TY - JOUR
T1 - Acute toxicities in proton therapy for head and neck cancer – A matched analysis of the DAHANCA 35 feasibility study
AU - Nowicka-Matus, K.
AU - Friborg, J.
AU - Hansen, C. R.
AU - Bernsdorf, M.
AU - Elstrøm, U. V.
AU - Farhadi, M.
AU - Grau, C.
AU - Eriksen, J. G.
AU - Johansen, J.
AU - Nielsen, M. S.
AU - Holm, A.
AU - Samsøe, E.
AU - Sibolt, P.
AU - Smulders, B.
AU - Jensen, K.
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - Background and purpose: As preparation for a national randomized study comparing proton radiotherapy to photon radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35, we performed a non-randomized pilot study to investigate patient selection, logistics, planning, and treatment delivery. With the present study, as a comprehensive safety analysis, we want to compare toxicity during and up to two months after therapy to a historically matched group of patients treated with photon radiotherapy. Materials and methods: 62 patients treated with protons were matched to 124 patients who received photon treatment outside a protocol. Available data were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. Patients were matched on treatment centre, concurrent chemotherapy, tumour site, stage, p16 status for oropharynx cancers. Selection of patients for proton therapy was based on comparative treatment plans with a NTCP reduction for dysphagia and xerostomia at six months. Results: Baseline characteristics between groups were well balanced, except for the type of drug used concurrently; more photon patients received Carboplatin (21.2 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.01). Proton therapy was associated with significantly less weight loss at the end of treatment, mean weight loss of 3 % for protons and 5 % for photons (p < 0.001). There were more grade 3 skin reactions and grade 3 mucositis after proton treatment compared with photons at the end of treatment, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.01–3.5, p = 0.04) and RR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.3–1.7, p < 0.001), respectively. All differences resolved at follow up two months after treatment. There were no significant differences between groups on opioid use, use of feeding tubes, or hospitalization during the observation period. Conclusion: Proton treatment resulted in excess objective mucositis and dermatitis, which was transient and did not seem to negatively influence weight or treatment compliance and intensity. Selection bias was likely especially since NTCP models were used for selection of proton treatment and photon treated patients were matched manually. We are currently including patients in a randomized controlled trial.
AB - Background and purpose: As preparation for a national randomized study comparing proton radiotherapy to photon radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35, we performed a non-randomized pilot study to investigate patient selection, logistics, planning, and treatment delivery. With the present study, as a comprehensive safety analysis, we want to compare toxicity during and up to two months after therapy to a historically matched group of patients treated with photon radiotherapy. Materials and methods: 62 patients treated with protons were matched to 124 patients who received photon treatment outside a protocol. Available data were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. Patients were matched on treatment centre, concurrent chemotherapy, tumour site, stage, p16 status for oropharynx cancers. Selection of patients for proton therapy was based on comparative treatment plans with a NTCP reduction for dysphagia and xerostomia at six months. Results: Baseline characteristics between groups were well balanced, except for the type of drug used concurrently; more photon patients received Carboplatin (21.2 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.01). Proton therapy was associated with significantly less weight loss at the end of treatment, mean weight loss of 3 % for protons and 5 % for photons (p < 0.001). There were more grade 3 skin reactions and grade 3 mucositis after proton treatment compared with photons at the end of treatment, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.01–3.5, p = 0.04) and RR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.3–1.7, p < 0.001), respectively. All differences resolved at follow up two months after treatment. There were no significant differences between groups on opioid use, use of feeding tubes, or hospitalization during the observation period. Conclusion: Proton treatment resulted in excess objective mucositis and dermatitis, which was transient and did not seem to negatively influence weight or treatment compliance and intensity. Selection bias was likely especially since NTCP models were used for selection of proton treatment and photon treated patients were matched manually. We are currently including patients in a randomized controlled trial.
KW - Acute toxicities
KW - Head and neck cancer
KW - Proton therapy
U2 - 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100835
DO - 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100835
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85200137602
SN - 2405-6308
VL - 48
JO - Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
JF - Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
M1 - 100835
ER -