Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional and 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer: Is there a worthwhile quality of life gain?

• Published in: Cancer treatment reviews Vol. 37; no. 7; pp. 511 - 519
• Main Authors: Tribius, Silke, Bergelt, Corinna
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 01.11.2011
• Subjects: Clinical Trials as Topic; Conventional radiotherapy; Head and neck cancer; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); Quality of Life; Quality of life (QoL); Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy, Conformal; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Review Literature as Topic; Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT); Two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT); Quality of life (QoL); Conventional radiotherapy; Head and neck cancer; Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT); Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); Two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT)
• ISSN: 0305-7372; 1532-1967
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.01.004

Summary Background Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a technique that allows delivery of lower doses of radiation to normal tissue, while maintaining or increasing the tumour dose, compared with two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). This review of published data was undertaken to assess whether IMRT is associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits versus 2DRT and 3DCRT. Design English-language literature published between January 2005 and August 2010 was searched for studies comparing IMRT versus 2DRT or 3DCRT in head and neck cancers that included QoL evaluation. Fourteen studies (five prospective and nine retrospective) were identified, two in abstract form only. Only one study was randomised. Studies included patients with nasopharyngeal cancer only, oropharyngeal cancer only and mixed populations. Results The EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most widely used instrument, generally supplemented with the head and neck cancer module H&N35. IMRT was associated with statistically significant improvements in certain QoL domains versus 2DRT and 3DCRT, particularly those relating to xerostomia, including dry mouth, sticky saliva and eating-related domains. Improvements in global QoL were also observed in the IMRT groups in some studies. Conclusion Based on the studies reviewed, patients treated with IMRT experience statistically significant improvements in several important QoL domains versus 2DRT and 3DCRT. However, studies included heterogeneous populations, different timepoints for measurements and a variety of instruments for QoL assessment. Accepting the difficulties in execution, IMRT should be compared with 3DCRT in prospective randomised studies in homogeneous patient populations, using appropriate QoL assessments and clinical end points, to establish if IMRT provides enough value for the additional resources involved.