Acute toxicities in proton therapy for head and neck cancer - A matched analysis of the DAHANCA 35 feasibility study.

Acute toxicities Head and neck cancer Proton therapy

Journal

Clinical and translational radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6308
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101713416

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 21 04 2024
revised: 30 07 2024
accepted: 30 07 2024
medline: 27 8 2024
pubmed: 27 8 2024
entrez: 27 8 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

As preparation for a national randomized study comparing proton radiotherapy to photon radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35, we performed a non-randomized pilot study to investigate patient selection, logistics, planning, and treatment delivery. With the present study, as a comprehensive safety analysis, we want to compare toxicity during and up to two months after therapy to a historically matched group of patients treated with photon radiotherapy. 62 patients treated with protons were matched to 124 patients who received photon treatment outside a protocol. Available data were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. Patients were matched on treatment centre, concurrent chemotherapy, tumour site, stage, p16 status for oropharynx cancers. Selection of patients for proton therapy was based on comparative treatment plans with a NTCP reduction for dysphagia and xerostomia at six months. Baseline characteristics between groups were well balanced, except for the type of drug used concurrently; more photon patients received Carboplatin (21.2 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.01). Proton therapy was associated with significantly less weight loss at the end of treatment, mean weight loss of 3 % for protons and 5 % for photons (p < 0.001). There were more grade 3 skin reactions and grade 3 mucositis after proton treatment compared with photons at the end of treatment, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.01-3.5, p = 0.04) and RR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.3-1.7, p < 0.001), respectively. All differences resolved at follow up two months after treatment. There were no significant differences between groups on opioid use, use of feeding tubes, or hospitalization during the observation period. Proton treatment resulted in excess objective mucositis and dermatitis, which was transient and did not seem to negatively influence weight or treatment compliance and intensity. Selection bias was likely especially since NTCP models were used for selection of proton treatment and photon treated patients were matched manually. We are currently including patients in a randomized controlled trial.

Sections du résumé

Background and purpose UNASSIGNED
As preparation for a national randomized study comparing proton radiotherapy to photon radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35, we performed a non-randomized pilot study to investigate patient selection, logistics, planning, and treatment delivery. With the present study, as a comprehensive safety analysis, we want to compare toxicity during and up to two months after therapy to a historically matched group of patients treated with photon radiotherapy.
Materials and methods UNASSIGNED
62 patients treated with protons were matched to 124 patients who received photon treatment outside a protocol. Available data were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. Patients were matched on treatment centre, concurrent chemotherapy, tumour site, stage, p16 status for oropharynx cancers. Selection of patients for proton therapy was based on comparative treatment plans with a NTCP reduction for dysphagia and xerostomia at six months.
Results UNASSIGNED
Baseline characteristics between groups were well balanced, except for the type of drug used concurrently; more photon patients received Carboplatin (21.2 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.01). Proton therapy was associated with significantly less weight loss at the end of treatment, mean weight loss of 3 % for protons and 5 % for photons (p < 0.001). There were more grade 3 skin reactions and grade 3 mucositis after proton treatment compared with photons at the end of treatment, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.01-3.5, p = 0.04) and RR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.3-1.7, p < 0.001), respectively. All differences resolved at follow up two months after treatment. There were no significant differences between groups on opioid use, use of feeding tubes, or hospitalization during the observation period.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Proton treatment resulted in excess objective mucositis and dermatitis, which was transient and did not seem to negatively influence weight or treatment compliance and intensity. Selection bias was likely especially since NTCP models were used for selection of proton treatment and photon treated patients were matched manually. We are currently including patients in a randomized controlled trial.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39189000
doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100835
pii: S2405-6308(24)00112-5
pmc: PMC11345689
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100835

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

K Nowicka-Matus (K)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

J Friborg (J)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

C R Hansen (CR)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

M Bernsdorf (M)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

U V Elstrøm (UV)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

M Farhadi (M)

Dept of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark.

C Grau (C)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

J G Eriksen (JG)

Dept of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

J Johansen (J)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

M S Nielsen (MS)

Dept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

A Holm (A)

Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

E Samsøe (E)

Dept of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark.

P Sibolt (P)

Dept of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.

B Smulders (B)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

K Jensen (K)

Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Classifications MeSH