Abstract
Background
Locoregionally advanced stage head and neck cancer (HNC) is known for unfavorable outcome with only ~ 40–50 % 3-year overall survival (OS). Clinical T4 stage includes a wide range of tumor burden. The lack of further nonsurgical subgrouping of cT4 stage makes intercenter outcome of irradiated cohorts difficult. Aim of this analysis was to further stratify cT4 stage HNC using volumetric staging.
Material and methods
Between January 2002 and January 2013, a total of 201 cT4 stage squamous cell cancer (SCC) HNC patients referred to our center for curative definitive radiation were consecutively irradiated. Radiation was performed using modulated techniques. Total gross tumor volumes (tGTV: primary + nodal tumor volume) of all patients have retrospectively been stratified using a prospectively evaluated volumetric staging system which bases on 3 cut-offs (15/70/130 ml), translating into 4 prognostic subgroups [V1: 1–15 ml (n = 15), V2: 16–70 ml (108), V3: 71–130 ml (62), V4: > 130 ml (16)]. OS, disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were calculated.
Results
The mean/median follow-up was 31/23 months (range 1–116 months). The 3-year OS, DFS, LRC, and DMFS rates of the entire cohort were 63, 44, 48, and 77 %, respectively. Volumetric staging revealed its potential to prognostically statistically significantly divide the cT4 cohort into 4 volume subgroups (V1/2/3/4): OS: 90 %/72 %/58 %/18 %; DFS: 83 %/50 %/39 %/10 %; LRC: 81 %/53 %/47 %/15 %; DMFS: 93 %/90 %/70 %/41 %, all p < 0.0001.
Conclusion
Volumetric staging allowed a highly statistically significant stratification of cT4 HNC stages into prognostic subgroups, which offers the chance of better intercenter comparability of irradiated advanced stage HNC cohorts.
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Lokoregionär fortgeschrittene Kopf-Hals-Tumoren (KHT) haben eine schlechte Prognose mit nur ~ 40–50 % 3-Jahres-Gesamtüberleben (GÜ). cT4-Stadien beinhalten eine große Spanne von Tumorvolumina. Das Fehlen einer weiteren nichtchirurgischen Unterteilung von cT4-Stadien macht den Vergleich der Resultate bestrahlter Kohorten aus verschiedenen Zentren schwierig. Ziel unserer Arbeit war, cT4-Stadien bei definitiv bestrahlten KHT-Patienten mittels volumetrischem Staging zu stratifizieren.
Material und Methodik
Zwischen Januar 2002 und Januar 2013 wurden uns 201 KHT-Patienten mit einem Plattenepitelkarzinom im Stadium cT4 zur kurativen definitiven Radiotherapie zugewiesen. Alle Patienten wurden mit modulierten Techniken bestrahlt. Das Gesamttumorvolumen (tGTV: Primärtumor + Lymphknotenmetastasen) aller Patienten wurde retrospektiv mittels eines prospektiv getesteten volumetrischen Staging-Systems mit 3 Schnittwerten (15/70/130 ml) stratifiziert, was zu 4 prognostischen Subgruppen führt [V1: 1–15 ml (n = 15), V2: 16–70 ml (n = 108), V3: 71–130 ml (n = 62), V4: > 130 ml (n = 16)]. GÜ, krankheitsfreies Überleben (KFÜ), lokoregionäre Kontrolle (LRK) und metastasenfreies Überleben (MFÜ) wurden berechnet.
Ergebnisse
Die mittlere/mediane Bobachtungszeit betrug 31/23 Monate (Spanne 1–116 Monate). Das 3-Jahres-GÜ, -KFÜ, -LRK und -MFÜ der gesamten Kohorte betrug 63, 44, 48 und 77 %. Mittels volumetrischem Staging konnte die cT4-Kohorte in 4 statistisch hochsignifikant unterschiedliche prognostische Untergruppen stratifiziert werden (jeweils V1/2/3/4): GÜ: 90 %/72 %/58 %/18 %; KFÜ: 83 %/50 %/39 %/10 %; LRK: 81 %/53 %/47 %/15 %; MFÜ: 93 %/90 %/70 %/41 %, alle p < 0,0001.
