Accelerated Hyperfractionated Radiotherapy versus Conventional Fractionation Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhu B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6914880 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Accelerated Hyperfractionated Radiotherapy versus Conventional Fractionation Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Zhu Bo B Kou Changgui C Bai Wei W Yu Weiying W Zhang Lili L Yu Xiao X Xu Wen W Wang Huanhuan H Xin Ying Y Jiang Xin X
Journal of oncology 20191128
<h4>Objective</h4>The benefits of accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy (HART) and conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) in the treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) remain controversial. In this study, we analyzed the therapeutic effects of these two treatment regimens to explore whether HART can improve the overall survival (OS) rate and locoregional control (LRC) rate in patients with HNC.<h4>Methods</h4>The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (C ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFormer meta-analyses have shown a survival benefit for the addition of chemotherapy (CHX) to radiotherapy (RT) and to some extent also for the use of hyperfractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) and accelerated radiation therapy (AFRT) in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck. However, the publication of new studies and the fact that many older studies that were included in these former meta-analyses used obsolete radiation doses, CHX schedules or study designs prompted us to carry out a new analysis using strict inclusion criteria.MethodsRandomised trials testing curatively intended RT (> or =60 Gy in >4 weeks/>50 Gy in <4 weeks) on SCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx published as full paper or in abstract form between 1975 and 2003 were eligible. Trials comparing RT alone with concurrent or alternating chemoradiation (5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, carboplatin, mitomycin C) were analyzed according to the employed radiation schedule and the used CHX regimen. Studies comparing conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) with either HFRT or AFRT without CHX were separately examined. End point of the meta-analysis was overall survival.ResultsThirty-two trials with a total of 10 225 patients were included into the meta-analysis. An overall survival benefit of 12.0 months was observed for the addition of simultaneous CHX to either CFRT or HFRT/AFRT (p < 0.001). Separate analyses by cytostatic drug indicate a prolongation of survival of 24.0 months, 16.8 months, 6.7 months, and 4.0 months, respectively, for the simultaneous administration of 5-FU, cisplatin-based, carboplatin-based, and mitomycin C-based CHX to RT (each p < 0.01). Whereas no significant gain in overall survival was observed for AFRT in comparison to CFRT, a substantial prolongation of median survival (14.2 months, p < 0.001) was seen for HFRT compared to CFRT (both without CHX).ConclusionRT combined with simultaneous 5-FU, cisplatin, carboplatin, and mitomycin C as single drug or combinations of 5-FU with one of the other drugs results in a large survival advantage irrespective the employed radiation schedule. If radiation therapy is used as single modality, hyperfractionation leads to a significant improvement of overall survival. Accelerated radiation therapy alone, especially when given as split course radiation schedule or extremely accelerated treatments with decreased total dose, does not increase overall survival.
| S-EPMC1379652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Based on the assumption that an accelerated proliferation process prevails in tumour cell residues after surgery, the possibility that treatment acceleration would offer a therapeutic advantage in postoperative radiotherapy of locally advanced head and neck cancer was investigated. The value of T(pot) in predicting the treatment outcome and in selecting patients for accelerated fractionation was tested. Seventy patients with (T2/N1-N2) or (T3-4/any N) squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx and hypopharynx who underwent radical surgery, were randomized to either (a) accelerated hyperfractionation: 46.2 Gy per 12 days, 1.4 Gy per fraction, three fractions per day with 6 h interfraction interval, treating 6 days per week or (b) Conventional fractionation: 60 Gy per 6 weeks, 2 Gy per fraction, treating 5 days per week. The 3-year locoregional control rate was significantly better in the accelerated hyperfractionation (88 +/- 4%) than in the CF (57+/- 9%) group, P=0.01 (and this was confirmed by multivariate analysis), but the difference in survival (60 +/- 10% vs 46 +/- 9%) was not significant (P=0.29). The favourable influence of a short treatment time was further substantiated by demonstrating the importance of the gap between surgery and radiotherapy and the overall treatment time between surgery and end of radiotherapy. Early mucositis progressed more rapidly and was more severe in the accelerated hyperfractionation group; reflecting a faster rate of dose accumulation. Xerostomia was experienced by all patients with a tendency to be more severe after accelerated hyperfractionation. Fibrosis and oedema also tended to be more frequent after accelerated hyperfractionation and probably represent consequential reactions. T(pot) showed a correlation with disease-free survival in a univariate analysis but did not prove to be an independent factor. Moreover, the use of the minimum and corrected P-values did not identify a significant cut-off. Compared to conventional fractionation, accelerated hyperfractionation did not seem to offer a survival advantage in fast tumours though a better local control rate was noted. This limits the use of T(pot) as a guide for selecting patients for accelerated hyperfractionation. For slowly growing tumours, tumour control and survival probabilities were not significantly different in the conventional fractionation and accelerated hyperfractionation groups. A rapid tumour growth was associated with a higher risk of distant metastases (P=0.01). In conclusion, tumour cell repopulation seems to be an important determinant of postoperative radiotherapy of locally advanced head and neck cancer despite lack of a definite association between T(pot) and treatment outcome. In fast growing tumours accelerated hyperfractionation provided an improved local control but without a survival advantage. To gain a full benefit from treatment acceleration, the surgery-radiotherapy gap and the overall treatment time should not exceed 6 and 10 weeks respectively.
