Hypofractionation vs. conventional radiotherapy fractionation in the conservative treatment of T1 glottic cancer: a prospective cohort study.
Conservative treatment
Larynx cancer
Local control
Overall survival
Radiotherapy scheme
T1
Journal
Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico
ISSN: 1699-3055
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Oncol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101247119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
06
02
2019
accepted:
12
04
2019
pubmed:
4
6
2019
medline:
2
10
2020
entrez:
2
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Definitive radiotherapy is an effective single-modality in T1 glottic cancer. Hypofractionated schemes could offer excellent results in a shorter treatment period. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and toxicity comparing conventional vs. hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment in T1N0M0-glottic cancer. Between Jan-1st, 2005 and August-1st, 2017, in a prospective cohort study, with 10-year follow-up, 138 patients were treated with conventional schedule 2 Gy/day, total dose 70 Gy/7 weeks (N = 71) or hypofractionated schedule 2, 2-2, 25 Gy/day, total dose 63, 8-63 Gy/5, 5 weeks (N = 67). Endpoints were clinical-response rate, local relapse-free survival (LRFS), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), toxicity rates, relapse-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), second tumour-free survival (2TFS), and overall survival (OS). All patients showed a complete clinical response. No differences were found for LRFS (p = 0.869), LFS (p = 0.975), RFS (p = 0.767), MFS (p = 0.601), 2TFS (p = 0.293), or OS (p = 0.685). Acute toxicity for skin and mucosae was similar (p = 0.550 and p = 0.698). Acute laryngeal toxicity was higher in the hypofractionation group (p = 0.004), due to an increase in slight moderate grade. No differences in late laryngeal edema were found (p = 0.989). Radiotherapy offers high rate survival, local control, and larynx preservation after 5-10-year follow-up. A hypofractionation could be preferable, since it offers the same results as conventional with fewer treatment sessions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Definitive radiotherapy is an effective single-modality in T1 glottic cancer. Hypofractionated schemes could offer excellent results in a shorter treatment period. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and toxicity comparing conventional vs. hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment in T1N0M0-glottic cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
Between Jan-1st, 2005 and August-1st, 2017, in a prospective cohort study, with 10-year follow-up, 138 patients were treated with conventional schedule 2 Gy/day, total dose 70 Gy/7 weeks (N = 71) or hypofractionated schedule 2, 2-2, 25 Gy/day, total dose 63, 8-63 Gy/5, 5 weeks (N = 67). Endpoints were clinical-response rate, local relapse-free survival (LRFS), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), toxicity rates, relapse-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), second tumour-free survival (2TFS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
All patients showed a complete clinical response. No differences were found for LRFS (p = 0.869), LFS (p = 0.975), RFS (p = 0.767), MFS (p = 0.601), 2TFS (p = 0.293), or OS (p = 0.685). Acute toxicity for skin and mucosae was similar (p = 0.550 and p = 0.698). Acute laryngeal toxicity was higher in the hypofractionation group (p = 0.004), due to an increase in slight moderate grade. No differences in late laryngeal edema were found (p = 0.989).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Radiotherapy offers high rate survival, local control, and larynx preservation after 5-10-year follow-up. A hypofractionation could be preferable, since it offers the same results as conventional with fewer treatment sessions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31152306
doi: 10.1007/s12094-019-02118-7
pii: 10.1007/s12094-019-02118-7
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151-157Références
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Aug 1;98(5):1014-1021
pubmed: 28721883
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1341-6
pubmed: 7713792
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1235-8
pubmed: 11286828
Schweiz Med Wochenschr Suppl. 2000;116:18S-21S
pubmed: 10780064
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2000 Nov;257(9):512-6
pubmed: 11131380
Head Neck. 2003 Dec;25(12):1051-6
pubmed: 14648864
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Feb;150(2):237-44
pubmed: 24255085
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1982 Feb;8(2):219-26
pubmed: 7085377
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jan 1;64(1):77-82
pubmed: 16169681
Head Neck. 2015 Mar;37(3):340-6
pubmed: 24415515
Cancer Radiother. 2004 Oct;8(5):288-96
pubmed: 15561594
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jan;110(1):98-103
pubmed: 24161568
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Aug 1;39(1):115-26
pubmed: 9300746
Head Neck. 2002 Apr;24(4):390-4
pubmed: 11933181
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 May;150(5):818-23
pubmed: 24486784
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Dec;274(12):4091-4102
pubmed: 28929221
Am J Clin Oncol. 2010 Feb;33(1):94-5
pubmed: 19738453
Laryngoscope. 2011 Jan;121(1):116-34
pubmed: 21120828
Laryngoscope. 2005 Aug;115(8):1402-10
pubmed: 16094113
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Oct 15;19(20):4029-36
pubmed: 11600604
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Aug 02;45(1):42
pubmed: 27485726
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Oct 1;78(2):461-6
pubmed: 20153124
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Jul;270(7):2079-87
pubmed: 23568036
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Sep 30;27(2):379-84
pubmed: 8407413
Am J Otolaryngol. 2012 Jul-Aug;33(4):379-84
pubmed: 22133967
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Feb;90(2):177-82
pubmed: 18937990