Search

Background and purposeThe volume treated with postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is a mediator of toxicity affecting quality of life. Current guidelines only allow for very limited reduction of PORT volumes. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of de-intensified PORT for patients with OCSCC by refined compartmentalization of the treatment volume.Materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort study identified 103 OCSCC patients treated surgically from 2014 to 2019 with a loco-regional risk profile qualifying for PORT according to guidelines. PORT was administered only to the at-risk compartment and according to a refined compartmentalization concept (CC). Oncological outcome of this CC cohort was compared to a historical cohort (HC) of 98 patients treated before the CC was implemented.ResultsMedian follow-up time was 4.5 and 4.8 years in the CC and HC cohorts, respectively. In the CC cohort, a total of 72 of 103 patients (70%) had a pathological risk profile that allowed for further compartmentalization and, hence, received a reduced treatment volume or omission of PORT altogether. Loco-regional control at 3 and 5 years was 77% and 73% in the CC cohort versus 78% and 73% in the HC (p = 0.93), progression-free survival was 72% and 64% versus75% and 68% (p = 0.58), respectively. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was seen in other outcome measures.ConclusionsDe-intensified PORT limiting the treatment volume to the at-risk compartment or avoiding PORT altogether for low-risk patients with OCSCC does not seem to compromise disease control in this retrospective comparison. Based on these hypothesis-generating findings, a prospective study is being planned.

Purpose: Technological progress of machine learning and natural language processing has led to the development of large language models (LLMs), capable of producing well-formed text responses and providing natural language access to knowledge. Modern conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT have shown remarkable capabilities across a variety of fields, including medicine. These models may assess even highly specialized medical knowledge within specific disciplines, such as radiation therapy. We conducted an exploratory study to examine the capabilities of ChatGPT to answer questions in radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: A set of multiple-choice questions about clinical, physics, and biology general knowledge in radiation oncology as well as a set of open-ended questions were created. These were given as prompts to the LLM ChatGPT, and the answers were collected and analyzed. For the multiple-choice questions, it was checked how many of the answers of the model could be clearly assigned to one of the allowed multiple-choice-answers, and the proportion of correct answers was determined. For the open-ended questions, independent blinded radiation oncologists evaluated the quality of the answers regarding correctness and usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. Furthermore, the evaluators were asked to provide suggestions for improving the quality of the answers. Results: For 70 multiple-choice questions, ChatGPT gave valid answers in 66 cases (94.3%). In 60.61% of the valid answers, the selected answer was correct (50.0% of clinical questions, 78.6% of physics questions, and 58.3% of biology questions). For 25 open-ended questions, 12 answers of ChatGPT were considered as “acceptable,” “good,” or “very good” regarding both correctness and helpfulness by all 6 participating radiation oncologists. Overall, the answers were considered “very good” in 29.3% and 28%, “good” in 28% and 29.3%, “acceptable” in 19.3% and 19.3%, “bad” in 9.3% and 9.3%, and “very bad” in 14% and 14% regarding correctness/helpfulness. Conclusions: Modern conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT can provide satisfying answers to many relevant questions in radiation therapy. As they still fall short of consistently providing correct information, it is problematic to use them for obtaining medical information. As LLMs will further improve in the future, they are expected to have an increasing impact not only on general society, but also on clinical practice, including radiation oncology.

Abstract Background Surgery and radiotherapy are well-established standards of care for unilateral stage 0 and I early-stage glottic cancer (ESGC). Based on comparative studies and meta-analyses, functional and oncological outcomes after both treatment modalities are similar. Historically, radiotherapy (RT) has been performed by irradiation of the whole larynx. However, only the involved vocal cord is being treated with recently introduced hypofractionated concepts that result in 8 to 10-fold smaller target volumes. Retrospective data argues for an improvement in voice quality with non-inferior local control. Based on these findings, single vocal cord irradiation (SVCI) has been implemented as a routine approach in some institutions for ESGC in recent years. However, prospective data directly comparing SVCI with surgery is lacking. The aim of VoiceS is to fill this gap. Methods In this prospective randomized multi-center open-label phase III study with a superiority design, 34 patients with histopathologically confirmed, untreated, unilateral stage 0-I ESGC (unilateral cTis or cT1a) will be randomized to SVCI or transoral CO2-laser microsurgical cordectomy (TLM). Average difference in voice quality, measured by using the voice handicap index (VHI) will be modeled over four time points (6, 12, 18, and 24 months). Primary endpoint of this study will be the patient-reported subjective voice quality between 6 to 24 months after randomization. Secondary endpoints will include perceptual impression of the voice via roughness – breathiness – hoarseness (RBH) assessment at the above-mentioned time points. Additionally, quantitative characteristics of voice, loco-regional tumor control at 2 and 5 years, and treatment toxicity at 2 and 5 years based on CTCAE v.5.0 will be reported. Discussion To our knowledge, VoiceS is the first randomized phase III trial comparing SVCI with TLM. Results of this study may lead to improved decision-making in the treatment of ESGC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04057209. Registered on 15 August 2019. Cantonal Ethics Committee KEK-BE 2019-01506

Background: Patients diagnosed with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) regularly undergo staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in our center. In cases of delays in radiotherapy (RT) planning CT more than 4 weeks after initial PET/CT or clinically suspected progress, PET/CT is repeated for restaging and as an RT planning reference. Our aim was to determine the impact of second-look PET/CT on stage migration, treatment change and RT planning. Methods: Consequent treatment changes were categorized as minor and major. Minor changes were defined as PET/CT-based modifications of RT plans, e.g., the addition of anatomical compartments, changes in high- and low-risk dose levels or both. Major changes included changes from curative to palliative treatment intent and alterations of interdisciplinary treatment plans, such as the addition of induction chemotherapy, switch to primary surgery, no treatment and/or the necessity of additional diagnostic work-up resulting in the postponement or cancellation of treatment. Results: Thirty-two newly diagnosed LAHNSCC patients who were treated between 2014 and 2018 underwent second-look PET/CT (median interval 42.5 days). Second-look PET/CT led to locoregional and distant upstaging in 3/32 and 1/32 patients, respectively. In 1/32 patients (3%), second-look PET/CT led to a palliative approach with systemic treatment. New lymph node metastases were discovered in 16 patients, 6 of whom also showed significant progression of the primary tumor, resulting in minor changes in 16 of the remaining 31 patients (52%) who were treated curatively. Conclusion: If RT treatment planning of LAHNSCC was delayed by more than 4 weeks after initial PET/CT staging or when progression was clinically suspected, a second look at 18FDG-PET/CT was performed. This led to changes in treatment planning in more than half of the cases, which is expected to directly influence oncologic outcomes.