| S-EPMC2375281 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeIn lung cancer, randomized trials assessing hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy seem to yield conflicting results regarding the effects on overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer Collaborative Group decided to address the role of modified radiotherapy fractionation.Material and methodsWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer, which included trials comparing modified radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy.ResultsIn non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 10 trials, 2,000 patients), modified fractionation improved OS as compared with conventional schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97; P = .009), resulting in an absolute benefit of 2.5% (8.3% to 10.8%) at 5 years. No evidence of heterogeneity between trials was found. There was no evidence of a benefit on PFS (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.03; P = .19). Modified radiotherapy reduced deaths resulting from lung cancer (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = .02), and there was a nonsignificant reduction of non-lung cancer deaths (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.15; P = .33). In small-cell lung cancer (SCLC; two trials, 685 patients), similar results were found: OS, HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.02, P = .08; PFS, HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03, P = .11. In both NSCLC and SCLC, the use of modified radiotherapy increased the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.44 in NSCLC and OR = 2.41 in SCLC; P < .001) but did not have an impact on the risk of other acute toxicities.ConclusionPatients with nonmetastatic NSCLC derived a significant OS benefit from accelerated or hyperfractionated radiotherapy; a similar but nonsignificant trend was observed for SCLC. As expected, there was increased acute esophageal toxicity.
| S-EPMC4934452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials.MethodsFor this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival.FindingsComparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90-0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3-4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (-0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74-0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (-0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5·8% (-11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of -5·1% (-13·0 to 2·8).InterpretationThis update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested.FundingInstitut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.
| S-EPMC5737765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radical radiotherapy plays a major role in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to the fact that many patients are medically or surgically inoperable. Advances in technology and radiotherapy delivery allow targeted treatment of the disease, whilst minimizing the dose to organs at risk. This in turn creates an opportunity for dose escalation and the prospect of tailoring radiotherapy treatment to each patient. This is especially important in patients deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy or surgery, where there is a need to increase the therapeutic gain from radical radiotherapy alone. Recent research into fractionation schedules, with hyperfractionated and accelerated radiotherapy regimes has been promising. How to combine these new fractionated schedules with dose escalation and chemotherapy remains open to debate and there is local, national and international variation in management with a lack of overall consensus. An overview of the current literature on hyperfractionated and accelerated radiotherapy in NSCLC is provided.
| S-EPMC3968558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without affected lymph nodes detected at staging, surgical resection is still the mainstay of treatment. However, in patients with metastatic mediastinal lymph nodes (pN2) or non-radically resected primary tumors (R1/R2), postoperative radiotherapy (possibly combined with chemotherapy) is indicated. So far, investigations about time factors affecting postoperative radiotherapy have only examined the waiting time defined as interval between surgery and start of radiotherapy, but not the overall treatment time (OTT) itself. Conversely, results from trials on primary radio(chemo)therapy in NSCLC show that longer OTT correlates with significantly worse local tumor control and overall survival rates. This time factor of primary radio(chemo)therapy is thought to mainly be based on repopulation of surviving tumor cells between irradiation fractions. It remains to be elucidated if such an effect also occurs when patients with NSCLC are treated with postoperative radiotherapy after surgery (and chemotherapy). Our own retrospective data suggest an advantage of shorter OTT also for postoperative radiotherapy in this patient group.This is a multicenter, prospective randomized trial investigating whether an accelerated course of postoperative radiotherapy with photons or protons (7 fractions per week, 2 Gy fractions) improves locoregional tumor control in NSCLC patients in comparison to conventional fractionation (5 fractions per week, 2 Gy fractions). Target volumes and total radiation doses will be stratified in both treatment arms based on individual risk factors.For the primary endpoint of the study we postulate an increase in local tumor control from 70% to 85% after 36 months. Secondary endpoints are overall survival of patients; local recurrence-free and distant metastases-free survival after 36 months; acute and late toxicity and quality of life for both treatment methods.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02189967 . Registered on 22 May 2014.
