3D-CRT versus RapidArc in Deep Tempero-Parietal High Grade Gliomas: Do We Really Need Higher Technology?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare single arc RapidArc with conventional 3D-CRT plans for tempero-parietal high grade gliomas with respect to PTV coverage and doses perceived by surrounding critical organs at risk. METHODS: Thirty patients with the pathological diagnosis of high grade gliomas (WHO grade III-IV) were selected to be enrolled in our study. Patients were referred to our center (center of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Cairo University) during the period March 2020 till June 2021 for post-operative irradiation using 3D-CRT technique. For all patients, the dose prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. A RA plan was performed for each patient and dosimetrically was compared to the 3D-CRT plan. RESULTS: The PTV coverage in terms of V95% was significantly superior in the RA plans with values of 98.4 ± 1.7 compared to 94.4 ± 2.6 for the 3D-CRT plans (p-value of 0.004). The doses risk structures ( eyes, optic nerves and cochleae)  was lower with the RA plans as contrasted to the 3D-CRT plan with an exception for the  intraocular lens which received higher doses in the RA plan with a statistically significant p-value of 0.001 and 0.002 for the  Ipsilateral and contralateral lens, respectively. The average number of MUs ± SD was 358.6± 44.4 for the RA plans versus 247.6 ± 16.1 for 3D-CRT plans (p-value 0.001). The Dmean of healthy brain tissue was nearly equal for both plans (p-value of 0.071). CONCLUSION: The plans achieved by RA showed superior dose conformity, PTV coverage, more homogeneous dose distribution when contrasted to 3D-CRT plans. With the exception of both intraocular lenses, the RA plans showed better OAR sparing and utilized a higher number of MUs compared to the 3D-CRT.

Cisplatin Weekly Versus Every 3 Weeks Concurrently with Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas: What Is the Best Dosing and Schedule?

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective randomized study is to compare cisplatin at 2 dose levels given concurrently with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of locally advanced HNSCC. The main objectives were to evaluate treatment toxicities, loco-regional control, tumor response and patients compliance. METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups that either received 30 mg/m2 cisplatin weekly (arm A) or 100 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks (arm B). Radiotherapy prescribed dose was 70Gy in 33 fractions. Treatment adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Sixty patients with locally advanced HNSCC were included in this study. Recruitment started at the beginning of July 2016 and ended in July 2019. The Median follow-up was 24 months. Acute non-hematological toxicities of grade 3 or higher during the treatment course were significantly more observed in Arm B patients (76.6%) compared to Arm A patients (56.6%) with a P-value of 0.007. Hematological toxicities in the form of anemia, leucopenia and neutropenia were also significantly higher in Arm B patients with a p-value of 0.435, 0.002 & 0,002, respectively. The median 2 year loco-regional control rate in Arm B was 72.8% versus 57.6% in Arm A with a p-value of 0.015. Complete responses were similar between both groups (77%). Compliance to treatment was better in Arm A with 70% of the patients received at least 6 weekly doses where as 60% of the patients in Arm B completed the three cycles of treatment and 40 % received only 2 cycles. CONCLUSION: Once weekly low dose cisplatin treatment showed lower acute toxicity and a better compliance compared to once every 3 weeks high dose cisplatin treatment at the expense of a lower loco-regional control.

