eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

1/2024
vol. 16
 
Share:
Share:
Original paper

Adjuvant pulse-dose-rate brachytherapy for oral cavity and oropharynx carcinoma: Outcome and toxicity assessment of 66 patients

Sophie Renard
1
,
Nicolas Demogeot
1
,
Marie Bruand
1
,
Nassim Sahki
2
,
Vincent Marchesi
1
,
William Gehin
1
,
Emilie Meknaci
1
,
Didier Peiffert
1

  1. Department of Brachytherapy, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France
  2. Methodology Biostatistics Unit, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France
J Contemp Brachytherapy 2024; 16, 1: 21–27
Online publish date: 2024/02/23
Article file
Get citation
 
 

Purpose

Brachytherapy (BT) is a validated radiation technique for early stage tumors of the oral cavity and oropharynx combined with surgery and/or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), depending on the indication. It enables targeted irradiation of the tumor or surgical bed with a high-dose gradient, consequently sparing organs at risk (OARs). No randomized trial has compared brachytherapy with other techniques, but results obtained in large series of patients validated BT treatment for localized tumors [1, 2]. Brachytherapy of head and neck cancers has been formerly performed using iridium wires with low-dose-rate (LDR) BT, but is progressively being replaced by pulse-dose-rate (PDR) BT, with comparable results [3]. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of patients treated in our institute from 2009 to 2020 after replacing LDR-BT with PDR-BT.

Material and methods

We retrospectively collected data from patients treated between 2009 and 2020 for squamous cell carcinoma (floor of the mouth, tongue, or oropharynx) using adjuvant interstitial BT with or without EBRT. Patients with a follow-up of less than one year, patients with re-irradiation, and those with lip tumors were excluded. Indications for BT after surgery for the tongue, floor of the mouth, and tonsil tumors were T1-T2 N0 tumors with borderline margins, without lympho-vascular invasion (LVI), or perineural invasion (PI). Indications for radiotherapy (RT) with BT boost after surgery were T1-T2 tumors of the tongue and floor of the mouth with positive nodes, LVI, or PI. Data collected included age, tumor characteristics (i.e., location, size, and TNM using the 8th AJCC classification), and associated treatments (i.e., surgery or surgery plus EBRT). Also, margin status, presence of LVI or PI, time between surgery and EBRT or BT, dose, and overall treatment time were recorded. Regarding characteristics of BT, the following were recorded: number of vectors, spacing between vectors, dose, dose-rate, coverage index (CI), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose volume index (OI), dose non-uniformity ratio (DNR), conformity index (COIN) [4], prescription isodose volume, and total dose (EQD2) in BT or EBRT + BT. After BT, patients underwent a clinical examination with naso-fibroscopy at one month, every 3 months for the first 2 years, and then every 6 months for 3 years. Computed tomography (CT) scan was performed 3 months after BT treatment and in case of clinical signs. The primary outcome was local control. The secondary outcomes were regional control and toxicities (i.e., mucositis, pain, osteoradionecrosis [ORN], soft tissue necrosis [STN]) defined using CT CAE v. 4 scale [5] as well as their duration and management.

Statistical analysis

Results were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR) for quantitative variables, and as numbers and percentages for qualitative variables. Local recurrence (LR) was defined as the time between BT and the date of local recurrence. Regional recurrence (RR) was specified as the time between BT and the date of RR. The incidence of toxicity was defined as the time elapsed between the date of BT administration and the appearance of specific toxicity. Local and regional recurrences were described using Kaplan-Meier method. Occurrence of toxicity was evaluated with cumulative incidence method, considering recurrence and death as competing risks. Risk factors for recurrence were evaluated using univariate Cox model, and those for the incidence of toxicity were assessed with univariate analysis using Fine-Gray model. Results were presented as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using R Studio software, version 2022.07.2+576.

Results

Patient characteristics

Data of 66 patients were collected between 2009 and 2020. Patient tumor and treatment characteristics are shown in Table 1. Figures 1-3 show examples of brachytherapy. Anatomopathological analysis revealed millimetric or infra-millimetric margins in 53.1% of cases, LVI in 15%, and PI in 30%. The median follow-up was 48.87 months (range, 22.32-71.45 months).

