Prophylactic Swallowing Exercises in Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy.

Many head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors experience reduced quality of life due to radiotherapy (RT)-related dysphagia. The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to evaluate the impact of prophylactic swallowing exercises on swallowing-related outcomes in HNC patients treated with curative RT. Patients treated with primary RT for HNC were candidates for this randomized protocol. Participants in the exercise group were instructed to perform swallowing exercises at home. Participants in the control group were given standard care. Patients were evaluated with modified barium swallow and several other secondary outcome measures at four and nine different time points, respectively. Data were analyzed according to intention-to-treat analyses. A total of 44 consecutive patients were included; 22 in each group. In general, there was no difference between the two groups regarding any of the dysphagia outcomes during and after treatment. Adherence to exercises was poor and dropouts due to especially fatigue were very frequent in both groups. Systematic swallowing exercises had no impact on swallowing outcomes within the first year after RT. Despite repeated supervised sessions, adherence to exercises was a major issue and dropouts were frequent in both the intervention and control group.

Repeated deep-inspiration breath-hold CT scans at planning underestimate the actual motion between breath-holds at treatment for lung cancer and lymphoma patients.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) during radiotherapy may reduce dose to the lungs and heart compared to treatment in free breathing. However, intra-fractional target shifts between several breath-holds may decrease target coverage. We compared target shifts between four DIBHs at the planning-CT session with those measured on CBCT-scans obtained pre- and post-DIBH treatments. MATERIAL/METHODS: Twenty-nine lung cancer and nine lymphoma patients were treated in DIBH. An external gating block was used as surrogate for the DIBH-level with a window of 2 mm. Four DIBH CT-scans were acquired: one for planning (CTDIBH3) and three additional (CTDIBH1,2,4) to assess the intra-DIBH target shifts at scanning by registration to CTDIBH3. During treatment, pre-treatment (CBCTpre) and post-treatment (CBCTpost) scans were acquired. For each pair of CBCTpre/post, the target intra-DIBH shift was determined. For lung cancer, tumour (GTV-Tlung) and lymph nodes (GTV-Nlung) were analysed separately. Group mean (GM), systematic and random errors, and GM for the absolute maximum shifts (GMmax) were calculated for the shifts between CTDIBH1,2,3,4 and between CBCTpre/post. RESULTS: For GTV-Tlung, GMmax was larger at CBCT than CT in all directions. GMmax in cranio-caudal direction was 3.3 mm (CT)and 6.1 mm (CBCT). The standard deviations of the shifts in the left-right and cranio-caudal directions were larger at CBCT than CT. For GTV-Nlung and CTVlymphoma, no difference was found in GMmax or SD. CONCLUSION: Intra-DIBH shifts at planning-CT session are generally smaller than intra-DIBH shifts observed at CBCTpre/post and therefore underestimate the intra-fractional DIBH uncertainty during treatment. Lung tumours show larger intra-fractional variations than lymph nodes and lymphoma targets.

The Promise of Proton Beam Therapy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Dosimetric and Clinical Outcomes.

AIMS: Due to its physical advantages over photon radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has the potential to improve outcomes from oesophageal cancer. However, for many tumour sites, high-quality evidence supporting PBT use is limited. We carried out a systematic review of published literature of PBT in oesophageal cancer to ascertain potential benefits of this technology and to gauge the current state-of-the-art. We considered if further evaluation of this technology in oesophageal cancer is desirable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using structured search terms was carried out. Inclusion criteria included non-metastatic cancer, full articles and English language studies only. Articles deliberating technical aspects of PBT planning or delivery were excluded to maintain a clinical focus. Studies were divided into two sections: dosimetric and clinical studies; qualitatively synthesised. RESULTS: In total, 467 records were screened, with 32 included for final qualitative synthesis. This included two prospective studies with the rest based on retrospective data. There was heterogeneity in treatment protocols, including treatment intent (neoadjuvant or definitive), dose, fractionation and chemotherapy used. Compared with photon radiotherapy, PBT seemed to reduce dose to organs at risk, especially lung and heart, although not for all reported parameters. Toxicity outcomes, including postoperative complications, were reduced compared with photon radiotherapy. Survival outcomes were reported to be at least comparable with photon radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting PBT use in oesophageal cancer. Wide variation in intent and treatment protocols means that the role and 'gold-standard' treatment protocol are yet to be defined. Current literature suggests significant benefit in terms of toxicity reduction, especially in the postoperative period, with comparable survival outcomes. PBT in oesophageal cancer holds significant promise for improving patient outcomes but requires robust systematic evaluation in prospective studies.