Schlussfolgerung
Volumetrisches Staging erlaubte eine statistisch hochsignifikante Stratifizierung in prognostisch unterschiedliche Untergruppen, was eine bessere Vergleichbarkeit von Resultaten verschiedener Zentren nach primärer intensitätsmodulierter Strahlentherapie (IMRT) von cT4 KHT ermöglichte.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Advanced stage head and neck cancer (HNC) is known for generally unfavorable outcome with only ~ 40–50 % 3-year overall survival [1, 2, 3]. Clinical T4 stage includes a wide range of tumor volumes. The lack of further nonsurgical subgrouping of cT4 stage makes intercenter comparison of outcome results in irradiated cT4 patient cohorts difficult. The estimation of operability (cT4a versus cT4b) is sometimes quite dependent of a surgeon’s individual opinion and experience. In addition, the in- or exclusion of very advanced cT4 any NM0 into curatively aimed treatment regimens remains quite subjective.
The aim of this analysis was to further stratify cT4 stage squamous cell HNC disease using volumetric staging. This was performed with the help of a formerly prospectively tested and published volumetric scoring system [4, 5, 6, 7]. Using this scoring system, we previously demonstrated that volumetric staging was superior compared to the standard TN/AJCC systems regarding predictive power of disease control and survival of our irradiated cohorts.
Included in the presented analysis were all cT4 stage primary squamous cell cancer (SCC) HNC patients referred for definitive radiation.
Methods
Between January 2002 and January 2013, a total of 201 cT4 stage SCC HNC patients were referred to our department. All were treated with curative intent with modulated radiotherapy ± chemotherapy. All patients were retrospectively stratified using a prospectively evaluated volumetric staging system. T4 lymphoepithelial nasopharynx tumors (n = 13) and paranasal tumors (n = 8) were excluded. The used staging system is based on three cut-offs (15/70/130 ml, see also previous publications [4, 5, 6, 7]) to stratify the total gross tumor volumes (tGTV: primary and nodal tumor volume), allowing a subdivision of cT4 stages into 4 prognostic subgroups [1–15 ml (n = 15), 16–70 ml (n = 108), 71–130 ml (n = 62), > 130 ml (n = 16)]. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves. Demographic data and tumor characteristics are listed in Tab. 1.
All patients underwent modulated radiation therapy using simultaneously integrated boost techniques [SIB-IMRT/SIB-volumetric modulated arc therapy (SIB-VMAT)]. In 84 %, concomitant cisplatin chemotherapy (40 mg/m2/radiation week) or cetuximab (loading dose 400 mg/m2, followed by concomitant doses of 2250 mg/m2/radiation week) was administered. In 36 patients with very advanced disease of questionably curable stage, TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil)-based induction chemotherapy was given as a decision aid to add or not curatively intended radiation. The remaining 16 % of patients were treated with radiation only because of age or substantial comorbidity.
All GTVs were contoured or reviewed by at least one of the authors on all relevant axial computerized images without using interpolation; in most cases the contouring was also reviewed by a third staff physician. In addition, the wide volumetric ranges (cut-offs 15/70/130 ml) render the system quite robust with respect to interindividual contouring differences. Volumetric three-dimensional measurements (cm3) of contoured structures were calculated by the Varian Treatment Planning System volume algorithm (Eclipse® External Beam Planning System, Version 7.3.10 and PRO 8.9, AAA 8.9, Varian Medical Systems). A detailed description of the applied SIB modulated techniques and contouring of gross tumor volume (GTV) and planning target volumes (PTVs) has formerly been published [7]. In several patients with very large GTVs, dose compromises were performed delivering 66–68 Gy to the boost volume, while the 70 Gy dose volume was limited to the GTV.
