Ablation with low-dose radioiodine and thyrotropin alfa in thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether low-dose radioiodine (1.1 GBq [30 mCi]) is as effective as high-dose radioiodine (3.7 GBq [100 mCi]) for treating patients with differentiated thyroid cancer or whether the effects of radioiodine (especially at a low dose) are influenced by using either recombinant human thyrotropin (thyrotropin alfa) or thyroid hormone withdrawal. METHODS: At 29 centers in the United Kingdom, we conducted a randomized noninferiority trial comparing low-dose and high-dose radioiodine, each in combination with either thyrotropin alfa or thyroid hormone withdrawal before ablation. Patients (age range, 16 to 80 years) had tumor stage T1 to T3, with possible spread to nearby lymph nodes but without metastasis. End points were the rate of success of ablation at 6 to 9 months, adverse events, quality of life, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients underwent randomization; data could be analyzed for 421. Ablation success rates were 85.0% in the group receiving low-dose radioiodine versus 88.9% in the group receiving the high dose and 87.1% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 86.7% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal. All 95% confidence intervals for the differences were within ±10 percentage points, indicating noninferiority. Similar results were found for low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (84.3%) versus high-dose radioiodine plus thyroid hormone withdrawal (87.6%) or high-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (90.2%). More patients in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group were hospitalized for at least 3 days (36.3% vs. 13.0%, P<0.001). The proportions of patients with adverse events were 21% in the low-dose group versus 33% in the high-dose group (P=0.007) and 23% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 30% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal (P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa was as effective as high-dose radioiodine, with a lower rate of adverse events. (Funded by Cancer Research UK; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00415233.).

Thyroid cancer susceptibility polymorphisms: confirmation of loci on chromosomes 9q22 and 14q13, validation of a recessive 8q24 locus and failure to replicate a locus on 5q24.

Five single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with thyroid cancer (TC) risk have been reported: rs2910164 (5q24); rs6983267 (8q24); rs965513 and rs1867277 (9q22); and rs944289 (14q13). Most of these associations have not been replicated in independent populations and the combined effects of the SNPs on risk have not been examined. This study genotyped the five TC SNPs in 781 patients recruited through the TCUKIN study. Genotype data from 6122 controls were obtained from the CORGI and Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium studies. Significant associations were detected between TC and rs965513A (p=6.35×10(-34)), rs1867277A (p=5.90×10(-24)), rs944289T (p=6.95×10(-7)), and rs6983267G (p=0.016). rs6983267 was most strongly associated under a recessive model (P(GG vs GT + TT)=0.004), in contrast to the association of this SNP with other cancer types. However, no evidence was found of an association between rs2910164 and disease under any risk model (p>0.7). The rs1867277 association remained significant (p=0.008) after accounting for genotypes at the nearby rs965513 (p=2.3×10(-13)) and these SNPs did not tag a single high risk haplotype. The four validated TC SNPs accounted for a relatively large proportion (∼11%) of the sibling relative risk of TC, principally owing to the large effect size of rs965513 (OR 1.74).

The quantitative impact of joint peer review with a specialist radiologist in head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning.

OBJECTIVES: Radiologist input in peer review of head and neck radiotherapy has been introduced as a routine departmental approach. The aim was to evaluate this practice and to quantitatively analyse the changes made. METHODS: Patients treated with radical-dose radiotherapy between August and November 2020 were reviewed. The incidence of major and minor changes, as defined by The Royal College of Radiologists guidance, was prospectively recorded. The amended radiotherapy volumes were compared with the original volumes using Jaccard Index (JI) to assess conformity; Geographical Miss Index (GMI) for undercontouring; and Hausdorff Distance (HD) between the volumes. RESULTS: In total, 73 out of 87 (84%) patients were discussed. Changes were recommended in 38 (52%) patients: 30 had ≥1 major change, eight had minor changes only. There were 99 amended volumes: The overall median JI, GMI and HD was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.80-0.97), 0.06 (IQR = 0.02-0.18) and 0.42 cm (IQR = 0.20-1.17 cm), respectively. The nodal gross-tumour-volume (GTVn) and therapeutic high-dose nodal clinical-target-volume (CTVn) had the biggest magnitude of changes: The median JI, GMI and HD of GTVn was 0.89 (IQR = 0.44-0.95), 0.11 (IQR = 0.05-0.51), 3.71 cm (IQR = 0.31-6.93 cm); high-dose CTVn was 0.78 (IQR = 0.59-0.90), 0.20 (IQR = 0.07-0.31) and 3.28 cm (IQR = 1.22-6.18 cm), respectively. There was no observed difference in the quantitative indices of the 85 'major' and 14 'minor' volumes (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Routine head and neck radiologist input in radiotherapy peer review is feasible and can help avoid gross error in contouring. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The major and minor classifications may benefit from differentiation with quantitative indices but requires correlation from clinical outcomes.