Table 1

Patient characteristics

CharacteristicsAll patientsBT only
(43 patients)
EBRT + BT
(23 patients)
Age (years), median (range)56 (50-68)61 (52-69)52 (44-61)
Tumor location, n (%)Mobile tongue59 (89.0)39 (91.0)20 (87.0)
Floor of the mouth6 (7.6)3 (7.0)2 (8.7)
Oropharynx2 (3.0)1 (2.3)1 (4.3)
Stage, n (%)T1N021 (32.0)19 (44.0)2 (87.0)
T1N14 (6.1)04 (17.0)
T1N22 (3.0)02 (8.7)
T2N026 (39.0)23 (53.0)3 (13.0)
T2N17 (11.0)07 (30)
T2N22 (3.0)02 (8.7)
T3N03 (4.5)1 (2.3)2 (8.7)
T3N21 (1.5)01 (4.3)
Fig. 1

Tongue brachytherapy. Yellow line – prescription isodose

/f/fulltexts/JCB/52448/JCB-16-52448-g001_min.jpg
Fig. 2

Basic tongue brachytherapy. Yellow line – prescription isodose

/f/fulltexts/JCB/52448/JCB-16-52448-g002_min.jpg
Fig. 3

Floor of the mouth brachytherapy. Yellow line – prescription isodose

/f/fulltexts/JCB/52448/JCB-16-52448-g003_min.jpg

Implantation characteristics and dosimetry

Number of vectors, vector spacing, and prescription isodose volume are reported in Table 2 for all patients, except for missing data on prescription isodose volume for one patient. EQD2 was higher for patients treated with EBRT + BT, and dose-rate was higher for patients treated with BT only.

Table 2

Implantation characteristics

ParameterAll patients, median (lower quartile – upper quartile)BT onlyEBRT + BTBT vs. EBRT + BT
Number of vectors5 (4-5)5 (4-5)5 (4-6)0.68
Vector spacing (mm)12 (11-12)12 (11-12)12 (12-14)0.044
Prescription isodose volume (cc)21.4 (16.4-28.1)20 (17-27)23 (17-30)0.48
Number of pulses92 (34-100)96 (92-110)24 (20-36)Not relevant
Dose-rate (cGy/h)50 (50-60)58 (50-63.2)50.5 (50-50)< 0.001
Total BT dose (Gy)50.2 (17.59-62)56 (52-60)12 (10-18)Not relevant
Total EQD2 (BT ± EBRT) (Gy)60 (56.12-63.48)58.4 (53.6-63.3)60 (60-68.3)0.003
CI0.98 (0.91-0.99)0.98 (0.9-0.99)0.98 (0.95-1.0)0.39
DHI0.68 (0.63-0.72)0.68 (0.63-0.72)0.67 (0.61-0.7)0.22
OI0.14 (0.12-0.17)0.14 (0.11-0.17)0.14 (0.12-0.17)0.68
COIN0.40 (0.32-0.44)0.39 (0.32-0.43)0.40 (0.32-0.47)0.79
DNR0.32 (0.28-0.37)0.31 (0.27-0.35)0.33 (0.30-0.39)0.22

[i] CI – coverage index, DHI – dose homogeneity index, OI – overdose volume index, COIN – conformity index, DNR – dose non-uniformity ratio

Local and regional control

Local and regional recurrences were reported in 11% and 20% of patients, respectively. No significant factors were identified (Table 3). Of the six patients with isolated local recurrence, only two underwent surgery. The first patient had no second recurrence, and the second had a regional recurrence treated with radiochemotherapy. The remaining four patients were not amenable to surgery, received palliative chemotherapy, and died. Of the patients with regional recurrence, six were treated with surgery, followed by radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy. One of these patients experienced a second recurrence, received palliative chemotherapy, and died. One patient with regional recurrence was treated with radiochemotherapy without recurrence, and another patient was treated with palliative chemotherapy and died.

Table 3

Relationship between recurrence, tumor, and treatment characteristics

All patientsBT onlyEBRT + BT
Local recurrenceRegional recurrenceLocal recurrenceRegional recurrenceLocal recurrenceRegional recurrence
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Tumor size (mm)1.01 (0.94-1.09%)0.70.99 (0.93-1.05%)0.691.0 (0.88-1.13%)> 0.90.99 (0.92-1.06%)0.81.01 (0.92-1.11%)0.81.02 (0.91-1.13%)0.8
Node1.16 (0.23-5.99%)0.90.49 (0.11-2.25%)0.360.99 (0.92-1.06%)0.81.67 (0.91-3.04%)0.7
  0
  +
Margins0.95 (0.69-1.31%)0.80.95 (0.69-1.31%)0.80.61 (0.23-1.63%)0.30.86 (0.56-1.33%)0.51.67 (0.91-3.04%)0.091.23 (0.5-3.02%)0.7
LVI1.03 (0.4-2.66%)> 0.91.95 (0.63-6.0%)0.25.17 (0.47-57.2%)0.21.25 (0.16-10.0%)0.81.34 (0.12-14.9%)0.8
  No
  Yes
PI1.03 (0.4-2.66%)> 0.91.06 (0.41-2.75%)> 0.90.98 (0.09-10.8%)> 0.90.91 (0.23-3.65%)0.90.95 (0.09-10.5%)> 0.9
  No
  Yes
EQD20.97 (0.89-1.05%)0.40.97 (0.9-1.05%)0.51.17 (0.93-1.48%)0.20.96 (0.86-1.08%)0.50.86 (0.61-1.21%)0.40.97 (0.7-1.35%)0.9
IP volume1.0 (0.94-1.06%)> 0.91.0 (0.94- 1.06%)> 0.91.02 (0.90-1.16%)0.81.0 (0.92-1.09%)> 0.90.82 (0.63-1.07%)0.140.85 (0.64-1.12%)0.2
Vector spacing0.94 (0.68-1.31%)0.70.95 (0.68- 1.32%)0.70.77 (0.32-1.87%)0.61.0 (0.57-1.74%)> 0.90.92 (0.46-1.82%)0.80.77 (0.28-2.1%)0.6
No. of vectors0.97 (0.59-1.59%)0.90.96 (0.59-1.58%)0.90.74 (0.23-2.41%)0.60.99 (0.52-1.87%)> 0.90.70 (0.16-3.05%)0.60.54 (0.07-3.9%)0.5

[i] BT – brachytherapy, EBRT – external beam radiotherapy, IP volume – isodose prescription volume, PI – perineural invasion, LVI – lymphovascular invasion, (–) – non-valuable because of no event

Toxicities

Grade 2 and 3 acute mucositis was reported in 21% (n = 14) of the patients (18% grade 2, and 3% grade 3). Almost half (47%, n = 32) of the patients described acute pain following BT, and 26% (n = 17) required stage 2 or 3 analgesics. Chronic toxicities observed were STN and ORN. Trophic disorders were observed in 16 (24%) patients. Five patients (7.6%) presented with STN, and required treatment with tocopherol and torental, of whom 1 subsequently required hyperbaric oxygen therapy (5 stage 2, and 1 stage 3). No predictive factors were identified for STN risk (Table 4). Two patients had ORN (stage 3) at 19 and 91 months after BT. Grade 2 and 3 acute mucositis were more frequent with BT than with EBRT + BT (HR = 0.13, p = 0.040). There was no difference in terms of pain severity, analgesic treatment, or late toxicity between the BT and EBRT + BT groups.

Table 4

Relationship between the occurrence of soft tissue necrosis (STN), patients, and treatment characteristics

ParameterHR (95% CI)p-value
Dose rate (Gy/h)1.03 (0.96-1.11%)0.4
EQD21.09 (0.98-1.20%)0.1
Volume isodose of prescription1.04 (0.98-1.10%)0.2
Tobacco3.24 (0.72-14.50%)0.12

Discussion

This retrospective study included a large series of PDR-treated head and neck tumors at a single experimental institute.

Comparison of results with literature (Table 5)

In terms of local control and toxicities, the results of this cohort study were similar to those described in the literature on PDR and LDR. With LC of 87% and RC of 82% at 5 years, our study obtained results comparable with 2 series of patients with LDR-BT published in 1995 and 2014 by our institution (LC: 89% and 97%, RC: 82%) [3, 6]. Consistent series of 36-236 patients treated with PDR-BT presented an LC rate between 88% and 97% at 3-5 years [3, 7, 8]. With an STN rate of 8% and ORN rate of 2.4%, late toxicities were lower than those reported in LDR studies (STN: 12% and 7%; ORN: 6% and 5%), and comparable with those of the previously cited PDR studies (STN: 8% to 11%, ORN: 3% to 7.6%).

Compared with BT-HDR series, in terms of LC, our study achieved comparable results (LC: 53-87% at 2-5 years) [9-14]. In terms of toxicity, the results of this series are superior to those of the oldest HDR series (SNT: 15-35%), with doses per fraction of 3-6 Gy [9-12]. More recent studies with fractional doses of 3 to 4 Gy have shown comparable results (SNT: 9.3-16%, ORN: 2-4%) [13, 14].