Randomized Pilot Study of 20 Gy in 5 Fractions versus 27 Gy in 3 Fractions Radiotherapy for Treating Painful Bone Metastases: A Single Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is a very effective tool in the treatment of painful bone metastases. The aim of this study was to compare the palliative effect of radiotherapy between the standard fractionation schedule 20 Gy over 5 fractions (20Gy/5fr) and the high biological dose schedule 27 Gy over 3 fractions (27Gy/3fr) which is frequently used in Stereotactic body radio-surgery (SBRT). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive (20Gy/5fr)or (27Gy/3fr). The primary aim of the study was pain relief using the numeric rating scale (NRS), after three months of radiation therapy. Secondary end points include pain relief immediately after finishing radiation therapy (within one week), and narcotic relief after three months of radiation therapy. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with painful bone metastases were included. 12 patients received (20Gy/5fr) and 10 patients received (27Gy/3fr). Male patients were predominant on both arms (81.8%) with a mean age of 58 years [ranging between 19-72 years]. For pain relief after three months of radiation therapy, partial pain relief was documented in 9 patients (75%) with (20Gy/5fr) and in 8 patients (80%) with (27Gy/3fr) with a p- value of 0.6. Additionally, narcotic relief after three months was equal for both groups. For immediate pain relief, partial pain relief was seen in one patient (8%) with (20Gy/5fr) versus seven patients (70%) with (27Gy/3fr) with a p value of 0.06. The increase in immediate pain relief in the 27Gy arm was numerically but not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: SBRT and standard fractionation radiation therapy had equal effectiveness for pain relief, when the assessment was done after three months of radiation therapy. Interestingly, SBRT had a better immediate pain relief. 
.

RapidArc vs Conventional IMRT for Head and Neck Cancer Irradiation: Is Faster Necessary Better?

Purpose: The aim of this study was to dosimetrically evaluate and compare double arc RapidArc (RA) with conventional IMRT (7 fields) plans for irradiation of locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC), focusing on target coverage and doses received by organs at risk (OAR). Methods: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with LAHNC were obtained. Contouring of the target volumes and OAR was done. Two plans were made for each patient, one using IMRT and the other double arc RA, and calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared. Monitor units for each technique were also calculated. Results: PTV coverage was similar with both techniques. The homogeneity index (HI) was higher for the IMRT plans with a value of 0.108 ± 0.021 compared to 0.0975 ± 0.017 for double arc RA plans (p-value of 0.540). The double arc RA plans achieved a better conformity with a CI95%= 1.01 ± 0.021 compared to 1.05 ± 0.057 achieved with the IMRT plans (p-value of 0.036). The average monitor units (MU) ±SD were 930.5 ± 142.42 for the IMRT plans as opposed to 484.25 ± 69.47 for the double arc RA plans (P-value of 0.002). Double arc plans provided better OAR sparing with a significant p-value of 0.002 and 0.004 for the right and left parotid glands, respectively. Conclusions: RA is a rapid and accurate technique that uses lower MUs than conventional IMRT. Double arc plans provide better dose conformity, OAR sparing and a more homogeneous target coverage compared to IMRT.

Swallowing Exercises: Will They Really Help Head and Neck Cancer Patients?

Purpose: The work was a comparative study, the aim of which is to evaluate the impact of swallowing exercises on swallowing problems among head and neck cancer patients (HNCPs) after CRT. Methods: The sample of 60 HNCPs was equally divided into control and study groups. The investigators met all patients 3 times (before, during and after CRT); swallowing ability was assessed using the Sydney Swallowing Questionnaire (SSQ). The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center Swallowing Exercise Protocol was explained and demonstrated by the investigators to the study group. All tools used were translated into Arabic. Data analyses were carried out using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS), program version 20. Results: Most of the patients from both groups experienced mild dysphagia during the 1st visit. By the 3rd visit, severe dysphagia (to thin and thick liquids, and soft and hard food) was higher in the control group (73.3%) compared to the study group (26.7%). By the third visit there was statistically significant difference between both groups in swallowing thin liquids (p = 0.01), as well as thick liquids (p = 0.01). At the 1st visit, there was no significant difference regarding swallowing soft food (p = 0.24), hard food (p = 0.17), dry food (p = 0.89) and swallowing Saliva (p = 0.28). While by the 3rd visit, there was significant difference between control and study groups in all parameters. Conclusions: Adequate prevention and treatment of dysphagia, with use of swallowing programs, is essential to plan a complete therapeutic programme.