Search

Purpose: To report clinical outcomes in terms of disease control and toxicity in patients with major salivary gland cancers (SGCs) treated with proton beam therapy. Materials and Methods: Clinical and dosimetric characteristics of patients with SGCs treated from August 2011 to February 2020 on an observational, prospective, single-institution protocol were abstracted. Local control and overall survival were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. During radiation, weekly assessments of toxicity were obtained, and for patients with ≥ 90 days of follow-up, late toxicity was assessed. Results: Seventy-two patients were identified. Median age was 54 years (range, 23-87 years). Sixty-three patients (88%) received postoperative therapy, and nine patients (12%) were treated definitively. Twenty-six patients (36%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Nine patients (12%) had received prior radiation. All (99%) but one patient received unilateral treatment with a median dose of 64 GyRBE (relative biological effectiveness) (interquartile range [IQR], 60-66), and 53 patients (74%) received intensity-modulated proton therapy with either single-field or multifield optimization. The median follow-up time was 30 months. Two-year local control and overall survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85%-99%) and 89% (95% CI 76%-95%], respectively. Radiation dermatitis was the predominant grade-3 toxicity (seen in 21% [n = 15] of the patients), and grade ≥ 2 mucositis was rare (14%; n = 10 patients). No late-grade ≥ 3 toxicities were reported. Conclusion: Proton beam therapy for treatment of major SGCs manifests in low rates of acute mucosal toxicity. In addition, the current data suggest a high rate of local control and minimal late toxicity.

In most childhood head and neck cancers, radiotherapy is an essential component of treatment; however, it can be associated with problematic long-term complications. Proton beam therapy is accepted as a preferred radiation modality in pediatric cancers to minimize the late radiation side effects. Given that childhood cancers are a rare and heterogeneous disease, the support for proton therapy comes from risk modeling and a limited number of cohort series. Here, we discuss the role of proton radiotherapy in pediatric head and neck cancers with a focus on reducing radiation toxicities. First, we compare the efficacy and expected toxicities in proton and photon radiotherapy for childhood cancers. Second, we review the benefit of proton radiotherapy in reducing acute and late radiation toxicities, including risks for secondary cancers, craniofacial development, vision, and cognition. Finally, we review the cost effectiveness for proton radiotherapy in pediatric head and neck cancers. This review highlights the benefits of particle radiotherapy for pediatric head and neck cancers to improve the quality of life in cancer survivors, to reduce radiation morbidities, and to maximize efficient health care use.

Purpose: To characterize our experience and the disease control and toxicity of proton therapy (PT) for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Patients and Methods: Clinical outcomes for patients with HNC treated with PT at our institution were prospectively collected in 2 institutional review board–approved prospective studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes. Overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale. Results: The cohort consisted of 573 patients treated from February 2006 to June 2018. Median patient age was 61 years. Oropharynx (33.3%; n = 191), paranasal sinus (11%; n = 63), and periorbital tissues (11%; n = 62) were the most common primary sites. Patients with T3/T4 or recurrent disease comprised 46% (n = 262) of the cohort. The intent of PT was definitive in 53% (n = 303), postoperative in 37% (n = 211), and reirradiation in 10% (n = 59). Median dose was 66 Gy (radiobiological equivalent). Regarding systemic therapy, 43% had received concurrent (n = 244), 3% induction (n = 19), and 15% (n = 86) had both. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 88 patients (15%) had died and 127 (22%) developed disease recurrence. The overall survival, local-regional control, and disease-free survival at 2 and 5 years were, respectively, 87% and 75%, 87% and 78%, and 74% and 63%. Maximum toxicity (acute or late) was grade 3 in 293 patients (51%), grade 2 in 234 patients (41%), and grade 1 in 31 patients (5%). There were 381 acute grade 3 and 190 late grade 3 unique toxicities across 212 (37%) and 150 (26%) patients, respectively. There were 3 late-grade 4 events across 2 patients (0.3%), 2 (0.3%) acute-grade 5, and no (0%) late-grade 5 events. Conclusions: The overall results from this prospective study of our initial decade of experience with PT for HNC show favorable disease control and toxicity outcomes in a multidisease-site cohort and provide a reference benchmark for future comparison and study.

