Cargando…

A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The optimal intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique for head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been determined yet. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-IMRT versus the sequential boost (SEQ)-IMRT in HNC. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Li, Zhang, Yong, Yang, Zhendong, Liang, Feifei, Wu, Jiangtao, Wang, Rensheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716705/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31441887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016942
_version_ 1783447423557828608
author Jiang, Li
Zhang, Yong
Yang, Zhendong
Liang, Feifei
Wu, Jiangtao
Wang, Rensheng
author_facet Jiang, Li
Zhang, Yong
Yang, Zhendong
Liang, Feifei
Wu, Jiangtao
Wang, Rensheng
author_sort Jiang, Li
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique for head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been determined yet. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-IMRT versus the sequential boost (SEQ)-IMRT in HNC. METHODS: A meta-analysis of 7 studies involving a total of 1049 patients was carried out to compare the treatment outcomes together with severe acute adverse effects of the SIB-IMRT versus the SEQ-IMRT in HNC patients. RESULTS: Comparison of the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT showed no significant difference in the measurement of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% confidence inerval [CI], 0.70–1.27; P = .71), progression free survival (PFS) (HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82–1.30; P = .79), locoregional recurrence free survival (LRFS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65–1.47; P = .91), and distance metastasis free survival (DMFS) (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50–1.53; P = .63). Moreover, there were no significant differences in adverse effect occurrence between the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT groups. CONCLUSION: SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT can provide comparable outcomes in the treatment of patients afflicted by HNC. Both IMRT techniques were found to carry a similar risk of severe acute adverse effect. SIB-IMRT may have advantages due to its convenience and short-course of treatment; however, the optimum fractionation and prescribed dose remained unclear. Furthermore, both IMRT techniques can be advocated as the technique of choice for HNC. Treatment plan should be individualized for patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6716705
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67167052019-10-01 A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis Jiang, Li Zhang, Yong Yang, Zhendong Liang, Feifei Wu, Jiangtao Wang, Rensheng Medicine (Baltimore) 5700 BACKGROUND: The optimal intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique for head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been determined yet. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-IMRT versus the sequential boost (SEQ)-IMRT in HNC. METHODS: A meta-analysis of 7 studies involving a total of 1049 patients was carried out to compare the treatment outcomes together with severe acute adverse effects of the SIB-IMRT versus the SEQ-IMRT in HNC patients. RESULTS: Comparison of the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT showed no significant difference in the measurement of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% confidence inerval [CI], 0.70–1.27; P = .71), progression free survival (PFS) (HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82–1.30; P = .79), locoregional recurrence free survival (LRFS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65–1.47; P = .91), and distance metastasis free survival (DMFS) (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50–1.53; P = .63). Moreover, there were no significant differences in adverse effect occurrence between the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT groups. CONCLUSION: SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT can provide comparable outcomes in the treatment of patients afflicted by HNC. Both IMRT techniques were found to carry a similar risk of severe acute adverse effect. SIB-IMRT may have advantages due to its convenience and short-course of treatment; however, the optimum fractionation and prescribed dose remained unclear. Furthermore, both IMRT techniques can be advocated as the technique of choice for HNC. Treatment plan should be individualized for patients. Wolters Kluwer Health 2019-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6716705/ /pubmed/31441887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016942 Text en Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle 5700
Jiang, Li
Zhang, Yong
Yang, Zhendong
Liang, Feifei
Wu, Jiangtao
Wang, Rensheng
A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
title A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
title_full A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
title_fullStr A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
title_short A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (sib) versus sequential boost (seq) intensity modulated radiation therapy (imrt) for head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis
topic 5700
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716705/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31441887
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016942
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangli acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT zhangyong acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT yangzhendong acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT liangfeifei acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT wujiangtao acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT wangrensheng acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT jiangli comparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT zhangyong comparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT yangzhendong comparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT liangfeifei comparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT wujiangtao comparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis
AT wangrensheng comparisonofclinicaloutcomesbetweensimultaneousintegratedboostsibversussequentialboostseqintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtforheadandneckcancerametaanalysis