Postoperative IMRT in head and neck cancer
© Studer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
Received: 26 August 2006
Accepted: 19 October 2006
Published: 19 October 2006
Aim of this work was to assess loco-regional disease control in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with postoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy (pIMRT). For comparative purposes, risk features of our series have been analysed with respect to histopathologic adverse factors. Results were compared with an own historic conventional radiation (3DCRT) series, and with 3DCRT and pIMRT data from other centres.
Between January 2002 and August 2006, 71 patients were consecutively treated with pIMRT for a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oropharynx (32), oral cavity (22), hypopharynx (7), larynx (6), paranasal sinus (3), and an unknown primary, respectively. Mean and median follow up was 19 months (2–48), and 17.6 months. 83% were treated with IMRT-chemotherapy. Mean prescribed dose was 66.3 Gy (60–70), delivered with doses per fraction of 2–2.3 Gy, respectively.
2-year local, nodal, and distant control rates were 95%, 91%, and 96%, disease free and overall survival 90% and 83%, respectively. The corresponding survival rates for the subgroup of patients with a follow up time >12 months (n = 43) were 98%, 95%, 98%, 93%, and 88%, respectively. Distribution according to histopathologic risk features revealed 15% and 85% patients with intermediate and high risk, respectively. All loco-regional events occurred in the high risk subgroup.
Surgery followed by postoperative IMRT in patients with substantial risk for recurrence resulted in high loco-regional tumor control rates compared with large prospective 3DCRT trials.
Comparison with historic conventional postoperative three-dimensional radiation therapy (p3DCRT) data
2-year control rates
% high risk
Aug et al 
LR: no RT, IR: 57.6 Gy
Cooper et al 
60–66 Gy in 30–33 f
60–66 Gy in 30–33 f
Bernier et al 
66 Gy in 33 f
66 Gy in 33 f
Bachaud et al 
Porceddu et al 
mean 60 Gy (50–66)
60–70 Gy in 27–35 f
60–70 Gy in 27–35 f
We are presently assessing the results focussing on the validity of anatomic target definitions and the dosage, respectively.
n pIMRT (dIMRT)
T3/4, rec, OCC
Lee et al 
53, 0, 2%
35% of pIMRT
Chao et al 
52, 0, 12%
~68 Gy (+/-4.7)
none of pIMRT
Feng et al 
all but NPC/SNC
90 lll/lV, 3, 23%
~70 Gy (66–76)
12% of all
Yao et al 
53, 0, 19%
none of pIMRT
25, 18, 31%
~66 Gy (60–70)
83% of pIMRT
In order to compare our own data with published results, outcome parameters and risk factors as established by Ang et al , have been used.
61 m : 10 f
concomitant CT **
The small number of events did not allow further subgroup analysis with respect to diagnosis, age or gender.
When last seen, 63 patients (89%) were alive with no evidence of disease, one was alive with disease, 3 patients had died of disease, and 4 of independent reasons not related to the tumor.
n patients [na]
>1 nodal group
>/= 2 pos LN
> 3 cm LN
Six patients with 3 local, 5 nodal, and 2 distant relapses were observed. The follow up time is still short. However, considering the fact that 90% of all loco-regional recurrences occurred during the first 12 months after completion of radiation in our definitive IMRT cohort (64 out of 69 local and nodal events in 230 patients), and all events observed in the pIMRT cohort occurred during the first 10 months, the observation interval of median/mean 17.6/19 months (2–48) is expected to be long enough for a representative estimation of the 2-year outcome in pIMRT.
All patients with loco-regional failure belong to the histopathologic high risk group. Two of the three failed patients were referred for resected recurrence of an oral cavity and glottic cancer, respectively. The third locally failed patient suffered from a pT2pN2 oral cavity tumor.
Nodal failure in locally controlled patients occurred in three patients. None of the loco-regionally controlled patients developed metastatic disease.
All nodal failures occurred in nodally dissected patients with proven pN+ disease (ECE in 3/5).
postoperative SIB-IMRT schedules
PTD PTV1/PTV2 (Gy)
30–35 × 2.0 Gy
30–35 × 1.64–1.8 Gy
30–33 × 2.11 Gy
30–33 × 1.64 Gy
27–30 × 2.2
27–30 × 1.8 Gy
27 × 2.3 (LN), 2.2 Gy
27 × 1.8 Gy
Acute toxicity was mild to moderate. No grade 4 reactions, and no treatment interruptions occurred due to radiation or chemotherapeutic side effects, respectively. A gastric feeding tube was used in 10 patients (14%), body weight in the entire cohort was mean 71 kg prior to radiation, mean 68 kg at the end of pIMRT, and mean 67 kg at 1 year from completion of radiation, respectively. The maximum individual weight loss during radiation was 9% of the pre-treatment weight.
No grade 4 reaction, and only one grade 3 late effect (xerostomia) was observed in the 43 patients with an at least 12 months follow up period.
Treatment outcome of HNC patients treated with postoperative IMRT has been assessed.
We found a high local-regional disease control rate in a collective of 71 patients of these 60 had high risk features, and 13 were referred for recurrent disease after surgery alone.
Peters et al  (1993) and Ang et al  (2001) undertook prospective randomized trials to address the validity and dose of postoperative radiation, the impact of accelerating postoperative radiation, and the importance of the overall treatment time on outcome in 302 and 213 patients, respectively. The authors found significantly higher loco-regional control (LRC) and survival rates in non irradiated low risk and irradiated intermediate risk patients compared to high risk patients irradiated with higher doses. In addition, for high risk patients, a trend toward higher LRC was found when radiation was delivered in 5 rather than in 7 weeks, and a significant LRC benefit was shown when the interval between surgery and radiation in the 7-week schedule was short. Consequently, the cumulative duration of combined therapy has a significant impact on LRC and survival.
Concomitant chemotherapy with cisplatin has been investigated in 3 randomised series:
Bachaud et al  (1991) showed a significant improvement of LRC as well as survival rates in a relatively small number of patients (n = 83). These results have been confirmed and extended by Cooper et al , and Bernier et al , respectively. Cooper et al  (Table 1) assessed 459 high risk patients enrolled into an intergroup phase lll trial (RTOG, ECOG, SWOG) to test the hypothesis that concurrent postoperative radiation-chemotherapy would improve LRC compared to the radiation alone arm. The difference was significant in favour to the combined approach, with 82 vs 72%, respectively, at two years.
Similarly, in a prospective multicenter randomized study with 334 stage lll and lV patients, in which our institution participated, Bernier et al  (Table 1) compared postoperative combined radiation-chemotherapy with postoperative radiation alone. The authors found a significantly increased 5-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in favour to the combined arm, with 47 vs 36%, and 53 vs 40%, respectively.
Comparison with postoperative conventional radiation (p3DCRT) data
Table 1 shows outcome data of the above mentioned three large prospective p3DCRT trials [3–5] and two smaller prospective single institution series [2, 13], addressing the outcome following p3DCRT combined with chemotherapy. In high risk cohorts treated with p3DCRT without chemotherapy [3–5], highly concordant LRC rates of 70 and 72% were reported, with an increase of approximately 10% up to ~82%, when chemotherapy was added [3, 4]. Our high risk pIMRT-chemotherapy cohort resulted in higher control rates regarding LRC, disease free survival and overall survival, respectively.
We stratified our patients according to the risk factors established and used by Ang et al  (see section 'methods', and Table 4). Cooper et al  defined 'high risk' as any or all of the following: invasion of >/= 2 lymph nodes, ECE, R1. Bernier et al  used ECE, R1, PNI, and vascular tumor embolism for definition of high risk situations, while Porceddu et al  considered the presence of ECE, positive or close margins (<5 mm), and loco-regional recurrence as high risk features. Bachauds' et als'  patient inclusion criterion was ECE.
Treatment associated factors impacting on loco-regional control in pIMRT
a) Total treatment time (TTT)
Postoperative IMRT was performed using dose painting with SIB. SIB schedules with a slightly increased dose per fraction translate into a mild treatment acceleration. Treatment acceleration has been shown to improve outcome in historic 3DCRT series. The SIB schedules used in pIMRT are listed in Table 5. Mild treatment acceleration was therefore performed in 24 patients irradiated with doses per fraction higher than 2.0 Gy (2.11, 2.2 or 2.3 Gy/d) to the boost volume.
On the other hand, our collective showed unfavourable features regarding the treatment timing, with a surgery to start of radiation interval of > 6 weeks, and the TTT (time from surgery to the last radiation therapy day) of >12 weeks in the majority of patients. The TTT in the four patients who locally recurred was 12, 14, 18, and 22 weeks, respectively. Reasons for this unfavourably long TTT are multifactorial (such as time gap between surgery and referral for first presentation, dental care prior to planning computer tomography, IMRT planning time, and others more).
Both the interval between surgery and the start of radiation of > 6 weeks, and the TTT of >13 weeks, have been shown to translate into a highly significantly lower loco-regional control rate by Ang et al . Consecutively, shortening of TTT may be a possibility to further optimize outcome.
b) concomitant radiation-chemotherapy
The advantage of the combined radio-chemotherapeutic approach in the postoperative situation has clearly been shown. The statistically significant increase of LRC is approximately 10% [2–4, 13] (Table 1).
IMRT technique offers a clear benefit in terms of increased treatment tolerance (xerostomia , mandible bone necrosis ), and may result in an increase of LRC in difficult anatomic situations (e.g. posterior pharyngeal wall , upper level 2, skull base) by permitting somewhat higher doses to the tumor. IMRT seems to be an additional beneficial factor in improving outcome in postoperative HNC. Better outcome compared to historic 3DCRT cohorts has been reported for definitive IMRT (dIMRT) in pharyngeal tumors [15, 7, 16].
There are presently only few reports on pIMRT (Table 2). In conclusion, pIMRT in HNC, as reported by other centres [9–12, 16], has resulted in local control or LRC rates ranging between 81 and 95%, respectively, which is in concordance with our results. A direct comparison between the cited pIMRT series is, however, limited because the risk factors have not been indicated.
In a historic small p3DCRT series from our institution (S Maurer, dissertation, Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zurich, 1996) from the time interval when conventional fractionation (5× 1.8 Gy per week) was replaced by an accelerated boost schedule (see section 'patients' in the method's section), the first 18 accelerated patients showed an actuarial 2-year local control of ~82% vs 68% in 41 conventionally treated patients, with a minimal/maximal follow up time of 16/63 months each group. The absolute recurrence rate was 22 vs 49%, respectively. No concomitant chemotherapy was given at that time.
We found no published reports comparing intra-institutional historic p3DCRT to pIMRT results.
Surgery followed by postoperative IMRT in patients with high risk for recurrence resulted in high loco-regional tumor control rates compared with large prospective 3DCRT trials.
Between January 2002 and August 2006, 71 of 320 HNC IMRT patients were treated with postoperative IMRT (pIMRT). During the first year, when IMRT was clinically implemented at our institution, for capacity reasons only few postoperative patients could be included into the IMRT program. Since the beginning of 2003, all HNC patients referred for curative (definitive or postoperative) radiation therapy have been treated with IMRT. No patient selection was performed. Patient and tumor characteristics are presented in Table 3.
In 9 of 15 patients without clinical or radiological signs of nodal involvement, no neck dissection has been performed.
Therapeutic decisions for these patients were made at weekly interdisciplinary HNC tumor boards. All patients were operated at the joint Head and Neck Surgery, or Head, Neck and Maxillofacial Surgery, both at the University Hospital of Zurich. Similarly, histopathologic examinations and diagnosis have been performed by head and neck tumor specialists at the Institution of Pathology at the University Hospital of Zurich.
During the course of irradiation, all patients were clinically assessed at regular weekly intervals, at 2 weeks and at 2 months after completion of treatment.
Approximately 6 weeks after completion of treatment all patients were also seen regularly in our joint clinics at the Department of Head and Neck Surgery or Head, Neck and Maxillofacial Surgery. Further follow up visits were scheduled every 2 – 3 months in the first 2 years, 3 – 4 monthly in the third year. When clinical and/or endoscopic examination showed no evidence of disease annual radiological investigations were performed. Suspect findings were specified with computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MIR), and/or positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT), suspect lymph nodes by needle aspiration and/or biopsy, respectively.