Purpose: In value-based health care delivery, radiation oncologists need to compare empiric costs of care delivery with advanced technologies, such as intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare the costs of delivering IMPT and IMRT in a case-matched pilot study of patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal (OPC) cancer. Materials and Methods: We used clinicopathologic factors to match 25 patients with OPC who received IMPT in 2011-12 with 25 patients with OPC treated with IMRT in 2000-09. Process maps were created for each multidisciplinary clinical activity (including chemo-therapy and ancillary services) from initial consultation through 1 month of follow-up. Resource costs and times were determined for each activity. Each patient-specific activity was linked with a process map and TDABC over the full cycle of care. All calculated costs were normalized to the lowest-cost IMRT patient. Results: TDABC costs for IMRT were 1.00 to 3.33 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (mean ± SD: 1.65 ± 0.56), while costs for IMPT were 1.88 to 4.32 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (2.58 ± 0.39) (P < .05). Although single-fraction costs were 2.79 times higher for IMPT than for IMRT (owing to higher equipment costs), average full cycle cost of IMPT was 1.53 times higher than IMRT, suggesting that the initial cost increase is partly mitigated by reductions in costs for other, non-RT supportive health care services. Conclusions: In this matched sample, although IMPT was on average more costly than IMRT primarily owing to higher equipment costs, a subset of IMRT patients had similar costs to IMPT patients, owing to greater use of supportive care resources. Multidimensional patient outcomes and TDABC provide vital methodology for defining the value of radiation therapy modalities.

Purpose: Proton radiation therapy (PRT) may offer dosimetric and clinical benefit in the treatment of head and neck carcinoma of unknown primary (HNCUP). We sought to describe toxicity and quality of life (QOL) in patients with HNCUP treated with PRT. Patients and Methods: Toxicity and QOL were prospectively tracked in patients with HNCUP from 2011 to 2019 after institutional review board approval. Patients received PRT to the mucosa of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, and bilateral cervical lymph nodes with sparing of the larynx and hypopharynx. Patient-reported outcomes were tracked with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Head and Neck Module, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Head and Neck, the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory, and the Xerostomia-Related QOL Scale. Primary study endpoints were the incidence of grade ≥ 3 (G3) toxicity and QOL patterns. Results: Fourteen patients (median follow-up, 2 years) were evaluated. Most patients presented with human papillomavirus–positive disease (n = 12, 86%). Rates of G3 oral mucositis, xerostomia, and dermatitis were 7% (n = 1), 21% (n = 3), and 36% (n = 5), respectively. None required a gastrostomy. During PRT, QOL was reduced relative to baseline and recovered shortly after PRT. At 2 years after PRT, the local regional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 100% (among 7 patients at risk), 79% (among 6 patients at risk), and 90% (among 7 patients at risk), respectively. Conclusion: Therefore, PRT for HNCUP was associated with highly favorable dosimetric and clinical outcomes, including minimal oral mucositis, xerostomia, and dysphagia. Toxicity and QOL may be superior with PRT compared with conventional radiation therapy and PRT maintains equivalent oncologic control. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate late effects and cost-effectiveness.

Purpose: We evaluated the geometric and dosimetric-based distribution of mucosal and nodal recurrences in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to cervical lymph nodes of unknown primary after intensity modulated radiation therapy using validated typology-indicative taxonomy. Methods and Materials: We reviewed the data of 260 patients who were irradiated between 2000 and 2015 and had a median follow-up time for surviving patients of 61 months. The mucosal and nodal recurrences were manually delineated on computed tomography images demonstrating the recurrences. The images were overlaid on the treatment plan using deformable image registration. The locations of the recurrences were determined relative to the original planning target volumes and doses using centroid-based approaches. Subsequently, the pattern of failures were classified into 5 types based on combined spatial and dosimetric criteria: A (central high dose), B (peripheral high dose), C (central elective dose), D (peripheral elective dose), and E (extraneous dose). For patients with type A failure with simultaneous nontype A lesions, the overall pattern of failures was defined as type A. Results: Thirty-two patients had mucosal or nodal recurrences. The most common clinical nodal stage was N2b (66%). Preradiation therapy neck dissections were performed in 6 patients. The median dose delivered to clinical tumor volume 1 was 66 Gy. The majority (84%) had total/partial pharyngeal mucosa elective irradiation. Twenty-three patients had nodal recurrences, 8 had mucosal recurrences, and 1 had both nodal and mucosal recurrences. Twenty-one patients (91%) had type A nodal failure, and 7 of the mucosal failures (89%) were type C. Conclusions: The majority of nodal recurrences occurred within the high-dose area, demanding the need for identification of radioresistant areas within malignant nodes. Future studies should focus on either dose escalation of high-risk volumes or novel radiosensitizers.