Statistical analysis
Statistical calculations were performed using the statistics program implemented in StatView® (version 4.5; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Univariate analyses were performed with a Cox proportional hazards regression model in StatView®. Actuarial survival data were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank tests implemented in StatView®. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Outcome prediction by volumetric scoring
Between January 2002 and January 2013, a total of 201 cT4 stage SCC HNC patients were curatively treated at our department. The mean/median follow-up was 31/23 months (range 1–116 months). In all, 67 % of all patients were alive at last follow-up, and 49 % had no signs of disease. Of the 33 % of patients who had died, 24 % died due to disease-related reasons. The 3-year OS, DFS, LRC, and DMFS rates of the entire cohort were 63, 44, 48, and 77 %, respectively.
Volumetric staging revealed its potential to prognostically statistically significantly divide the cT4 cohort into 4 volume subgroups (V1/2/3/4): OS: 90 %/72 %/58 %/18 %; DFS: 83 %/50 %/39 %/10 %; LRC: 81 %/53 %/47 %/15 %; DMFS: 93 %/90 %/70 %/41 %, all p < 0.0001, (Tab. 2, Fig. 1).
Additional parameters with potential impact on disease control and OAS
The following parameters were tested in univariate analysis:
-
histopathological grading (grade 2 versus 3, no grade 1 cases), not significant,
-
age (>/< 70 years), not significant,
-
cT4a versus cT4b: in 63 % of the cases this differentiation was not indicated; most of the remaining cases were scored as cT4a (therefore statistically not evaluable),
-
nodal status (cN0 vs N1 vs N2a vs N2b vs N2c vs N3; cN0 vs N1–2b vs N2c vs N3; cN0 vs cN1–2 vs cN3), not significant,
-
systemic therapy: as the sample sizes of the subgroup with versus without systemic therapy was unbalanced (84 % vs 16 %—not the same patients with respect to substantial comorbidity and age), and systemic therapy was not homogeneous, no reliable information can be drawn from this analysis, which, however, showed a significant difference in favor of the combined modality subgroup (p = 0.2; OS 65 % vs 50 % at 3 years).
Treatment tolerance
With respect to treatment tolerance, the following findings in 117 locoregionally controlled patients were stated as based on the last clinical visit: 16/117 patients experienced any late term grade 3/4 side effects (LENT-SOMA, 14 %). Only 6/16 patients (38 %; 3 % of all patients) suffered from persistent late term sequelae (1 × xerostomia G3, 1 × loss of taste G3, 1 × chondronecrosis, 1 × dysphagia G3, 2 × feeding tube dependence).
Discussion
Aim of this work was to assess the potential of volumetric stratification of our cT4 SCC HNC cohort into different prognostic subgroups. We found volumetric stratification highly statistically significant in predicting outcome for different volume subgroups in the assessed cT4 HNC cohort. The volumetric system itself is considered robust with respect to interobserver GTV contouring, as its cut offs values differ markedly (15 ml/70 ml/130 ml) [4, 7]. The potential benefit of the assessed stratification lays in its more precise prediction of disease control in irradiated cT4 patient cohorts, and therefore more accurate characterization of cT4 cohorts for intercenter comparison purposes.
A weakness of this study is its retrospective stratification approach, which however applied a prospectively tested staging system [4, 5, 6, 7]. In addition, the assessed cohort includes different unbalanced tumor sites as well as unbalanced volume subgroups (Tab. 1).
