Jiang Li, Zhang Yong, Yang Zhendong, Liang Feifei, Wu Jiangtao, Wang Rensheng
Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Radiation Oncology Clinical Medical Research Center of Guangxi, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Aug;98(34):e16942. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016942.
The optimal intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique for head and neck cancer (HNC) has not been determined yet. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-IMRT versus the sequential boost (SEQ)-IMRT in HNC.
A meta-analysis of 7 studies involving a total of 1049 patients was carried out to compare the treatment outcomes together with severe acute adverse effects of the SIB-IMRT versus the SEQ-IMRT in HNC patients.
Comparison of the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT showed no significant difference in the measurement of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% confidence inerval [CI], 0.70-1.27; P = .71), progression free survival (PFS) (HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79), locoregional recurrence free survival (LRFS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65-1.47; P = .91), and distance metastasis free survival (DMFS) (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.53; P = .63). Moreover, there were no significant differences in adverse effect occurrence between the SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT groups.
SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT can provide comparable outcomes in the treatment of patients afflicted by HNC. Both IMRT techniques were found to carry a similar risk of severe acute adverse effect. SIB-IMRT may have advantages due to its convenience and short-course of treatment; however, the optimum fractionation and prescribed dose remained unclear. Furthermore, both IMRT techniques can be advocated as the technique of choice for HNC. Treatment plan should be individualized for patients.
头颈部癌(HNC)的最佳调强放射治疗(IMRT)技术尚未确定。本研究旨在比较头颈部癌同步整合加量(SIB)-IMRT与序贯加量(SEQ)-IMRT的临床疗效。
对7项研究进行荟萃分析,这些研究共纳入1049例患者,比较头颈部癌患者中SIB-IMRT与SEQ-IMRT的治疗效果及严重急性不良反应。
SIB-IMRT与SEQ-IMRT的比较显示,总生存期(OS)(风险比[HR]0.94;95%置信区间[CI],0.70-1.27;P = 0.71)、无进展生存期(PFS)(HR 1.03;95%CI,0.82-1.30;P = 0.79)、局部区域无复发生存期(LRFS)(HR 0.98;95%CI,0.65-1.47;P = 0.91)和远处无转移生存期(DMFS)(HR 0.87;95%CI,0.50-1.53;P = 0.63)的测量结果无显著差异。此外,SIB-IMRT组与SEQ-IMRT组之间不良反应的发生也无显著差异。
SIB-IMRT和SEQ-IMRT在治疗头颈部癌患者方面可提供相当的疗效。两种IMRT技术的严重急性不良反应风险相似。SIB-IMRT因其便利性和短疗程可能具有优势;然而,最佳分割方案和处方剂量仍不明确。此外,两种IMRT技术均可作为头颈部癌的首选技术。治疗方案应根据患者个体情况制定。