Variance in 3D anatomic localization of surgical margins based on conventional margin labeling in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: In head and neck cancer (HNC), positive margins are strongly predictive of treatment failure. We sought to measure the accuracy of localization of margin sampling sites based on conventional anatomic labels using a digital 3D-model. METHODS: Preoperative CT scans for 9 patients with HNC treated operatively at our institution were imported into a multiplanar radiology software, which was used to render a digital 3D model of each tumor intended to represent the resection specimen. Surgical margin labels recorded during the operative case were collected from pathology records. Margin labels (N = 64) were presented to participating physicians.Participants were asked to mark the anatomic location of each surgical margin using the 3D-model and corresponding radiographic planes for reference.For each individual margin, the 3D coordinates of each participant's marker were used to calculate a mean localization point called the geometric centroid. Mean distance from individual markers to the centroid was compared between participantsand margin types. RESULTS: Amongst 7 surgeons, markers were placed a mean distance of 12.6 mm ([SD] = 7.5) from the centroid.Deep margins were marked with a greater mean distance than mucosal/skin margins (19.6 [24.8] mm vs. 15.3 [14.9] mm, p = 0.034). When asked to relocate a margin following re-resection, surgeons marked a point an average of 20.6 [12.4] mm from their first marker with a range of 3.9- 45.1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective localization of conventionally labeled margins is an imprecise process with variability across the care team. Future interventions targeting margin documentation and communication may improve sampling precision.

Clinical Outcomes of Spatially Fractionated GRID Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Bulky Tumors of the Head and Neck.

Objectives The clinical outcomes of patients treated with spatially fractionated GRID radiotherapy (SFGRT) for bulky tumors of the head and neck at a single institution were evaluated retrospectively. Endpoints of interest included tumor response, symptom improvement, treatment tolerance, and adverse events. Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to study initiation. The institutional database was queried for patients with tumors of the head and neck treated with SFGRT between August 2007 and April 2015. Medical records of identified patients were reviewed for treatment details and clinical endpoints of interest. SFGRT was delivered in one fraction of 15 gray (Gy) or 20 Gy; 6 megavolt (MV) or 18 MV photon beams were passed through a multileaf collimator (MLC)-based or brass GRID template. All patients had a planned course of conventionally-fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to begin on the day following SFGRT delivery. Results Twenty-one consecutive patients meeting study criteria were identified. The most common tumor histology was squamous cell carcinoma. Median patient age was 59 years (range 13 - 83 years); median maximum tumor dimension was 9.5 centimeters (cm) (range 5.0 - 25.0 cm). Fifteen patients (71.4%) completed their full course of EBRT. Twelve patients were treated with palliative intent for local tumor symptoms, of which 54.5% experienced some degree of symptom improvement. Of nine patients treated with curative intent, 44.4% achieved a clinical complete response (CR). Concurrent chemotherapy was administered in 12 patients, with all patients being treated having definitively received chemotherapy. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade three or higher skin toxicity occurred in five patients; no grade five events were reported. Conclusions Our institutional experience suggests that SFGRT is a feasible treatment option for the palliative or definitive management of large tumors of the head and neck. In combination with EBRT, SFGRT can provide timely symptom management and improve patient quality of life in the palliative setting. In the definitive setting, the addition of chemotherapy to SFGRT and EBRT can result in an excellent clinical response. Treatment toxicity was found to be within an acceptable range. When considering SFGRT for patients with these challenging presentations, careful patient selection is needed to identify those who will likely tolerate a full course of EBRT following SFGRT, as these patients are most likely to receive maximal benefit from SFGRT treatment. More data on the feasibility and efficacy of this radiation modality will be helpful for continued optimization of SFGRT delivery and patient selection.