To our knowledge there are no similar comparable volumetric staging analyses published. Most published volumetric focused outcome analyses were based on dichotomizing the GTV (i.e., using just one cut-off), (Tab. 3, [4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]). Four [17, 18, 20, 25] of the 31 listed reports were based on two or three cut-off values, our own system included. All but two analyses showed significant difference in outcome between larger vs smaller tumor volumes. Been et al. [34] failed to demonstrate statistical significance between pGTV and locoregional outcome, perhaps due to not considering the nodal tumor volume which may significantly impact locoregional outcome. Mendenhall et al. [8] found no outcome difference in tumors of the hypopharynx/base of tongue/posterior tonsillar pillar when using a cut off value of 6 ml. This cut-off may have been too low.
The data presented here are derived from a cohort treated with IMRT techniques, with previous careful staging (in most cases using PET-CT) [36, 37].
Conclusion
Volumetric staging was shown to allow for highly statistically significantly stratification of cT4 stage SCC HNC into different prognostic subgroups, offering the option of better comparability of irradiated advanced stage HNC cohorts.
References
Garden AS, Harris J, Trotti A et al (2008) Long-term results of concomitant boost radiation plus concurrent cisplatin for advanced head and neck carcinomas: a phase II trial of the radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG 99–14). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1351–1355
Gomez-Millan J, Toledo MD, Lupianez Y et al (2013) Competing causes of death in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer treated with concomitant boost radiation plus concurrent weekly cisplatin. Clin Transl Oncol 15:321–326
Hauswald H, Simon C, Hecht S et al (2011) Long-term outcome and patterns of failure in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 6:70
Studer G, Lutolf UM, El-Bassiouni M et al (2007) Volumetric staging (VS) is superior to TNM and AJCC staging in predicting outcome of head and neck cancer treated with IMRT. Acta Oncol 46:386–394
Studer G, Seifert B, Glanzmann C (2008) Prediction of distant metastasis in head neck cancer patients: implications for induction chemotherapy and pre-treatment staging? Strahlenther Onkol 184:580–585
Studer G, Rordorf T, Glanzmann C (2011) Impact of tumor volume and systemic therapy on outcome in patients undergoing IMRT for large volume head neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 6:120
Studer G, Glanzmann C (2013) Volumetric staging in oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with definitive IMRT. Oral Oncol 49:269–276
Mendenhall WM, Morris CG, Amdur RJ et al (2003) Parameters that predict local control after definitive radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 25:535–542
Pameijer FA, Mancuso AA, Mendenhall WM et al (1998) Evaluation of pretreatment computed tomography as a predictor of local control in T1/T2 pyriform sinus carcinoma treated with definitive radiotherapy. Head Neck 20:159–168
Keberle M, Hoppe F, Dotzel S, Hahn D (2004) Tumor volume as determined by computed tomography predicts local control in hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with primary surgery. Eur Radiol 14:286–291
Plataniotis GA, Theofanopoulou ME, Kalogera-Fountzila A et al (2004) Prognostic impact of tumor volumetry in patients with locally advanced head-and-neck carcinoma (non-nasopharyngeal) treated by radiotherapy alone or combined radiochemotherapy in a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:1018–1026
Grabenbauer GG, Steininger H, Meyer M et al (1998) Nodal CT density and total tumor volume as prognostic factors after radiation therapy of stage III/IV head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 47:175–183
Rudat V, Dietz A, Schramm O et al (1999) Prognostic impact of total tumor volume and hemoglobin concentration on the outcome of patients with advanced head and neck cancer after concomitant boost radiochemotherapy. Radiother Oncol 53:119–125
Mukherji SK, O’Brien SM, Gerstle RJ et al (2000) The ability of tumor volume to predict local control in surgically treated squamous cell carcinoma of the supraglottic larynx. Head Neck 22:282–287
Freeman DE, Mancuso AA, Parsons JT et al (1990) Irradiation alone for supraglottic larynx carcinoma: can CT findings predict treatment results? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19(2):485–490
Gilbert RW, Birt D, Shulman H et al (1987) Correlation of tumor volume with local control in laryngeal carcinoma treated by radiotherapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 96:514–518
