Systematic review and meta-analyses of intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional two-dimensional and/or or three-dimensional radiotherapy in curative-intent management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Tejpal Gupta,Sadhana Kannan,Sarbani Ghosh-Laskar,Jai Prakash Agarwal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200137
IF: 3.7
2018-07-06
PLoS ONE
Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Technological advancements in treatment planning and delivery have propelled the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This review compares IMRT with conventional two-dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) radiotherapy (RT) in curative-intent management of HNSCC.METHODS: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) offering curative-intent RT in patients with non-metastatic HNSCC were included. Outcome data was extracted independently by two reviewers, pooled using the Cochrane methodology, and expressed as risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) as appropriate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Xerostomia was the primary outcome of interest whereas loco-regional control, overall survival and quality-of-life (QOL) were secondary endpoints.RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 1155 patients directly comparing IMRT with 2D/3D-RT in HNSCC were included. The primary objective in five of seven index RCTs was reduction in xerostomia, with only one trial each using loco-regional control and overall survival as primary endpoints for sample size calculation. The use of IMRT was associated with a 36% relative risk reduction in ≥grade 2 acute xerostomia (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.49-0.84; p = 0.001) compared to 2D/3D-RT. More importantly, IMRT significantly reduced the risk of ≥grade 2 late xerostomia (RR = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.34-0.57; p = 0.00001) compared to non-IMRT techniques at all time-points. Within the limitations of inadequate sample size and low statistical power, IMRT also resulted in 24% relative reduction in the risk of loco-regional relapse (HR = 0.76, 0.57-1.01; p = 0.06) and 30% relative reduction in risk of death (HR = 0.70, 95%CI = 0.57-0.88; p = 0.002) compared to 2D/3D-RT. However, this benefit of IMRT for loco-regional control and overall survival was limited to nasopharyngeal cancer patients alone, with no significant difference in efficacy between the two techniques in patients with cancers of the laryngo-pharynx in this analysis, highlighting the inconsistency in results of subgroup analyses stratified by primary site. Inadequate reporting of data precluded statistically pooling of results for QOL outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent moderate-quality evidence that IMRT significantly reduces the risk of moderate to severe acute and late xerostomia compared to 2D/3D-RT in curative-intent radiotherapeutic management of HNSCC. However, the quality of evidence regarding the superiority of IMRT over conventional techniques for disease-related endpoints is rather low due to relative lack of power and inconsistency of results precluding robust conclusions.
multidisciplinary sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether intensity - modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can significantly reduce moderate - to - severe acute and late - stage xerostomia compared with traditional two - dimensional (2D) or three - dimensional (3D) radiotherapy in the radical radiotherapy management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), while evaluating the impact of IMRT on local - regional control (LRC), overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL). ### Main research questions 1. **Reduction of xerostomia**: - The main objective of the study was to compare the effects of IMRT and 2D/3D - RT in reducing acute (during or within 3 months after treatment) and late - stage (at different time points after treatment) xerostomia. 2. **Local - regional control and overall survival**: - The study also evaluated the differences between IMRT and 2D/3D - RT in local - regional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS). 3. **Quality of life**: - The study explored the differences between IMRT and 2D/3D - RT in quality of life (QOL), although due to insufficient data, statistical aggregation could not be carried out. ### Research methods - **Inclusion criteria**: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provided efficacy data for the treatment of non - metastatic HNSCC patients with radical radiotherapy were included. - **Data extraction**: Two reviewers independently extracted data, aggregated using the Cochrane method, and presented the results as risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). - **Primary endpoint**: Xerostomia. - **Secondary endpoints**: Local - regional control (LRC), overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL). ### Results - **Xerostomia**: - IMRT significantly reduced the risk of grade 2 or higher acute xerostomia (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49 - 0.84, p = 0.001). - IMRT also significantly reduced the risk of grade 2 or higher late - stage xerostomia (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.34 - 0.57, p < 0.00001). - **Local - regional control and overall survival**: - IMRT relatively reduced the risk of local - regional recurrence by 24% (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.57 - 1.01, p = 0.06), but this result was not statistically significant. - IMRT relatively reduced the risk of death by 30% (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.57 - 0.88, p = 0.002). - For nasopharyngeal cancer patients, IMRT significantly improved local - regional control (HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.34 - 0.80, p = 0.003) and overall survival (HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.42 - 0.78, p = 0.0005). - For hypopharyngeal cancer patients, IMRT had no significant impact on local - regional control and overall survival. - **Quality of life**: - Although data in most quality - of - life areas deteriorated significantly immediately after radiotherapy, they gradually improved over time. - IMRT performed better in xerostomia - related quality - of - life scores, but there was no significant difference in overall quality of life. ### Conclusions - There is moderate - quality evidence that IMRT is significantly superior to 2D/3D - RT in reducing moderate - to - severe acute and late - stage xerostomia. - However, the evidence quality regarding the superiority of IMRT in disease - related endpoints (such as local - regional control and overall survival) is low, mainly due to insufficient sample size and inconsistent results. Through this systematic review and meta - analysis, the researchers provided an important reference for clinicians, especially when choosing radiotherapy techniques, especially in the case of focusing on patients' quality of life.