OBJECTIVES: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) frequently encounter weight loss with multiple negative outcomes as a consequence. Adequate treatment is best achieved by early identification of patients at risk for critical weight loss. The objective of this study was to detect predictive factors for critical weight loss in patients with HNC receiving (chemo)radiotherapy ((C)RT).MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cohort study, 910 patients with HNC were included receiving RT (±surgery/concurrent chemotherapy) with curative intent. Body weight was measured at the start and end of (C)RT. Logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were used to analyse predictive factors for critical weight loss (defined as >5%) during (C)RT. Possible predictors included gender, age, WHO performance status, tumour location, TNM classification, treatment modality, RT technique (three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-RT) vs intensity-modulated RT (IMRT)), total dose on the primary tumour and RT on the elective or macroscopic lymph nodes.RESULTS: At the end of (C)RT, mean weight loss was 5.1±4.9%. Fifty percent of patients had critical weight loss during (C)RT. The main predictors for critical weight loss during (C)RT by both logistic and CART analyses were RT on the lymph nodes, higher RT dose on the primary tumour, receiving 3D-RT instead of IMRT, and younger age.CONCLUSION: Critical weight loss during (C)RT was prevalent in half of HNC patients. To predict critical weight loss, a practical prediction tree for adequate nutritional advice was developed, including the risk factors RT to the neck, higher RT dose, 3D-RT, and younger age.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess swallowing, mouth opening and speech function during the first year after radiation-based treatment (RT(+)) after introduction of a dedicated preventive rehabilitation program for stage III-IV oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC).METHODS: Swallowing, mouth opening and speech function were collected before and at six- and twelve-month follow-up after RT(+) for OPC as part of ongoing prospective assessments by speech-language pathologists .RESULTS: Objective and patient-perceived function deteriorated until 6 months and improved until 12 months after treatment, but did not return to baseline levels with 25%, 20% and 58% of the patients with objective dysphagia, trismus and speech problems, respectively. Feeding tube dependency and pneumonia prevalence was low.CONCLUSION: Despite successful implementation, a substantial proportion of patients still experience functional limitations after RT(+) for OPC, suggesting room for improvement of the current rehabilitation program. Pretreatment sarcopenia seems associated with worse functional outcomes and might be a relevant new target for rehabilitation strategies.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system.METHODS: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1-5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).RESULTS: In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min.CONCLUSIONS: MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.
