Comparison of Functional Organ Preservation by Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Carcinoma of Larynx or Hypopharynx: A Prospective Randomized Study
- 17 Downloads
Functional organ preservation is a major challenge in management of advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Although ideal approach is a subject of much debate, radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy is most commonly used modality. This randomized study was conducted to compare functional organ preservation by chemoradiation (CRT) versus concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT). A total of 40 patients with advanced (stage III/stage IVa) laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer were randomized to receive either CRT (n = 20) to a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions over 6.5 weeks with concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22 and 43) or CBRT (n = 20) to a dose of 67.5 Gy in 40 fractions over 5 weeks. Patients were assessed for organ preservation rate, toxicities, voice and swallowing functions utilizing Voice Related Quality of Life (VRQOL) and MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) scores, respectively, for minimum follow up of 6 months. Organ preservation rate (intact disease free larynx) at 6 months post treatment was observed in 100% in CRT arm and 95% in CBRT arm. There was no significant difference in mucositis and dermatitis in two arms (p = 0.82 and 0.78, respectively). Dysphagia was observed more in CRT arm (n = 12 vs n = 6). Late toxicities grade 3 xerostomia, grade 2 dysguesia, were seen significantly more in CRT arm. There was no statistical difference between the two arms in terms of VRQOL (p = 0.55) and MDADI scores (p = 0.13). In CRT arm 13 patients complete response and in CBRT arm 12 patients had complete response. Accelerated fractionation with concomitant boost schedule is as effective as CRT in anatomical and functional preservation of larynx. The toxicities, voice and dysphagia related quality of life is comparable.
KeywordsLarynx Hypopharynx Organ preservation
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was conducted after approval from Institute Ethics Committee.
- 3.Takiar R, Nadayil D, Nandakumar A (2010) Projections of number of cancer cases in India (2010–2020) by cancer groups. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 11(4):1045–1049Google Scholar
- 4.Fu KK, Pajak TF, Trotti A, Jones CU, Spencer SA, Philips TL et al (2000) A Radiation Therapy oncology Group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare hyperfractionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: first report of RTOG 9003. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ang K, Pajak T, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen F, Lu C, Kim H, Axelrod R, List M, Silverman C, Weber RS (2007) A phase III trial to compare standard versus accelerated fractionation in combination with concurrent cisplatin for head and neck carcinomas (RTOG 0129): Report of compliance and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(3):S12–S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Edge SB, American Joint Committee on Cancer (2010) AJCC cancer staging handbook: from the AJCC cancer staging manual. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 9.Chen Amy Y, Frankonski Ralph, Bishop-Leone Julie et al (2001) The development and validation of dysphagia-specific QOL questionnaire. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:870–876Google Scholar
- 13.Marcial VA, Pajak TF, Mohiuddin M, Cooper JS, Al Sarraf M, Mowry PA et al (1990) Concomitant cisplatin chemotherapy and radiotherapy in advanced mucosal squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Long-term results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study 81-17. Cancer 66:1861–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar