Two-year results from a Swedish study on conventional versus accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma--the ARTSCAN study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies on accelerated fractionation (AF) in head and neck cancer have shown increased local control and survival compared with conventional fractionation (CF), while others have been non-conclusive. In 1998 a national Swedish group decided to perform a randomised controlled clinical study of AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with verified squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx (except glottic T1-T2, N0) and hypopharynx were included. Patients with prior chemotherapy or surgery were excluded. Patients were randomised to either CF (2Gy/day, 5days/week for 7 weeks, total dose 68Gy) or to AF (1.1Gy+2.0Gy/day, 5days/week for 4.5weeks, total dose 68Gy). An extensive quality assurance protocol was followed throughout the study. The primary end point was loco-regional tumour control (LRC) at two years after treatment. RESULTS: The study was closed in 2006 when 750 patients had been randomised. Eighty-three percent of the patients had stages III-IV disease. Forty eight percent had oropharyngeal, 21% laryngeal, 17% hypopharyngeal and 14% oral cancers. There were no significant differences regarding overall survival (OS) or LRC between the two regimens. The OS at two years was 68% for AF and 67% for CF. The corresponding figures for LRC were 71% and 67%, respectively. There was a trend towards improved LRC for oral cancers treated (p=0.07) and for large tumours (T3-T4) (p=0.07) treated with AF. The AF group had significantly worse acute reactions, while there was no significant increase in late effects. CONCLUSION: Overall the AF regimen did not prove to be more efficacious than CF. However, the trend towards improved results in AF for oral cancers needs to be further investigated.

The quality assurance process for the ARTSCAN head and neck study - a practical interactive approach for QA in 3DCRT and IMRT.

AIM: This paper describes the quality assurance (QA) work performed in the Swedish multicenter ARTSCAN (Accelerated RadioTherapy of Squamous cell CArcinomas in the head and Neck) trial to guarantee high quality in a multicenter study which involved modern radiotherapy such as 3DCRT or IMRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was closed in June 2006 with 750 randomised patients. Radiation therapy-related data for every patient were sent by each participating centre to the QA office where all trial data were reviewed, analysed and stored. In case of any deviation from the protocol, an interactive process was started between the QA office and the local responsible clinician and/or physicist to increase the compliance to the protocol for future randomised patients. Meetings and workshops were held on a regular basis for discussions on various trial-related issues and for the QA office to report on updated results. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This review covers the 734 patients out of a total of 750 who had entered the study. Deviations early in the study were corrected so that the overall compliance to the protocol was very high. There were only negligible variations in doses and dose distributions to target volumes for each specific site and stage. The quality of the treatments was high. Furthermore, an extensive database of treatment parameters was accumulated for future dose-volume vs. endpoint evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive QA programme increased the probability to draw firm conclusions from our study and may serve as a concept for QA work in future radiotherapy trials where comparatively small effects are searched for in a heterogeneous tumour population.

Phantom study of radiation doses outside the target volume brachytherapy versus external radiotherapy of early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brachytherapy is sometimes suggested as an adjuvant treatment after surgery of some tumours. When introducing this, it would be useful to have an estimate of the dose distribution to different body sites, both near and distant to target, comparing conventional external irradiation to brachytherapy. The aim of the present study was to determine radiation doses with both methods at different body sites, near and distant to target, in an experimental situation on an operated left sided breast cancer on a female Alderson phantom. METHODS: Five external beam treatments with isocentric tangential fields were given by a linear accelerator. A specified dose of 1.0 Gy was given to the whole left sided breast volume. Five interstitial brachytherapy treatments were given to the upper, lateral quadrant of the left breast by a two plane, 10 needles implant. A dose of 1.0 Gy specified according to the Paris system was administered by a pulsed dose rate afterloading machine. Absorbed dose in different fixed dose points were measured by thermoluminescence dosimeters. RESULTS: Both methods yielded an absorbed dose of the same size to the bone marrow and internal organs distant to target, 1.0-1.4% of the prescribed dose. There was a trend of lower doses to the lower half of the trunk and higher doses to the upper half of the trunk, respectively, by brachytherapy. A 90% reduction of absorbed dose with brachytherapy compared to external irradiation was found in the near-target region within 5 cm from target boundary where parts of the left lung and the heart are situated. If an adjuvant dose of 50 Gy is given with the external radiotherapy and brachytherapy, the absorbed dose in a part of the myocardium could be reduced from 31.8 to 2.1 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Near target, brachytherapy yielded a considerably lower absorbed dose which is of special importance when considering radiation effects on the myocard and lungs. We could not demonstrate any difference of importance, in absorbed dose to dose points distant to target.