Consideration of image guidance in patterns of failure analyses of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Paul-Henry Mackeprang, Katarina Bryjova, Astrid E Heusel, Dominik Henzen, Melissa Scricciolo, Olgun Elicin
{"title":"Consideration of image guidance in patterns of failure analyses of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a systematic review.","authors":"Paul-Henry Mackeprang, Katarina Bryjova, Astrid E Heusel, Dominik Henzen, Melissa Scricciolo, Olgun Elicin","doi":"10.1186/s13014-024-02421-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered standard of care for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Improved conformity of IMRT and smaller margins, however, have led to concerns of increased rates of marginal failures. We hypothesize that while patterns of failure (PoF) after IMRT for HNSCC have been published before, the quality of patient positioning and image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) have rarely been taken into account, and their importance remains unclear. This work provides a systematic review of the consideration of IGRT in PoF studies after IMRT for HNSCC.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic literature search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed on PubMed for HNSCC, IMRT and PoF terms and conference abstracts from ESTRO and ASTRO 2020 and 2021 were screened. Studies were included if they related PoF of HNSCC after IMRT to the treated volumes. Data on patient and treatment characteristics, IGRT, treatment adaptation, PoF and correlation of PoF to IGRT was extracted, categorized and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred ten studies were included. The majority (70) did not report any information on IGRT. The remainder reported daily IGRT (18), daily on day 1-3 or 1-5, then weekly (7), at least weekly (12), or other schemes (3). Immobilization was performed with masks (78), non-invasive frames (4), or not reported (28). The most common PoF classification was \"in-field/marginal/out-of-field\", reported by 76 studies. Only one study correlated PoF in nasopharyngeal cancer patients to IGRT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The impact of IGRT on PoF in HNSCC is severely underreported in existing literature. Only one study correlated PoF to IGRT measures and setup uncertainty. Further, most PoF studies relied on outdated terminology (\"in/out-of-field\"). A clearly defined and up-to-date PoF terminology is necessary to evaluate PoFs properly, as is systematic and preferably prospective data generation. PoF studies should consistently and comprehensively consider and report on IGRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":49639,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10916111/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02421-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered standard of care for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Improved conformity of IMRT and smaller margins, however, have led to concerns of increased rates of marginal failures. We hypothesize that while patterns of failure (PoF) after IMRT for HNSCC have been published before, the quality of patient positioning and image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) have rarely been taken into account, and their importance remains unclear. This work provides a systematic review of the consideration of IGRT in PoF studies after IMRT for HNSCC.

Materials and methods: A systematic literature search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed on PubMed for HNSCC, IMRT and PoF terms and conference abstracts from ESTRO and ASTRO 2020 and 2021 were screened. Studies were included if they related PoF of HNSCC after IMRT to the treated volumes. Data on patient and treatment characteristics, IGRT, treatment adaptation, PoF and correlation of PoF to IGRT was extracted, categorized and analyzed.

Results: One-hundred ten studies were included. The majority (70) did not report any information on IGRT. The remainder reported daily IGRT (18), daily on day 1-3 or 1-5, then weekly (7), at least weekly (12), or other schemes (3). Immobilization was performed with masks (78), non-invasive frames (4), or not reported (28). The most common PoF classification was "in-field/marginal/out-of-field", reported by 76 studies. Only one study correlated PoF in nasopharyngeal cancer patients to IGRT.

Conclusion: The impact of IGRT on PoF in HNSCC is severely underreported in existing literature. Only one study correlated PoF to IGRT measures and setup uncertainty. Further, most PoF studies relied on outdated terminology ("in/out-of-field"). A clearly defined and up-to-date PoF terminology is necessary to evaluate PoFs properly, as is systematic and preferably prospective data generation. PoF studies should consistently and comprehensively consider and report on IGRT.

头颈癌调强放射治疗失败模式分析中的图像引导考虑:系统综述。
背景:调强放射治疗(IMRT)被认为是头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)的标准治疗方法。然而,IMRT 顺应性的改善和边缘的缩小导致了边缘失败率增加的担忧。我们假设,虽然以前曾发表过 IMRT 治疗 HNSCC 后的失败模式 (PoF),但患者定位和图像引导放疗 (IGRT) 的质量很少被考虑在内,其重要性仍不明确。本研究对HNSCC IMRT治疗后PoF研究中考虑IGRT的情况进行了系统综述:根据PRISMA指南在PubMed上对HNSCC、IMRT和PoF术语进行了系统性文献检索,并筛选了ESTRO和ASTRO 2020和2021年的会议摘要。如果研究将 IMRT 后 HNSCC 的 PoF 与治疗量相关,则纳入研究。对患者和治疗特征、IGRT、治疗适应性、PoF以及PoF与IGRT的相关性等数据进行提取、分类和分析:结果:共纳入 110 项研究。大多数研究(70 项)未报告任何有关 IGRT 的信息。其余研究报告了每日 IGRT(18 项)、第 1-3 天或第 1-5 天每日 IGRT、随后每周 IGRT(7 项)、至少每周 IGRT(12 项)或其他方案(3 项)。固定方式有面罩(78 例)、非侵入性框架(4 例)或未报告(28 例)。最常见的 PoF 分类是 "场内/边缘/场外",有 76 项研究进行了报告。只有一项研究将鼻咽癌患者的PoF与IGRT相关联:结论:现有文献对IGRT对鼻咽癌患者PoF的影响报道严重不足。只有一项研究将PoF与IGRT措施和设置的不确定性相关联。此外,大多数PoF研究依赖于过时的术语("场内/场外")。要正确评估 PoFs,就必须有一个定义明确的最新 PoF 术语,还必须有系统地、最好是前瞻性地生成数据。PoF 研究应始终如一地全面考虑并报告 IGRT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiation Oncology
Radiation Oncology ONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.80%
发文量
181
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Radiation Oncology encompasses all aspects of research that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. It publishes findings in molecular and cellular radiation biology, radiation physics, radiation technology, and clinical oncology.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信