The influence of beam energy on the outcome of postoperative radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients: secondary analysis of RTOG 85-03.

PURPOSE: To determine whether any difference in toxicity or efficacy occurs when head and neck cancer patients are treated postoperatively with (60)C0, 4 MV, or 6 MV photon beam. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a secondary analysis of the Intergroup Study 0034. Three hundred ninety-two patients were evaluable for comparison between treatment with (60)C0, 4 MV, or 6 MV photon beam. All patients had advanced but operable squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx. Patients were randomized following surgical resection to receive treatment with either postoperative irradiation alone, or postoperative irradiation plus three cycles of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil. Patients were categorized as having either "low risk" or "high risk" treatment volumes based on whether the surgical margin was 5 mm or less, presence of extra capsular nodal extension, and/or carcinoma in situ at the surgical margins. Low-risk volumes received 50-54 Gy, and high-risk volumes were given 60 Gy. Patients were compared in regards to acute and late radiotherapy toxicities as well as overall survival and loco-regional control according to the beam energy used. RESULTS: One-hundred fifty-seven, 140, and 95 patients were treated by (60)C0, 4 MV, and 6 MV, respectively. No differences were seen in acute or late toxicity among treatment groups. Locoregional control was achieved in 75%, 79%, and 80% of patients treated with (60)C0, 4 MV, or 6 MV (p = 0.61). Patients treated with 6 MV had a higher incidence of ipsilateral neck failure as first event (13%) than patients treated by (60)C0 and 4 MV (9%). This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: No differences in outcome, acute, or late toxicity were discernible in patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with (60)C0, 4 MV, or 6 MV. This result should be interpreted with caution as increased incidence, albeit nonsignificant, of ipsilateral neck recurrence was observed in patients treated with 6 MV and the power of the study to detect a statistically significant difference is small.

Outcome of patients receiving radiation for cancer of the esophagus: results of the 1992-1994 Patterns of Care Study.

PURPOSE: A Patterns of Care Study examined the records of patients with esophageal cancer (EC) treated with radiation in 1992 through 1994 to determine the national practice processes of care and outcomes and to compare the results with those of clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A national survey of 63 institutions was conducted using two-stage cluster sampling, and specific information was collected on 400 patients with squamous cell (62%) or adenocarcinoma (37%) of the thoracic esophagus who received radiation therapy (RT) as part of primary or adjuvant treatment. Patients were staged according to a modified 1983 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Fifteen percent of patients had clinical stage (CS) I disease, 40% had CS II disease, and 30% had CS III disease. Twenty-six percent of patients underwent esophagectomy. Seventy-five percent of patients received chemotherapy; 84% of these received concurrent chemotherapy and radiation (CRT). RESULTS: Significant variables for overall survival in multivariate analysis include the use of esophagectomy (risk ratio [RR] = 0.62), the use of chemotherapy (RR = 0.63), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) greater than 80 (RR = 0.61), CS I or II disease (RR = 0.66), and facility type (RR = 0.72). Age, sex, and histology were not significant. Preoperative CRT resulted in a nonsignificantly higher 2-year survival rate compared with definitive CRT alone (63% v 39%; P =.11), whereas 2-year survival by planned treatment rather than treatment given was 47.7% for preoperative CRT and 35.4% for definitive CRT (P =.23). Definitive CRT compared with definitive RT alone resulted in significantly higher 2-year survival (39% v 20.6%; P =.027) and lower 2-year local regional failure (30% v 57.9%; P =. 0031). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the value of CRT in EC treatment. It indicates that the results obtained in practice settings nationwide are similar to those obtained in clinical trials and that KPS and the 1983 clinical staging system are useful prognostic indicators. The suggested value of esophagectomy and superiority of preoperative CRT over CRT alone in this study should be tested in a randomized trial.

The evaluation and treatment of patients receiving radiation therapy for carcinoma of the esophagus: results of the 1992-1994 Patterns of Care Study.

BACKGROUND: For the first time, a Patterns of Care Study (PCS) was conducted in 1992-1994 to determine the national practice standards in evaluating and treating patients with esophageal carcinoma and to determine the degree to which clinical trials have been incorporated into national practice. METHODS: A national survey of 61 institutions using 2-stage cluster sampling was conducted, and specific information was collected on 400 patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the thoracic esophagus who received radiation therapy (RT) as part of definitive or adjuvant management of their disease. Patients were staged according to a modified 1983 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Chi-square tests for significant differences between academic and nonacademic institutions for a particular variable were performed. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 66.7 years (range, 26-89 years); 76.5% were male and 23.5% were female. Karnofsky performance status was > or = 80 for 88.3% of patients. Squamous cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 61.5% and adenocarcinoma in 36.8%. Fifteen percent were Clinical Stage (CS) I, 39.5% CS II, and 29.5% CS III. Evaluative procedures included endoscopy (>93%), computed tomography (CT) of the chest (86%), CT of the abdomen (75%), esophagography (68.5%), and endoscopic ultrasound (3.5%). Endoscopic ultrasound and CT of the chest were performed significantly more frequently at academic than nonacademic facilities (6.1% vs. 1.0% and 91.9% vs. 81.3%, respectively). Three-quarters of all patients received chemotherapy and RT and 62.5% received concurrent chemotherapy and RT as part of their treatment. Treatments included chemotherapy plus RT (54.0%), RT alone (20.3%), preoperative chemotherapy + RT (13.3%), postoperative chemotherapy + RT (7.7%), postoperative RT (3.5%), and preoperative RT (1.2%). The chemotherapeutic agents most frequently used were 5-fluorouracil (84%), cisplatin (64%), and mitomycin (9%); academic instututions used cisplatin significantly more often and mitomycin significantly less often than nonacademic institutions. Brachytherapy was used in 8.5% of cases. The median total dose of external beam radiation was 50.4 gray and the median dose per fraction was 1.8 gray. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the national benchmarks for the evaluation and treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma at radiation facilities in the U.S. It also indicates that the majority of patients given RT as a component of treatment for esophageal carcinoma receive chemoradiation rather than RT alone, as supported by clinical trials. Although some differences in the evaluation of esophageal carcinoma were noted between academic and nonacademic facilities, there was no difference in the frequency of use of chemoradiation versus RT by facility type.