Predictors of acute throat or esophageal patient reported pain during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute pain during weekly radiotherapy (RT) to the head and neck is not well characterized. We studied dose-volume metrics and clinical variables that are plausibly associated with throat or esophageal pain as measured with a weekly questionnaire during RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected weekly patient-reported outcomes from 122 head and neck cancer patients during RT. The pain score for each question consisted of a four-level scale: none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), and severe (3). Univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate associations between both esophageal and throat pain and clinical as well as dosimetric variables. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, age was significantly associated with both types of pain, leading to odds ratio (OR) = 0.95 (p = 0.008) and OR = 0.95 (p = 0.007) for esophageal and throat pain, respectively. For throat pain, sex (OR = 4.12; p = 0.010), with females at higher risk, and fractional organ at risk (OAR) mean dose (OR = 3.30; p = 0.014) were significantly associated with throat pain. CONCLUSIONS: A fractional OAR mean dose of 1.1 Gy seems a reasonable cutoff for separating no or mild pain from moderate to severe esophageal and throat pain. Younger patients who received RT experienced more esophageal and throat pain. Females experienced more throat pain, but not esophageal pain.

Pre-radiotherapy feeding tube identifies a poor prognostic subset of postoperative p16 positive oropharyngeal carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: This study explores variables associated with poor prognosis in postoperative p16 positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Specifically, analysis was done related to timing of feeding tube insertion relative to radiotherapy. METHODS: From 1997-2009, of 376 consecutive patients with OPSCC, 220 received adjuvant IMRT, and 97 were p16 positive and eligible. Of these, 23 had feeding tube placement before IMRT (B-FT), 32 during/after IMRT (DA-FT), and 42 had no feeding tube (NO-FT). Feeding tubes were not placed prophylactically. These three groups were analyzed for differential tumor, patient, treatment, and feeding tube characteristics, as well as differences in overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS). RESULTS: Pre-RT FT insertion was associated with higher tumor size and depth, T (but not N) and overall stage, comorbidities, presence of chemotherapy, and less use of transoral laser microsurgery/transoral bovie. Additionally, time from surgery to IMRT completion was also statistically longer in the B-FT group. The feeding tube was permanent in 52% of patients in the B-FT group versus 16% in the DA-FT group (p = 0.0075). The 5-year OS for the NO-FT, DA-FT, and B-FT groups was 90%, 86%, and 50%, respectively. The 5-year DFS for the NO-FT, DA-FT, and B-FT groups was 87.6%, 83.6%, and 42.7%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that for OS and DFS, feeding tube placement timing and smoking history were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Due to the poor prognosis of early FT insertion, the presence of FTs at time of radiotherapy consultation can be used as an alternate marker to identify a subset of p16 positive OPSCC patients that have a poor prognosis.

Evaluation of 3 T pelvic MRI imaging in prostate cancer patients receiving post-prostatectomy IMRT.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the utility of a 3 T pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting a local recurrence in post-prostatectomy prostate cancer patients prior to receiving adjuvant or salvage intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: Ninety prostate cancer patients status post-prostatectomy with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had a 3 T pelvic MRI prior to IMRT. The following variables were analyzed for predicting positive findings on MRI: initial presenting and initial post-op PSA, PSA at the time of imaging, PSA velocity, surgical margins, Gleason score, pathological stage, pre-RT digital rectal examination, and type of surgical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The only significant variable predictive of a positive MRI was positive margins. Specifically, 15 of 46 (33 %) patients with positive margins had a positive MRI, while 5 of 44 (11 %) patients with negative margins had a positive MRI. In the MRI positive group, the location of the positive findings on MRI corresponded with the pathology report in 9 of 12 (75 %) cases. CONCLUSION: Post-prostatectomy patients with pathologic positive margins are three times more likely to have positive findings on a 3 T MRI.