Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of simultaneous integrated boost vs sequential intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer patients: A population-based propensity score-matched analysis.

ABSTRACT: There were 2 common radiotherapy dose fractionation strategies in head-and-neck cancer patients (such as oropharyngeal cancer [OPC] or hypopharyngeal cancer [HPC]) treated with radiotherapy: intensity-modulated radiotherapy using simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) and sequential IMRT (IMRT-SEQ). There is a lack of high-level clinical evidence to compare IMRT-SIB vs IMRT-SEQ specifically for OPC or HPC patients. The present study investigated the survival outcomes of OPC or HPC patients receiving definite concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with either IMRT-SIB or IMRT-SEQ via a population-based propensity score (PS)-based analysis.The localized stage OPC or HPC patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were identified based on the Health and Welfare Data Science Center database in Taiwan. These patients received definitive CCRT with either IMRT-SIB or IMRT-SEQ. We constructed a PS-matched cohort (1:1 for IMRT-SIB vs IMRT-SEQ) to balance observable potential confounders. We compared the hazard ratio (HR) of death between IMRT-SIB and IMRT-SEQ during the entire follow-up period. We also evaluated other disease outcome or subgroups.Our study population constituted 200 patients with well balance in observed covariables. The HR of death when IMRT-SIB was compared to IMRT-SEQ was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.80, P?=?.29). The results were similar for other disease outcome or subgroups.We found the survival outcome might be comparable for those treated with IMRT-SIB vs those treated with IMRT-SEQ.

SUBMITTER: Kuo YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6940180 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of simultaneous integrated boost vs sequential intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer patients: A population-based propensity score-matched analysis.

Kuo Yao-Hung YH Liang Ji-An JA Wang Tang-Chuan TC Juan Chun-Jung CJ Li Chia-Chin CC Chien Chun-Ru CR

Medicine 20191201 51

There were 2 common radiotherapy dose fractionation strategies in head-and-neck cancer patients (such as oropharyngeal cancer [OPC] or hypopharyngeal cancer [HPC]) treated with radiotherapy: intensity-modulated radiotherapy using simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) and sequential IMRT (IMRT-SEQ). There is a lack of high-level clinical evidence to compare IMRT-SIB vs IMRT-SEQ specifically for OPC or HPC patients. The present study investigated the survival outcomes of OPC or HPC patients rec ...[more]

PMID: 31861029

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) versus standard-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SD-IMRT) in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsFrom July 2003 to March 2014, 1748 patients in a single center who received definitive chemoradiotherapy were included in the analysis. A total of 109 patients who underwent SIB-IMRT and fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified as the study group. A total of 266 patients who underwent SD-IMRT (60 Gy/30 fractions, 2 Gy/fraction, 1 time/day, 5 times/week) during the same period were selected as the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Survival status, treatment failure mode, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were more women and more cervical and upper thoracic cancers (P = 0.038, < 0.001, respectively) in the SIB-IMRT group before case matching. The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the SD-IMRT and SIB-IMRT groups was 22 and 19 months, respectively, and the median overall survival duration was 24 and 22 months, respectively, with χ2 = 0.244 and P = 0.621. After PSM of 1:1, 138 patients entered the final analysis (69 cases from each group). The median PFS of the SD-IMRT group and the SIB-IMRT group was 13 and 18 months, respectively, with χ2 = 8.776 and P = 0.003. The 1‑, 3‑, and 5‑year overall survival rates were 66.7, 21.7, and 8.7% and 65.2, 36.2, and 27.3%, respectively, and the median overall survival duration was 16 and 22 months, respectively, with χ2 = 5.362 and P = 0.021. Treatment failure mode: 5‑year local regional recurrence rates of SD-IMRT and SIB-IMRT were 50.7 and 36.2%, respectively, with χ2 = 2.949 and P = 0.086. The 5‑year distant metastasis rates of the two groups were 36.2 and 24.6%, respectively, with χ2 = 2.190 and P = 0.139.Adverse events3 patients experienced grade 4-5 toxicity (2.2%), including one case of grade 4 radiation esophagitis and two cases of grade 5 radiation pneumonitis, all in the SD-IMRT group; 14 patients experienced grade 3 adverse events (10.1%), primarily including radiation esophagitis, radiation pneumonitis, and hematological toxicity.ConclusionThe technique of SIB-IMRT was safe and reliable compared with SD-IMRT. In addition, SIB-IMRT had locoregional control advantages and potential survival benefits.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to retrospectively explore the clinical implications of simultaneous intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) boost to the tumor bed in cervical cancer with full-thickness stromal invasion (FTSI).Patients and methodsPatients diagnosed with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with confirmed FTSI were included. Patients received pelvic IMRT from a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with (or without) a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to 58.8 Gy in 28 fractions for the tumor bed. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and pelvic-PFS (p-PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent prognostic factors were explored by Cox regression analyses.ResultsPatients without a tumor bed boost had a poor prognosis. The 5-year OS was 81.3% versus 58.3% and the 5-year PFS rates were 75.0% versus 57.6% (boost vs non-boost). The FIGO stage, pathology, adjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor bed boost were independent factors affecting both the 5-year OS and PFS. Subgroup analysis showed that the SIB group had a higher 5-year OS, PFS, and p-PFS for different stages, lymph node status, and risk groups than the non-SIB group. Recurrence occurred in 268 of 910 (29.5%) patients without SIB and 49 of 293 (16.7%) with SIB. Among patients with recurrence, 113 of 282 (40.1%) in the non-boost group compared with 14 of 51 (23.0%) patients in the boost group had a pelvic recurrence. Tumor bed boost resulted in an increase in the mean radiation dose to the intestine, rectum, and bladder, although there were no differences in the rates of acute and late toxicities between the 2 groups.ConclusionTumor bed boost by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an effective and safe method for patients with FTSI and risk factors. Compared with the standard prophylactic radiation, tumor bed boost by EBRT was not associated with increased acute and late toxicities.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of simultaneous integrated boost vs sequential intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer patients: A population-based propensity score-matched analysis.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of simultaneous integrated boost vs sequential intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer patients: A population-based propensity score-matched analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets