
author_facet Songthong, Anussara P.
Kannarunimit, Danita
Chakkabat, Chakkapong
Lertbutsayanukul, Chawalit
author_sort Songthong, Anussara P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To investigate acute and late toxicities comparing sequential (SEQ-IMRT) versus simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed stage I-IVB NPC patients were randomized to receive SEQ-IMRT or SIB-IMRT, with or without chemotherapy. SEQ-IMRT consisted of two sequential radiation treatment plans: 2Gy x 25 fractions to low-risk planning target volume (PTV-LR) followed by 2Gy x 10 fractions to high-risk planning target volume (PTV-HR). In contrast, SIB-IMRT consisted of only one treatment plan: 2.12Gy and 1.7Gy x 33 fractions to PTV-HR and PTV-LR, respectively. Toxicities were evaluated according to CTCAE version 4.0. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and November 2013, 122 eligible patients were randomized between SEQ-IMRT (54 patients) and SIB-IMRT (68 patients). With median follow-up time of 16.8 months, there was no significant difference in toxicities between the two IMRT techniques. During chemoradiation, the most common grade 3–5 acute toxicities were mucositis (15.4 % vs 13.6 %, SEQ vs SIB, p = 0.788) followed by dysphagia (9.6 % vs 9.1 %, p = 1.000) and xerostomia (9.6 % vs 7.6 %, p = 0.748). During the adjuvant chemotherapy period, 25.6 % and 32.7 % experienced grade 3 weight loss in SEQ-IMRT and SIB-IMRT (p = 0.459). One-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 95.8 % and 95.5 % in SEQ-IMRT and 98 % and 90.2 % in SIB-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.472 for OS and 0.069 for PFS). CONCLUSION: This randomized, phase II/III trial comparing SIB-IMRT versus SEQ-IMRT in NPC showed no statistically significant difference between both IMRT techniques in terms of acute adverse events. Short-term tumor control and survival outcome were promising.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4554369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45543692015-09-01 A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events Songthong, Anussara P. Kannarunimit, Danita Chakkabat, Chakkapong Lertbutsayanukul, Chawalit Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: To investigate acute and late toxicities comparing sequential (SEQ-IMRT) versus simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed stage I-IVB NPC patients were randomized to receive SEQ-IMRT or SIB-IMRT, with or without chemotherapy. SEQ-IMRT consisted of two sequential radiation treatment plans: 2Gy x 25 fractions to low-risk planning target volume (PTV-LR) followed by 2Gy x 10 fractions to high-risk planning target volume (PTV-HR). In contrast, SIB-IMRT consisted of only one treatment plan: 2.12Gy and 1.7Gy x 33 fractions to PTV-HR and PTV-LR, respectively. Toxicities were evaluated according to CTCAE version 4.0. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and November 2013, 122 eligible patients were randomized between SEQ-IMRT (54 patients) and SIB-IMRT (68 patients). With median follow-up time of 16.8 months, there was no significant difference in toxicities between the two IMRT techniques. During chemoradiation, the most common grade 3–5 acute toxicities were mucositis (15.4 % vs 13.6 %, SEQ vs SIB, p = 0.788) followed by dysphagia (9.6 % vs 9.1 %, p = 1.000) and xerostomia (9.6 % vs 7.6 %, p = 0.748). During the adjuvant chemotherapy period, 25.6 % and 32.7 % experienced grade 3 weight loss in SEQ-IMRT and SIB-IMRT (p = 0.459). One-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 95.8 % and 95.5 % in SEQ-IMRT and 98 % and 90.2 % in SIB-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.472 for OS and 0.069 for PFS). CONCLUSION: This randomized, phase II/III trial comparing SIB-IMRT versus SEQ-IMRT in NPC showed no statistically significant difference between both IMRT techniques in terms of acute adverse events. Short-term tumor control and survival outcome were promising. BioMed Central 2015-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4554369/ /pubmed/26253488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0472-y Text en © Songthong et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Songthong, Anussara P.
Kannarunimit, Danita
Chakkabat, Chakkapong
Lertbutsayanukul, Chawalit
A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
title A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
title_full A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
title_fullStr A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
title_full_unstemmed A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
title_short A randomized phase II/III study of adverse events between sequential (SEQ) versus simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
title_sort randomized phase ii/iii study of adverse events between sequential (seq) versus simultaneous integrated boost (sib) intensity modulated radiation therapy (imrt) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma; preliminary result on acute adverse events
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26253488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0472-y
work_keys_str_mv AT songthonganussarap arandomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT kannarunimitdanita arandomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT chakkabatchakkapong arandomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT lertbutsayanukulchawalit arandomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT songthonganussarap randomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT kannarunimitdanita randomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT chakkabatchakkapong randomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents
AT lertbutsayanukulchawalit randomizedphaseiiiiistudyofadverseeventsbetweensequentialseqversussimultaneousintegratedboostsibintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtinnasopharyngealcarcinomapreliminaryresultonacuteadverseevents