Risk factors for toxicity

Acute grade 2 and 3 mucositis were more frequent in the BT group than in the EBRT + BT group, despite a lower EQD2 on the tumor. This result is not surprising given that the treatment is concentrated over five days in BT and not several weeks in EBRT + BT. The BT group showed a significantly higher dose-rate compared with the EBRT + BT group in order to be able to carry out the treatment over 5 days and avoid removal of the vectors on weekends. Indeed, for safety reasons in the event of bleeding, equipment removal is performed on working days when all personnel (brachytherapist, surgeon, anesthetist, etc.) are on site. Therefore, dose-rate was sometimes increased, but generally it remained within the recommended thresholds. As BT treatment time in addition to EBRT was shorter, it was not necessary to increase flow rate in this group to avoid vector ablation on weekends. However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of pain, extent of analgesic treatment, or late toxicity. The two groups presented different tumor stages (more advanced stage and N+ for the EBRT + BT group). Moreover, no statistically significant risk factors for toxicity were identified in the present study. The known risk factors in the literature include vector spacing, treated volume, dose-rate, and location [1, 15]. However, in the current study, these elements were in line with the ESTRO GEC recommendations [1], which aim to limit toxicity. The median dose-rate was 50 cGy per hour; however, 13 patients had a rate exceeding 60 cGy per hour, although the recommended rate was between 30 and 60 cGy/h. The vector spacing was between 1 and 1.5 cm. The median volume receiving prescribed dose was 22 cc, and the maximum number of vectors was 6. In a series reported by Pernot with 1,134 patients, the authors concluded that there was an increase in toxicity above 30 cc and 6 vectors [15]. A location close to the mandible and the absence of lead protection are known risk factors for ORN [1]. The two patients who developed ORN were checked to see if they wore their lead shields during treatment. The distance between the osteoradionecrosis site and the nearest brachytherapy vector was 2 mm and 4 mm for these patients. However, both were treated for cancer of the floor of the mouth, which is the location closest to the mandible, considered the most at risk in the literature.

Dose-rate

The recommended BT technique for VADS tumors is low-dose-rate, with a significant number of series and patients [3, 6-8, 15, 16]. Haddad’s single-center study in our institution showed no difference in local control or toxicity between LDR and PDR (LC: 97% vs. 94%, STN: 7% vs. 8%, and 7% vs. 3%) [3]. Other PDR series, including ours, have shown similar results to those of LDR [7, 8]. However, for other sites, there is a transition to a HDR-BT for economic reasons and to alleviate constraints, including medical on-call duty, all-day and all-night patient monitoring, supervising of technical developments with manufacturers, and radioprotection. The first published study on HDR-BT for oral or oropharyngeal cancers were very heterogeneous in terms of fractionation and dose (Table 5) [9-12]. The toxicity in some reports appeared to be higher than those in PDR. For example, Nose’s series of 83 patients showed 83% local control and 29% STN with 6 Gy per fraction [12]. In 2009, the ESTRO GEC recommended no more than 4 Gy per fraction for oral cavities, and most series with high toxicities proposed higher doses per fraction [2]. More recent study by Guinot and Santos, including 50 and 43 patients who received treatment to the tongue, with doses between 3 and 4 Gy per fraction, found late toxicity rates closer to PDR series [13, 14]. A meta-analysis of six oral cavity BT trials, including 607 patients (LDR: 447 and HDR: 160), showed no differences in terms of local control, survival, or toxicity (grade 3 and 4) [17]. Brachytherapy PDR and LDR series were used as a reference to verify the toxicity of HDR-BT and to adapt the dose if necessary. We have moved from PDR to HDR, and this study will serve as a baseline for future studies on HDR brachytherapy.

Table 5

Clinical comparative outcomes and toxicities from oral and oropharyngeal brachytherapy studies on low-dose-rate (LDR), pulse-dose-rate (PDR), and high-dose-rate (HDR)

