Prospective assessment of sparing the parotid ducts via MRI sialography for reducing patient reported xerostomia.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of prospectively sparing the parotid ducts via MRI sialography on patient reported xerostomia for those receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT) for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-eight patients with oropharynx cancer to be treated with definitive RT underwent pre-treatment MRI sialograms to localize their parotid ducts. The parotid ducts were maximally spared during treatment planning. Patients reported symptoms (PRO-CTCAE and QLQ-H&N35) were collected at 6 and 12 months post-RT and compared to a historical cohort who underwent conventional parotid gland mean dose sparing. Regression models were generated using parotid and submandibular gland doses with and without incorporating the dose to the parotid ducts to determine the impact of parotid duct dose on patient reported xerostomia. RESULTS: At 6 months post-RT, 12/26 (46%) patients reported ≥moderate xerostomia when undergoing parotid ductal sparing compared to 43/61 (70%) in the historical cohort (p = 0.03). At 12 months post-RT, 8/22 (36%) patients reported ≥moderate xerostomia when undergoing parotid ductal sparing compared to 34/68(50%) in the historical cohort (p = 0.08). Using nested logistic regression models, the mean parotid duct dose was found to significantly relate to patient reported xerostomia severity at 6 months post-RT (p = 0.04) and trended towards statistical significance at 12 months post-RT (p = 0.09). At both 6 and 12 months post-RT, the addition of mean parotid duct dose significantly improved model fit (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MRI sialography guided parotid duct sparing appears to reduce the rates of patient-reported xerostomia. Further, logistic regression analysis found parotid duct dose to be significantly associated with patient reported xerostomia. A significant improvement in model fit was observed when adding mean parotid duct dose compared to models that only contain mean parotid gland dose and mean contralateral submandibular gland dose.

Assessment of PlanIQ Feasibility DVH for head and neck treatment planning.

INTRODUCTION: Designing a radiation plan that optimally delivers both target coverage and normal tissue sparing is challenging. There are limited tools to determine what is dosimetrically achievable and frequently the experience of the planner/physician is relied upon to make these determinations. PlanIQ software provides a tool that uses target and organ at risk (OAR) geometry to indicate the difficulty of achieving different points for organ dose-volume histograms (DVH). We hypothesized that PlanIQ Feasibility DVH may aid planners in reducing dose to OARs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinically delivered head and neck treatments (clinical plan) were re-planned (re-plan) putting high emphasis on maximally sparing the contralateral parotid gland, contralateral submandibular gland, and larynx while maintaining routine clinical dosimetric objectives. The planner was blinded to the results of the clinically delivered plan as well as the Feasibility DVHs from PlanIQ. The re-plan treatments were designed using 3-arc VMAT in Raystation (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden). The planner was then given the results from the PlanIQ Feasibility DVH analysis and developed an additional plan incorporating this information using 4-arc VMAT (IQ plan). The DVHs across the three treatment plans were compared with what was deemed "impossible" by PlanIQ's Feasibility DVH (Impossible DVH). The impossible DVH (red) is defined as the DVH generated using the minimal dose that any voxel outside the targets must receive given 100% target coverage. RESULTS: The re-plans performed blinded to PlanIQ Feasibilty DVH achieved superior sparing of aforementioned OARs compared to the clinically delivered plans and resulted in discrepancies from the impossible DVHs by an average of 200-700 cGy. Using the PlanIQ Feasibility DVH led to additionalOAR sparing compared to both the re-plans and clinical plans and reduced the discrepancies from the impossible DVHs to an average of approximately 100 cGy. The dose reduction from clinical to re-plan and re-plan to IQ plan were significantly different even when taking into account multiple hypothesis testing for both the contralateral parotid and the larynx (P < 0.004 for all comparisons). No significant differences were observed between the three plans for the contralateral parotid when considering multiple hypothesis testing. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical treatment plans and blinded re-plans were found to suboptimally spare OARs. PlanIQ could aid planners in generating treatment plans that push the limits of OAR sparing while maintaining routine clinical target coverage goals.

The Incremental Value of Subjective and Quantitative Assessment of 18F-FDG PET for the Prediction of Pathologic Complete Response to Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer.

UNLABELLED: A reliable prediction of a pathologic complete response (pathCR) to chemoradiotherapy before surgery for esophageal cancer would enable investigators to study the feasibility and outcome of an organ-preserving strategy after chemoradiotherapy. So far no clinical parameters or diagnostic studies are able to accurately predict which patients will achieve a pathCR. The aim of this study was to determine whether subjective and quantitative assessment of baseline and postchemoradiation (18)F-FDG PET can improve the accuracy of predicting pathCR to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer beyond clinical predictors. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the need for written informed consent was waived. Clinical parameters along with subjective and quantitative parameters from baseline and postchemoradiation (18)F-FDG PET were derived from 217 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. The associations between these parameters and pathCR were studied in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Four prediction models were constructed and internally validated using bootstrapping to study the incremental predictive values of subjective assessment of (18)F-FDG PET, conventional quantitative metabolic features, and comprehensive (18)F-FDG PET texture/geometry features, respectively. The clinical benefit of (18)F-FDG PET was determined using decision-curve analysis. RESULTS: A pathCR was found in 59 (27%) patients. A clinical prediction model (corrected c-index, 0.67) was improved by adding (18)F-FDG PET-based subjective assessment of response (corrected c-index, 0.72). This latter model was slightly improved by the addition of 1 conventional quantitative metabolic feature only (i.e., postchemoradiation total lesion glycolysis; corrected c-index, 0.73), and even more by subsequently adding 4 comprehensive (18)F-FDG PET texture/geometry features (corrected c-index, 0.77). However, at a decision threshold of 0.9 or higher, representing a clinically relevant predictive value for pathCR at which one may be willing to omit surgery, there was no clear incremental value. CONCLUSION: Subjective and quantitative assessment of (18)F-FDG PET provides statistical incremental value for predicting pathCR after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. However, the discriminatory improvement beyond clinical predictors does not translate into a clinically relevant benefit that could change decision making.

Costs of care in a matched pair comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus conventional radiation therapy (CRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been rapidly adopted for the treatment of head and neck cancer. Limited comparative effectiveness data suggest that IMRT reduces the incidence of xerostomia and improves quality of life. We assess the cost of IMRT versus the older conventional radiation therapy (CRT) relative to other potential drivers of cost in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: We compared patients treated with definitive radiation with or without chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated between 2000 and 2009. IMRT-treated patients were matched to CRT-treated patients by site, stage, and smoking status. Itemized billing charges were obtained for each patient and used to estimate cost using the Medicare fee schedule. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the influence of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables on total, pretreatment, during treatment, and follow-up costs. RESULTS: Models indicate that compared with CRT, IMRT was associated with, on average, a $5881 increase in total costs (P=0.043), a $1700 decrease in pretreatment costs (P=0.014), a $4768 increase in costs during treatment (P=0.004), and no significant difference in follow-up costs. Positron emission tomography scans, cancer recurrence, and comorbidity were also associated with higher total costs in this sample. CONCLUSIONS: Use of IMRT relative to CRT was strongly correlated with higher total costs, but disease control, patient comorbidity, and use of positron emission tomography also had significant effects on overall costs. Cost-effectiveness models should be developed to assess whether the potential benefits of IMRT are worth the associated investment.