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