Author [Ref.]YearNo. of patientsDose-rateLocationEBRT + BT or BTLC (%)RC (%)STN (%)ORN (%)Median follow-up time (years)
Pernot [6]199597LDROralEBRT + BT or BT89821265
Lau [9]199627HDR
(6.5 Gy/fx.)
OralBT53NC35NC5
Levendag [10]199715HDR
(3-5 Gy/fx.)
OropharyngealEBRT + BT or BT87NC30NC3
Inoue [11]200125HDR
(6 Gy/fx.)
OralBT87NC15NC3
Nose [12]200483HDR
(6 Gy/fx.)
OropharyngealEBRT + BT or BT83NC29NC2
Strnad [7]2005236PDROral and oropharyngealEBRT + BT or BT88NC9.77.25
Melzner [8]2007210PDROral and oropharyngealEBRT + BT or EBRT93NC117.62
Guinot [13]201050HDR
(3-4 Gy/fx.)
OralEBRT + BT or BT79NC1645
Haddad [3]201436
72
PDR
LDR
Oral and oropharyngealEBRT + BT or BT94
97
NC8
7
3
7
3
5
Santos [14]202243HDR
(4 Gy/fx.)
OralEBRT + BT or BT84819.325
Present study202366PDROral and oropharyngealEBRT + BT or BT878282.44

[i] NC – not collected, fx. – fraction

Conclusions

Pulse-dose-rate as adjuvant oral and oropharyngeal brachytherapy is safe and effective for well-defined indications.

Acknowledgements

The authors report no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the products mentioned or the concepts discussed in this article.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Mazeron JJ, Ardiet JM, Haie-Méder C et al. GEC-ESTRO recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Radiother Oncol 2009; 91: 150-156.

2 

Kovács G, Martinez-Monge R, Budrukkar A et al. GEC-ESTRO ACROP recommendations for head & neck brachytherapy in squamous cell carcinomas: 1st update–Improvement by cross sectional imaging based treatment planning and stepping source technology. Radiother Oncol 2017; 122: 248-254.

3 

Haddad A, Peiffert D, Lapeyre M et al. A case-control study of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx treated with pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2014; 13: 597-602.

4 

Palled SR, Radhakrishna NK, Manikantan S et al. Dosimetric comparison of manual forward planning with uniform dwell times versus volume-based inverse planning in interstitial brachytherapy of cervical malignancies. Reports Pract Oncol Radiother 2020; 25: 851-855.

5 

Villa A, Vollemans M, De Moraes A, Sonis S. Concordance of the WHO, RTOG, and CTCAE v4.0 grading scales for the evaluation of oral mucositis associated with chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers. Support Care Cancer 2021; 29: 6061-6068.

6 

Pernot M, Aletti P, Carolus JM et al. Indications, techniques and results of post operative brachytherapy in cancer of the oral cavity. Radiother Oncol 1995; 35: 186-192.

7 

Strnad V, Melzner W, Geiger M et al. Role of interstitial PDR brachytherapy in the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancer: A single-institute experience of 236 patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2005; 181: 762-767.

8 

Melzner WJ, Lotter M, Sauer R, Strnad V. Quality of interstitial PDR-brachytherapy-implants of head-and-neck-cancers: Predictive factors for local control and late toxicity? Radiother Oncol 2007; 82: 167-173.

9 

Lau HY, Hay JH, Flores AD, Threlfall WJ. Seven fractions of twice daily high dose-rate brachytherapy for node-negative carcinoma of the mobile tongue results in loss of therapeutic ratio. Radiother Oncol 1996; 39: 15-18.

10 

Levendag PC, Schmitz PIM, Jansen PP et al. Fractionated high-dose-rate and pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy: First clinical experience of the tonsillar fossa and soft palate. Radiat Oncol 1997; 38: 497-506.

11 

Inoue T, Inoue T, Yoshida K et al. Phase III trial of high-vs. low-dose-rate interstitial radiotherapy for early mobile tongue cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 171-175.

12 

Nose T, Koizumi M, Nishiyama K. High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: Results of 83 lesions in 82 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 983-991.

13 

Guinot JL, Santos M, Tortajada MI et al. Efficacy of high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in patients with oral tongue carcinoma. Brachytherapy 2010; 9: 227-234.

14 

Santos M, Guinot JL, Tortajada M et al. Is perioperative brachytherapy effective in carcinoma of the tongue? J Contemp Brachytherapy 2022; 14: 23-28.

15 

Pernot M. Complications following definitive irradiation for cancers of the oral cavity and the oropharynx (in a series of 1134 patients). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 37: 577-585.

16 

Pernot M. Influence of tumoral, radiobiological, and general factors on local control and survival of a series of 361 tumors of the velotonsillar area treated by exclusive irradiation (external beam irradiation+brachytherapy or brachytherapy alone). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 30: 1051-1057.

17 

Liu Z, Huang S, Zhang D. High dose rate versus low dose rate brachytherapy for oral cancer–A meta-analysis of clinical trials. PLoS One 2013; 8: 6-11.

Copyright: © 2024 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.