Lee CC, Chu ST, Ho HC, Hung SK (2008) Primary tumor volume calculation as a predictive factor of prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol 128:93–97
Hamilton S, Venkatesan V, Matthews TW et al (2004) Computed tomographic volumetric analysis as a predictor of local control in laryngeal cancers treated with conventional radiotherapy. J Otolaryngol 33:289–294
Tsou YA, Hua JH, Lin MH, Tsai MH (2006) Analysis of prognostic factors of chemoradiation therapy for advanced hypopharyngeal cancer—does tumor volume correlate with central necrosis and tumor pathology? ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 68:206–212
Strongin A, Yovino S, Taylor R et al (2012) Primary tumor volume is an important predictor of clinical outcomes among patients with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1823–1830
Chen SW, Yang SN, Liang JA et al (2009) Prognostic impact of tumor volume in patients with stage III–IVA hypopharyngeal cancer without bulky lymph nodes treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Head Neck 31:709–716
Hoebers FJ, Pameijer FA, Bois J de et al (2008) Prognostic value of primary tumor volume after concurrent chemoradiation with daily low-dose cisplatin for advanced-stage head and neck carcinoma. Head Neck 30:1216–1223
Lee WR, Mancuso AA, Saleh EM et al (1993) Can pretreatment computed tomography findings predict local control in T3 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with radiotherapy alone? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:683–687
Pameijer FA, Mancuso AA, Mendenhall WM et al (1997) Can pretreatment computed tomography predict local control in T3 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with definitive radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:1011–1021
Chua DT, Sham JS, Kwong DL et al (1997) Volumetric analysis of tumor extent in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and correlation with treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:711–719
Nathu RM, Mancuso AA, Zhu TC, Mendenhall WM (2000) The impact of primary tumor volume on local control for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiotherapy. Head Neck 22:1–5
Keberle M, Hoppe F, Dotzel S, Hahn D (2003) Prognostic value of pretreatment CT regarding local control in oropharyngeal cancer after primary surgical resection. Rofo 175:61–66
Hermans R, Op de beeck K, Van den Bogaert W et al (2001) The relation of CT-determined tumor parameters and local and regional outcome of tonsillar cancer after definitive radiation treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:37–45
Chao KS, Ozyigit G, Blanco AI et al (2004) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:43–50
Doweck I, Denys D, Robbins KT (2002) Tumor volume predicts outcome for advanced head and neck cancer treated with targeted chemoradiotherapy. Laryngoscope 112:1742–1749
Johnson CR, Thames HD, Huang DT, Schmidt-Ullrich RK (1995) The tumor volume and clonogen number relationship: tumor control predictions based upon tumor volume estimates derived from computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33:281–287
Kurek R, Kalogera-Fountzila A, Muskalla K et al (2003) Usefulness of tumor volumetry as a prognostic factor of survival in head and neck cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 179:292–297
Lok BH, Setton J, Caria N et al (2012) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in oropharyngeal carcinoma: effect of tumor volume on clinical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1851–1857
Been MJ, Watkins J, Manz RM et al (2008) Tumor volume as a prognostic factor in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with primary radiotherapy. Laryngoscope 118:1377–1382
Chung EJ, Lee NJ, Baek SK et al (2009) Clinical efficacy of primary tumor volume measurements: comparison of different primary sites. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2:78–84
Abramyuk A, Appold S, Zöphel K et al (2013) Modification of staging and treatment of head and neck cancer by FDG-PET/CT prior to radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 189:197–201
Fakhrian F, Oechsner M, Kampfer S et al (2013) Advanced techniques in neoadjuvant radiotherapy allow dose escalation without increased dose to the organs at risk. Strahlenther Onkol 189:293–300
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Conflict of interest. G. Studer and C. Glanzmann state that there are no conflicts of interest.
The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
©The Authors (2013) This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Studer, G., Glanzmann, C. Volumetric stratification of cT4 stage head and neck cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 189, 867–873 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0413-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0413-3