View in EDS

Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer – A case matched analysis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer – A case matched analysis.
Authors: Blanchard, Pierre1,2, Garden, Adam S.1, Gunn, G. Brandon1, Rosenthal, David I.1, Morrison, William H.1, Hernandez, Mike3, Crutison, Joseph1, Lee, Jack J.3, Ye, Rong3, Fuller, C. David1,4, Mohamed, Abdallah S.R.1,5, Hutcheson, Kate A.6, Holliday, Emma B.1, Thaker, Nikhil G.1, Sturgis, Erich M.6, Kies, Merrill S.7, Zhu, X. Ronald8, Mohan, Radhe8, Frank, Steven J.1 sjfrank@mdanderson.org
Source: Radiotherapy & Oncology. Jul2016, Vol. 120 Issue 1, p48-55. 8p.
Subjects: Oropharyngeal cancer, Intensity modulated radiotherapy, Radiation doses, Cancer patients, Cancer chemotherapy, Follow-up studies (Medicine), Cancer treatment
Abstract: Background Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities. Methods We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010–2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis. Results Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32 months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8 years for IMRT patients and 61.1 years for IMPT patients, p -value = 0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–2.50, p -value = 0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.41–2.54; p -value = 0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.24–1.15; p -value = 0.11 and OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.16–1.17; p -value = 0.10 at 3 months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.19–1.0; p -value = 0.05 at 3 months after treatment and OR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.07–0.73; p -value = 0.01 at 1 year after treatment. Conclusion Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Radiotherapy & Oncology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 117437686
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer – A case matched analysis.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Blanchard%2C+Pierre%22">Blanchard, Pierre</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Garden%2C+Adam+S%2E%22">Garden, Adam S.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gunn%2C+G%2E+Brandon%22">Gunn, G. Brandon</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rosenthal%2C+David+I%2E%22">Rosenthal, David I.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morrison%2C+William+H%2E%22">Morrison, William H.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hernandez%2C+Mike%22">Hernandez, Mike</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Crutison%2C+Joseph%22">Crutison, Joseph</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Jack+J%2E%22">Lee, Jack J.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ye%2C+Rong%22">Ye, Rong</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fuller%2C+C%2E+David%22">Fuller, C. David</searchLink><relatesTo>1,4</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mohamed%2C+Abdallah+S%2ER%2E%22">Mohamed, Abdallah S.R.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,5</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hutcheson%2C+Kate+A%2E%22">Hutcheson, Kate A.</searchLink><relatesTo>6</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holliday%2C+Emma+B%2E%22">Holliday, Emma B.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thaker%2C+Nikhil+G%2E%22">Thaker, Nikhil G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sturgis%2C+Erich+M%2E%22">Sturgis, Erich M.</searchLink><relatesTo>6</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kies%2C+Merrill+S%2E%22">Kies, Merrill S.</searchLink><relatesTo>7</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhu%2C+X%2E+Ronald%22">Zhu, X. Ronald</searchLink><relatesTo>8</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mohan%2C+Radhe%22">Mohan, Radhe</searchLink><relatesTo>8</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frank%2C+Steven+J%2E%22">Frank, Steven J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> sjfrank@mdanderson.org</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Radiotherapy+%26+Oncology%22">Radiotherapy & Oncology</searchLink>. Jul2016, Vol. 120 Issue 1, p48-55. 8p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oropharyngeal+cancer%22">Oropharyngeal cancer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intensity+modulated+radiotherapy%22">Intensity modulated radiotherapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Radiation+doses%22">Radiation doses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cancer+patients%22">Cancer patients</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cancer+chemotherapy%22">Cancer chemotherapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Follow-up+studies+%28Medicine%29%22">Follow-up studies (Medicine)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cancer+treatment%22">Cancer treatment</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background Owing to its physical properties, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) used for patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma has the ability to reduce the dose to organs at risk compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) while maintaining adequate tumor coverage. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two treatment modalities. Methods We performed a 1:2 matching of IMPT to IMRT patients. Our study cohort consisted of IMPT patients from a prospective quality of life study and consecutive IMRT patients treated at a single institution during the period 2010–2014. Patients were matched on unilateral/bilateral treatment, disease site, human papillomavirus status, T and N status, smoking status, and receipt of concomitant chemotherapy. Survival analyzes were performed using a Cox model and binary toxicity endpoints using a logistic regression analysis. Results Fifty IMPT and 100 IMRT patients were included. The median follow-up time was 32 months. There were no imbalances in patient/tumor characteristics except for age (mean age 56.8 years for IMRT patients and 61.1 years for IMPT patients, p -value = 0.010). Statistically significant differences were not observed in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–2.50, p -value = 0.44) or in progression-free survival (HR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.41–2.54; p -value = 0.96). The age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the presence of a gastrostomy (G)-tube during treatment for IMPT vs IMRT were OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.24–1.15; p -value = 0.11 and OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.16–1.17; p -value = 0.10 at 3 months after treatment. When considering the pre-planned composite endpoint of grade 3 weight loss or G-tube presence, the ORs were OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.19–1.0; p -value = 0.05 at 3 months after treatment and OR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.07–0.73; p -value = 0.01 at 1 year after treatment. Conclusion Our results suggest that IMPT is associated with reduced rates of feeding tube dependency and severe weight loss without jeopardizing outcome. Prospective multicenter randomized trials are needed to validate such findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Radiotherapy & Oncology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=117437686
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.05.022
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 48
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Oropharyngeal cancer
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intensity modulated radiotherapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Radiation doses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cancer patients
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cancer chemotherapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Follow-up studies (Medicine)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cancer treatment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer – A case matched analysis.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Blanchard, Pierre
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Garden, Adam S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gunn, G. Brandon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rosenthal, David I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morrison, William H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hernandez, Mike
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Crutison, Joseph
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, Jack J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ye, Rong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fuller, C. David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mohamed, Abdallah S.R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hutcheson, Kate A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holliday, Emma B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thaker, Nikhil G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sturgis, Erich M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kies, Merrill S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhu, X. Ronald
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mohan, Radhe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frank, Steven J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Text: Jul2016
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 01678140
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 120
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Radiotherapy & Oncology
              Type: main
ResultId 1