Since 1991, we used a risk stratification following the scheme described by Peters et al , when the authors showed the prognostic significance of the risk factors as listed in Table 4. In patients with low risk of recurrence, usually no postoperative radiation was performed. Because the data of Peters et al showed a loco-regional recurrence rate of approximately 30% after 63–68.4 Gy (oral presentation at ESTRO 1990, Monte Catini), we changed the postoperative fractionation to a concomitant boost regime, otherwise we used a dosage comparable to the dose as used by Peters et al. This institutional dose concept for postoperative situations was basically taken over when IMRT as a novel technology was implemented (see section 'radiation' below).
Actuarial disease outcome was calculated using Kaplan Meier survival curves.
Results were compared with data from 3DCRT series and IMRT cohorts reported from other centres.
Risk levels are defined as follows, based on the pathologic risk factors listed in Table 4:
• low risk: no adverse pathologic factor
• intermediate risk: only one adverse factor other than extra-capsular extension
• high risk: ECE, or >/= 2 adverse factors
In addition, we considered recurrences as intermediate risk, and as high risk, when in combination with one of the adverse factors listed above.
Total doses and doses per fraction of the SIB-IMRT schedules used are listed in Table 5.
High risk patients were treated with mean 67 Gy (60–70), intermediate risk patients with mean 64 Gy (60–68), respectively. Prescribed doses were calculated as the mean of the nominal dose to the high dose planning target volume (PTV1).
One patient has been treated with 2.3 Gy per session to 62.1 Gy for bulky nodal disease.
Planning target volumes (PTVs)
All patients were treated using simultaneously integrated boost technique .
- high dose planning target volume (PTV1):
High risk regions (the area of operated large tumors, areas of operated tumors with positive resection margin (R1), operated lymph node metastases measuring >3 cm, nodes with ECE, multiple positive nodes) were included in the PTV1. The operated primary and nodal gross tumor volume (pGTV) has been defined by contouring the anatomic region of the initial primary and nodal GTV, considering the preoperative diagnostics and the clinical and histological findings. The PTV1 includes the pGTV with a safety margin of between 1.0 and 1.5 cm, and was extended also 1.0 to 1.5 cm above and below. All patients underwent a pre-therapeutic fused positron-emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT), facilitating the identification of initial gross tumor volumes.
- elective planning target volume (PTV2): for defining the elective lymph node regions, the RTOG standard atlas (RTOG homepage: http://www.rtog.org) has been used.
Regions with intermediate risk were treated with doses of 56–60 Gy, elective lymphatic pathways have been treated with 46–54 Gy, respectively.
Bilateral nodal irradiation has been performed in all tumors extending to the midline (except of nodally negative sinonasal cancer), in all large pT2 and any size >pT2 staged primaries. In cases of unilateral involvement or cN0, the upper part of level II was not included.
All high risk patients with no specific contraindications were simultaneously treated with cisplatin based chemotherapy (n = 59, 83% of all pIMRT patients). One cisplatin application consisted of 40 mg/m2/radiation week. 5 patients had 1–3 applications, 54 patients tolerated 4–7 applications, respectively.
12 patients had no cisplatin chemotherapy; two of them underwent combined cetuximab therapy.
The high percentage of combined treated individuals is related to the fact that IMRT was implemented in our institution towards the end of 2001, when first data on the benefit of combining radiation with chemotherapy were available , confirming earlier results of Bachaud et al . In consequence, the combined modality approach in a postoperative setting was adopted as our institutional standard.