| S-EPMC5738814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a promising approach in treating painful bone metastases. However, the superiority of SBRT over conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) remains controversial. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted to compare SBRT and cEBRT for the treatment of bone metastases.MethodsA search was conducted using PubMed on January 22, 2022, with the following inclusion criteria: (i) randomised controlled trials comparing SBRT with cEBRT for bone metastases and (ii) endpoint including pain response. Effect sizes across studies were pooled using random-effects models in a meta-analysis of risk ratios.ResultsA total of 1246 articles were screened, with 7 articles comprising 964 patients (522 and 442 patients in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively) meeting the inclusion criteria. The overall pain response (OR) rates of bone metastases at 3 months were 45% and 36% in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively. The present analyses showed no significant difference between the two groups. In four studies included for the calculation of OR rates of spinal metastases at three months, the OR rates were 40% and 35% in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of severe adverse effects and health-related quality of life outcomes were comparable between the two arms.ConclusionsThe superiority of SBRT over cEBRT for pain palliation in bone metastases was not confirmed in this meta-analysis. Although SBRT is a standard of care for bone metastases, patients receiving SBRT should be selected appropriately.
| S-EPMC9472415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundXerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia.MethodsWe undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1-4, N0-3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537.Findings47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0-59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56-87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23-55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23-61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55-89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63-95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14-48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival.InterpretationSparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck.FundingCancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).
| S-EPMC3033533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveNeck dissection is the most definitive and effective treatment for head and neck cancer. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy and surgical outcomes of neck dissection between the harmonic scalpel and conventional surgical techniques and conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of the randomized trials.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) using the keywords ''harmonic scalpel'' and ''neck dissection,'' and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. The operative time and intraoperative bleeding were the primary outcome measures, and other parameters assessed included the drainage fluid volume and length of hospital stay.ResultsSeven trials that met the inclusion criteria included 406 neck dissection cases (201 in the harmonic scalpel group). Compared with conventional surgical techniques, the HS group had an operative time that was significantly reduced by 29.3 minutes [mean difference: -29.29; 95% CI = (-44.26, -14.32); P=0.0001], a reduction in intraoperative bleeding by 141.1 milliliters [mean difference: -141.13; 95% CI = (-314.99, 32.73); P=0.11], and a reduction in drainage fluid volume by 64.9 milliliters [mean difference: -64.86; 95% CI = (-110.40, -19.32); P=0.005] , but it is not significant after removal of studies driving heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay [mean difference: -0.21; 95% CI = (-0.48, 0.07); P=0.14].ConclusionThis systematic review showed that using the harmonic scalpel for neck dissection significantly reduces the operative time and drainage fluid volume and that it is not associated with an increased length of hospital stay or perioperative complications. Therefore, the harmonic scalpel method is safe and effective for neck dissection. However, the statistical heterogeneity was high. Further studies are required to substantiate our findings.
| S-EPMC4498925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe standard treatment for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is radiotherapy, although conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) may not be in the best interest of the patient. Instead, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) may shorten the treatment period and reduce related costs for this treatment, which is typically palliative in nature.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated survival outcomes among patients who received HFRT or CFRT for DIPG. The PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Overall survival was the primary outcome of interest and progression-free survival was the secondary outcome of interest.ResultsThe search identified a total of 2376 reports, although only 4 reports were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The studies included 88 patients who underwent HFRT and 96 patients who underwent CFRT. Relative to CFRT, HFRT provided comparable outcomes in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-1.47) and progression-free survival (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75-1.45).ConclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that CFRT and HFRT provide similar survival outcomes for patients with DIPG.
| S-EPMC7571996 | biostudies-literature