Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 117, Issue 4, pp 715–724 | Cite as

A benchmark study on 883 nasopharyngeal cancer patients treated in two Italian Centres from 1977 to 2000. Part II: evolving technical choices and toxicity patterns

  • S. M. Magrini
  • S. Tonoli
  • L. CostaEmail author
  • N. Pasinetti
  • F. Paiar
  • L. Livi
  • G. Simontacchi
  • I. Meattini
  • L. Pegurri
  • P. Borghetti
  • P. Frata
  • P. Ponticelli
  • M. Buglione
  • G. Biti
Radiotherapy / Radioterapia

Abstract

Purpose

The authors sought to define toxicity patterns according to the different accrual periods and clinical-therapeutic features in a large series of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients treated in two Italian centres over more than two decades.

Materials and methods

A total of 883 patients consecutively treated with radiotherapy from 1977 to 2000 at the Florence (FLO) and Brescia (IRA) radiation oncology centres were studied. The crude incidence of late treatment toxicity in the different subgroups of patients was calculated and compared.

Results

Higher total and fractional doses and the “older” treatment techniques were related with an increased incidence of the main late effects of treatment. More recently treated patients experienced less treatment-related complications.

Conclusions

Results of this benchmark study may have implications for understanding and developing new radiotherapy techniques, such as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and, in particular, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for NPC patients.

Keywords

Nasopharyngeal cancer Radiotherapy Treatment techniques Complications Patterns of care 

Uno studio di riferimento su 883 pazienti affetti da neoplasia della rinofaringe trattati in due Centri italiani dal 1977 al 2000. Parte II: evoluzione delle scelte tecniche e tossicità

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Lo scopo di questo studio è definire i modelli di tossicità di una vasta serie di pazienti affetti da neoplasie della rinofaringe (NPC), trattati in due centri italiani per oltre un ventennio, secondo i diversi periodi di reclutamento e le caratteristiche cliniche dei pazienti.

Materiali e metodi

Sono stati studiati 883 pazienti consecutivamente trattati con radioterapia dal 1977 2000 a Firenze (FLO, Florence) e Brescia (IRA, Istituto del Radio Alberti). La incidenza assoluta dei danni tardivi da trattamento è stata calcolata e confrontata per i vari sottogruppi di pazienti.

Risultati

Dosi totali e per frazione più elevate e le tecniche di trattamento più datate sono correlate ad un aumento dell’incidenza dei principali effetti tardivi del trattamento radioterapico. I pazienti trattati più recentemente hanno manifestato meno complicazioni legate al trattamento.

Conclusioni

I risultati di questo studio di riferimento potrebbero avere implicazioni anche per la comprensione e lo sviluppo delle nuove tecniche radioterapiche, come la radioterapia tridimensionale conformazionale (3DCRT) e specialmente la radioterapia a modulazione d’intensità (IMRT).

Parole chiave

Neoplasia della nasofaringe Radioterapia Tecniche di trattamento Complicanze Terapie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References/Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Chao KSC, Perez CA (2004) Nasopharynx. In: Perez CA (ed) Principles and practice of radiation oncology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 918–961Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    UICC (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cellai E, Olmi P, Chiavacci A et al (1990) Computed tomography in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Part II: Impact on survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19:1177–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petrovich Z, Cox JD, Roswit B et al (1982) Advanced carcinoma of the nasopharynx. A clinical study of 274 patients. Radiology 144:905–908PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee AWM, Law SCK, Ng SH et al (1992) Retrospective analysis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated during 1976–1985: late complications following megavoltage irradiation. Br J Radiol 65:918–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanguineti G, Geara FB, Garden AS et al (1997) Carcinoma of the nasopharynx treated by radiotherapy alone: determinants of local and regional control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:985–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perez CA, Devineni VR, Marcial-Vega V et al (1992) Carcinoma of the nasopharynx: factors affecting prognosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23:271–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pow EH, Kwong DL, Mac Millan AS et al (2006) Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs conventional radiotherapy for early stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:981–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cengiz M, Chao KSC, Perez CA (2000) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy yields superior therapeutic outcome than conventional techniques with or without chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48(Suppl 3):325Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parliament MB, Scrimger RA, Anderson SG et al (2004) Preservation of oral health-related quality of life and salivary flow rates after inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:663–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graff P, Lapeyre M, Desandes E et al (2007) Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: matched-pair comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:1309–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsiung CY, Ting HM, Huang HY et al (2006) Parotid-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: preserved parotid function after IMRT on quantitative salivary scintigraphy, and comparison with historical data after conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:454–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ng MK, Porceddu SV, Milner AD et al (2005) Parotid-sparing radiotherapy: does it really reduce xerostomia? Clin Oncol 17:610–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cengiz M, Ozyar E, Esassolak M et al (2005) Assessment of quality of life of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients with EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N-35 modules. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:1347–1353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ben-David MA, Diamante M, Radawski JD et al (2007) Lack of osteoradionecrosis of the mandibole after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: likely contributions of both dental care and improved dose distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:396–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ringash J, Warde P, Lockwood G et al (2005) Postradiotherapy quality of life for head-and-neck cancer patients is independent of xerostomia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:1403–1407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Butler EB, Teh BS, Grant WH et al (1999) SMART (simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy) boost: a new accelerated fractionation schedule for the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:21–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dogan N, King S, Emami B et al (2003) Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:1480–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee S-W, Back GM, Yong B et al (2006) Preliminary results of a phase I/II study of simultaneous modulated accelerated radiotherapy for nondisseminated nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:152–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ang KK, Garden AS (2006) Radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 918–961Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fang FM, Tsai WL, Chen HC et al (2007) Intensity-modulated or conformal radiotherapy improves the quality of life of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparisons of four radiotherapy techniques. Cancer 109:313–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Magrini
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Tonoli
    • 1
  • L. Costa
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. Pasinetti
    • 1
  • F. Paiar
    • 3
  • L. Livi
    • 3
    • 4
  • G. Simontacchi
    • 3
  • I. Meattini
    • 3
  • L. Pegurri
    • 1
  • P. Borghetti
    • 1
  • P. Frata
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Ponticelli
    • 5
  • M. Buglione
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Biti
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Istituto del Radio “O. Alberti”Spedali CiviliBresciaItaly
  2. 2.RadioterapiaUniversità degli Studi di BresciaBresciaItaly
  3. 3.RadioterapiaOspedale CareggiFirenzeItaly
  4. 4.Università degli Studi di FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  5. 5.RadioterapiaOspedale di ArezzoArezzoItaly

Personalised recommendations