Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Advances in Radiation Oncology logoLink to Advances in Radiation Oncology
. 2017 May 12;2(3):346–353. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2017.05.002

Impact on quality of life of IMRT versus 3-D conformal radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients: A case control study

Edvard Abel a,∗, Ewa Silander b, Jan Nyman a, Mogens Bove c, Leif Johansson d, Thomas Björk-Eriksson a, Eva Hammerlid b
PMCID: PMC5605311  PMID: 29114602

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to prospectively and longitudinally compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes between head and neck (HN) cancer patients treated with parotid-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and patients treated with 3-dimensional conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT).

Methods and materials

Before and up to 12 months after treatment, HRQOL was recorded in patients with HN cancer who were referred to the Department of Oncology at Sahlgrenska University Hospital for curative IMRT. The study group's HRQOL was compared with a matched group of patients from previous descriptive HRQOL studies treated with 3D-CRT. Both groups' HRQOL was measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer QLQ-C30 and European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer QLQ-HN35 at 6 time points in the first year after diagnosis.

Results

Two hundred and seven patients were included, 111 treated with IMRT and 96 matched controls treated with 3D-CRT. Both groups' HRQOL deteriorated during and after treatment. Just after treatment, worse HRQOL scores were observed in the IMRT group regarding insomnia (38 vs 27; P = .032), appetite loss (64 vs 50; P = .019), senses (54 vs 41; P = .017), and coughing (39 vs 26, P = .009). At 12 months, however, significantly better HRQOL scores were observed in the IMRT group regarding problems with dry mouth (72 vs 62; P = .018), pain (28 vs 20; P = .018), sexuality (37 vs 23; P = .016), social contacts (10 vs 6; P = .026), cognitive functioning (79 vs 87; P = .0057), and financial difficulties (12 vs 20; P = .0019).

Conclusions

This study further supports the hypothesis that the introduction of IMRT has improved the long-term quality of life of HN cancer patients who have been treated with radiation therapy, but might cause more acute side effects. Longer follow-up is needed to study late complications.

Summary.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is believed to be advantageous compared with conventional dose planning in terms of decreasing radiation burden to organs at risk. In this case control study we aimed at collecting health-related quality of life data in patients with head and neck cancer treated with either IMRT or 3-dimensional conventional radiation therapy. The results of the study add to the knowledgebase of the actual clinical benefits of adopting new radiation therapy techniques.

Introduction

External radiation therapy remains a standard modality for the treatment of advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (SCCHN) as either single treatment or in combination with surgery and/or chemotherapy and results in a high overall survival rate.1, 2 Because of the increasing numbers of cancer survivors, long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has become a crucial endpoint that requires study. Several well-known acute toxicities are related to chemoradiation, including mucositis, dysgeusia, and dermatitis, and temporarily affect the HRQOL but return to baseline values 1 year posttreatment3; however, xerostomia and dysphagia are common long-term side effects that significantly reduce the HRQOL of surviving patients.4, 5

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been introduced in the treatment of SCCHN to achieve the complex dose distributions needed for curative treatment of moderately radiosensitive SCCHNs in the vicinity of many radiosensitive vital organs at risk, such as the spinal cord, salivary glands, and pharyngeal constrictor musculature.6, 7, 8, 9 Specifically, parotid-sparing techniques seem to reduce the dose to an extent that the effects on HRQOL parameters are apparent.10 The theoretical benefits regarding the exposure of critical organs at risk to lower radiation doses are obvious, but the long-term values of the technique as measured in terms of patient-experienced improvements in the quality of life and objectively measured improved organ functions have yet to be fully established. The main benefits of IMRT treatment seem to be improvements in HRQOL scores related to dryness of the mouth, swallowing, and pain, and improved global quality of life.11, 12, 13 However, the majority of the relevant studies have either been retrospective, lack baseline values or control groups, or have not followed patients longitudinally, and some reports have demonstrated no significant long-term improvements.14 As a result, the need for prospectively collected data to strengthen these findings is evident. The present study was designed to prospectively and longitudinally follow the quality of life for patients who received curative-intended IMRT for SCCHNs and to compare their HRQOL with matched controls treated with 3-dimensional conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT).