Results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of cochlear-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with parotid cancer (COSTAR; CRUK/08/004).

PURPOSE: About 40-60% of patients treated with post-operative radiotherapy for parotid cancer experience ipsilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce radiation dose to the cochlea. COSTAR, a phase III trial, investigated the role of cochlear-sparing IMRT (CS-IMRT) in reducing hearing loss. METHODS: Patients (pT1-4 N0-3 M0) were randomly assigned (1:1) to 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or CS-IMRT by minimisation, balancing for centre and radiation dose of 60Gy or 65Gy in 30 daily fractions. The primary end-point was proportion of patients with sensorineural hearing loss in the ipsilateral cochlea of ≥10 dB bone conduction at 4000 Hz 12 months after radiotherapy compared using Fisher's exact test. Secondary end-points included hearing loss at 6 and 24 months, balance assessment, acute and late toxicity, patient-reported quality of life, time to recurrence and survival. RESULTS: From Aug 2008 to Feb 2013, 110 patients (54 3DCRT; 56 CS-IMRT) were enrolled from 22 UK centres. Median doses to the ipsilateral cochlea were 3DCRT: 56.2Gy and CS-IMRT: 35.7Gy (p < 0.0001). 67/110 (61%) patients were evaluable for the primary end-point; main reasons for non-evaluability were non-attendance at follow-up or incomplete audiology assessment. At 12 months, 14/36 (39%) 3DCRT and 11/31 (36%) CS-IMRT patients had ≥10 dB loss (p = 0.81). No statistically significant differences were observed in hearing loss at 6 or 24 months or in other secondary end-points including patient-reported hearing outcomes. CONCLUSION: CS-IMRT reduced the radiation dose below the accepted tolerance of the cochlea, but this did not lead to a reduction in the proportion of patients with clinically relevant hearing loss.

Potential novel application of dual time point SUV measurements as a predictor of survival in head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential of pre-treatment dual time point [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) as a tool for improving the assessment of head and neck cancer. Two main areas were investigated: (a) optimum time to start FDG scanning post-injection and (b) potential of SUV obtained from dual time point scanning as a prognostic indicator of survival. METHODS: Twelve patients with advanced head and neck cancer were prospectively studied. Each patient was scanned using a Siemen's Ecat Exact-47 PET scanner at 1 h and 2 h post-injection. Maximum tumour uptake (SUVt) and ratio of maximum tumour/normal tissue uptake (SUVt/n) were recorded. The optimal time to initiate scanning was investigated by comparing SUVt and SUVt/n with the decision made by two experienced observers as to which scan they preferred to report from, given the choice of the 1 h and 2 h scan in each patient. RESULTS: A significant difference between 1 h and 2 h SUVt (P<0.004, paired t-test) and between 1 h and 2 h SUVt/n (P<0.0003, paired t-test) was observed. All 2 h SUVt and SUVt/n were greater in magnitude than their respective 1 h SUVt and SUVt/n counterparts. The two observers reported an identical number of lesions from the 1 h and 2 h scans but preferred the 2 h data. CONCLUSIONS: Tumour stage and the percentage difference in 1 h and 2 h SUVt showed potential as prognostic indicators of long-term survival.

The potential advantages of (18)FDG PET/CT-based target volume delineation in radiotherapy planning of head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: This study investigated two fixed threshold methods to delineate the target volume using (18)FDG PET/CT before and during a course of radical radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled into the study between March 2006 and May 2008. (18)FDG PET/CT scans were carried out 72h prior to the start of radiotherapy and then at 10, 44 and 66Gy. Functional volumes were delineated according to the SUV Cut Off (SUVCO) (2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0bwg/ml) and percentage of the SUVmax (30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, and 50%) thresholds. The background (18)FDG uptake and the SUVmax within the volumes were also assessed. RESULTS: Primary and lymph node volumes for the eight patients significantly reduced with each increase in the delineation threshold (for example 2.5-3.0bwg/ml SUVCO) compared to the baseline threshold at each imaging point. There was a significant reduction in the volume (p⩽0.0001-0.01) after 36Gy compared to the 0Gy by the SUVCO method. There was a negative correlation between the SUVmax within the primary and lymph node volumes and delivered radiation dose (p⩽0.0001-0.011) but no difference in the SUV within the background reference region. The volumes delineated by the PTSUVmax method increased with the increase in the delivered radiation dose after 36Gy because the SUVmax within the region of interest used to define the edge of the volume was equal or less than the background (18)FDG uptake and the software was unable to effectively differentiate between tumour and background uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in the target volumes delineated by the SUVCO method were less susceptible to background (18)FDG uptake compared to those delineated by the PTSUVmax and may be more helpful in radiotherapy planning. The best method and threshold have still to be determined within institutions, both nationally and internationally.