Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29413274›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2018

Volume, Dose, and Fractionation Considerations for IMRT-based Reirradiation in Head and Neck Cancer: A Multi-institution Analysis.

Jimmy J Caudell, Matthew C Ward, Nadeem Riaz, Sara J Zakem, Musaddiq J Awan, Neal E Dunlap, Derek Isrow, Comron Hassanzadeh, John A Vargo, Dwight E Heron and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Jimmy J CaudellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. Electronic address: Jimmy.caudell@moffitt.org.
Matthew C WardDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Nadeem RiazDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Sara J ZakemDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Musaddiq J AwanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Neal E DunlapDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.
Derek IsrowDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Comron HassanzadehSchool of Medicine, University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri.
John A VargoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Dwight E HeronDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Samuel MarcromDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Drexell H BoggsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Chandana A ReddyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Joshua DaultDepartment of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
James A BonnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Kristin A HigginsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jonathan J BeitlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Shlomo A KoyfmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Mitchell MachtayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Min YaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Andy M TrottiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Farzan SiddiquiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Nancy Y LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Multi-Institution Reirradiation (MIRI) Collaborative

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
West Virginia IDEA-CTRU54GM104942 · NIGMS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI Sally Lynn Hodder · 2012 to 2026
$81.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLimited data exist to guide the treatment technique for reirradiation of recurrent or second primary squamous carcinoma of the head and neck. We performed a multi-institution retrospective cohort study to investigate the effect of the elective treatment volume, dose, and fractionation on outcomes and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with recurrent or second primary squamous carcinoma originating in a previously irradiated field (≥40 Gy) who had undergone reirradiation with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); (≥40 Gy re-IMRT) were included. The effect of elective nodal treatment, dose, and fractionation on overall survival (OS), locoregional control, and acute and late toxicity were assessed. The Kaplan-Meier and Gray's competing risks methods were used for actuarial endpoints.

resultsFrom 8 institutions, 505 patients were included in the present updated analysis. The elective neck was not treated in 56.4% of patients. The median dose of re-IMRT was 60 Gy (range 39.6-79.2). Hyperfractionation was used in 20.2%. Systemic therapy was integrated for 77.4% of patients. Elective nodal radiation therapy did not appear to decrease the risk of locoregional failure (LRF) or improve the OS rate. Doses of ≥66 Gy were associated with improvements in both LRF and OS in the definitive re-IMRT setting. However, dose did not obviously affect LRF or OS in the postoperative re-IMRT setting. Hyperfractionation was not associated with improved LRF or OS. The rate of acute grade ≥3 toxicity was 22.1% overall. On multivariable logistic regression, elective neck irradiation was associated with increased acute toxicity in the postoperative setting. The rate of overall late grade ≥3 toxicity was 16.7%, with patients treated postoperatively with hyperfractionation experiencing the highest rates.

conclusionsDoses of ≥66 Gy might be associated with improved outcomes in high-performance patients undergoing definitive re-IMRT. Postoperatively, doses of 50 to 66 Gy appear adequate after removal of gross disease. Hyperfractionation and elective neck irradiation were not associated with an obvious benefit and might increase toxicity.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLogistic ModelsLymphatic IrradiationMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasms, Second PrimaryRadiation Dose HypofractionationRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRe-IrradiationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29413274
PMCPMC7269162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.