Financial support: This work was in part supported by the 'Zurich Cancer League'
- Peters LJ, Goepfert H, Ang KK, Byers RM, Maor MH, Guillamondegui O, Morrison WH, Weber RS, Garden AS, Frankenthaler RA, et al.: Evaluation of the dose for postoperative radiation therapy of head and neck cancer: first report of a prospective randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993,26(1):3-11.View ArticlePubMed
- Bachaud JM, David JM, Boussin G, Daly N: Combined postoperative radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin infusion for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: preliminary report of a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991,20(2):243-246.View ArticlePubMed
- Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, Matuszewska K, Lefebvre JL, Greiner RH, Giralt J, Maingon P, Rolland F, Bolla M, Cognetti F, Bourhis J, Kirkpatrick A, van Glabbeke M: Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2004,350(19):1945-1952. 10.1056/NEJMoa032641View ArticlePubMed
- Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA, Jacobs J, Campbell BH, Saxman SB, Kish JA, Kim HE, Cmelak AJ, Rotman M, Machtay M, Ensley JF, Chao KS, Schultz CJ, Lee N, Fu KK: Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2004,350(19):1937-1944. 10.1056/NEJMoa032646View ArticlePubMed
- Ang KK, Trotti A, Brown BW, Garden AS, Foote RL, Morrison WH, Geara FB, Klotch DW, Goepfert H, Peters LJ: Randomized trial addressing risk features and time factors of surgery plus radiotherapy in advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001,51(3):571-578. 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01690-XView ArticlePubMed
- Studer G, Huguenin P, Davis J, Kunz G, Lutolf U, Glanzmann C: IMRT using simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck cancer patients. Radiat Oncol 2006,1(1):7. 10.1186/1748-717X-1-7PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
- Studer G, Lutolf UM, Davis JB, Glanzmann C: IMRT in Hypopharyngeal Tumors. Strahlenther Onkol 2006,182(6):331-335. 10.1007/s00066-006-1556-2View ArticlePubMed
- Studer G, Studer SP, Zwahlen RA, Huguenin P, Gratz KW, Lutolf UM, Glanzmann C: Osteoradionecrosis of the Mandible : Minimized Risk Profile Following Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol 2006,182(5):283-288. 10.1007/s00066-006-1477-0View ArticlePubMed
- Chao KS, Ozyigit G, Tran BN, Cengiz M, Dempsey JF, Low DA: Patterns of failure in patients receiving definitive and postoperative IMRT for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003,55(2):312-321. 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03940-8View ArticlePubMed
- Feng M, Jabbari S, Lin A, Bradford CR, Chepeha DB, Teknos TN, Worden FP, Tsien C, Schipper MJ, Wolf GT, Dawson LA, Eisbruch A: Predictive factors of local-regional recurrences following parotid sparing intensity modulated or 3D conformal radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2005,77(1):32-38. 10.1016/j.radonc.2005.07.008View ArticlePubMed
- Lee N, Xia P, Fischbein NJ, Akazawa P, Akazawa C, Quivey JM: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: the UCSF experience focusing on target volume delineation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003,57(1):49-60. 10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00405-XView ArticlePubMed
- Yao M, Dornfeld KJ, Buatti JM, Skwarchuk M, Tan H, Nguyen T, Wacha J, Bayouth JE, Funk GF, Smith RB, Graham SM, Chang K, Hoffman HT: Intensity-modulated radiation treatment for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma--the University of Iowa experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005,63(2):410-421. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.02.025View ArticlePubMed
- Porceddu SV, Campbell B, Rischin D, Corry J, Weih L, Guerrieri M, Grossi M, Peters LJ: Postoperative chemoradiotherapy for high-risk head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004,60(2):365-373. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.03.011View ArticlePubMed
- Eisbruch A, Ship JA, Dawson LA, Kim HM, Bradford CR, Terrell JE, Chepeha DB, Teknos TN, Hogikyan ND, Anzai Y, Marsh LH, Ten Haken RK, Wolf GT: Salivary gland sparing and improved target irradiation by conformal and intensity modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. World J Surg 2003,27(7):832-837. 10.1007/s00268-003-7105-6View ArticlePubMed
- Lee N, Xia P, Quivey JM, Sultanem K, Poon I, Akazawa C, Akazawa P, Weinberg V, Fu KK: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an update of the UCSF experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002,53(1):12-22. 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02724-4View ArticlePubMed
- Chao KS, Ozyigit G, Blanco AI, Thorstad WL, Deasy JO, Haughey BH, Spector GJ, Sessions DG: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004,59(1):43-50. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.08.004View ArticlePubMed
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.