Methods

Study design

The study started when it was decided that IMRT will be used in clinical routine at the Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital. All patients with untreated, newly diagnosed oral or pharyngeal cancers in the Västra Götalands Region of Sweden with planned IMRT treatment with curative intent were invited to participate in the study. Patients were included after the multidisciplinary therapy conference for head and neck cancer patients at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. At this conference, the patients were staged according to the UICC TNM Classification of malignant tumors (6th edition) and treatments were recommended. Depending on the tumor site and stage, the recommended treatments ranged from radiation therapy alone to radiation therapy combined with surgery and/or chemotherapy. HRQOL questionnaires were distributed at 6 time points during the first year after diagnosis, and clinical data were recorded regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and survival.

Patients with SCCHN and treated with 3D-CRT in the Västra Götalands region of Sweden who previously took part in descriptive prospective longitudinal HRQOL studies, using the same questionnaires and the same measurement points, were used as controls. The control group was matched to the study group in terms of tumor site, stage, sex, age, and other antitumor treatments.

The study was approved by the regional ethics committee in Gothenburg (Reference number: 076-08).

Study population

One hundred and thirty-two patients treated with IMRT were included between 2008 and 2011. Ten individuals were excluded for various reasons (ie, those who refused the intended treatments [n = 2] and those who withdrew consent [n = 8]). Another 11 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were excluded during data processing because of a lack of matching controls. It was possible to include 96 patients in the control group who fulfilled the matching criteria.

In total, the study contained 207 patients, 111 treated with IMRT (study group) and 96 patients treated with 3D-CRT (control group).

Radiation therapy

External radiation therapy was applied in full doses ranging from 64.6 to 68 Gy. The fractionation schedules varied because of the changes in the institution's treatment policy over time. Treatment planning was based on computed tomography imaging. For IMRT, 2 different schedules were used. Schedule 1 consisted of hyperfractionated accelerated split-course radiation therapy with 2 daily fractions of 1.7 Gy, 5 days a week, to a final dose of 64.6 Gy to the primary tumor volume and 40.8 Gy to adjuvant volumes. IMRT dose distribution plans (DDP) were used up to 40.8 Gy and 3D-CRT DDP for the remaining course up to 64.6 Gy. Schedule 2 was moderately accelerated radiation therapy given with concomitant boost technique with 2 Gy per fraction, 6 fractions per week to 68 Gy to involved tumor and 1.55 Gy per fraction to 52.7 Gy to adjuvant volumes. 3D-CRT was given exclusively with hyperfractionated accelerated split-course radiation therapy.

In both the study group and the control group, patients with T3-4 tumors in the base of tongue received an additional pulse-dose-rate brachytherapy boost of 10 to 12 Gy.

Sparing the parotid glands, aiming to reduce the dose to <25 Gy to the contralateral gland without compromising the dose to the PTV, was a priority during treatment planning.

Chemotherapy

Induction chemotherapy was applied to stage III-IV disease according to the local practice at that time with the preferred regimen of 2 courses of intravenous infusion of 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin on day 1 and 1000 mg/m2 of 5-fluorouracil daily as a continuous infusion on days 1 through 5.

Surgery

Surgical intervention for the primary tumors and involved lymph nodes were performed on patients with resectable primary tumors in the oral cavity before radiation therapy. Neck surgery was also performed on patients with lymph node metastases with unknown primaries before radiation therapy and as salvage treatments for persisting positive lymph nodes after chemoradiation for patients with oropharyngeal cancers.

HRQOL assessment

The HRQOL data were collected using the European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire QLQ-C30 and the EORTC Head and Neck cancer module.15, 16, 17 The questionnaires were distributed to patients at inclusion and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after the initiation of treatment as prespecified in the protocol. Nonresponders were reminded once.

Statistics

The data collected from the questionnaires were calculated according to the EORTC scoring manual, which yielded transformed scales in the range from 0 to 100.18 High values on the global and functional scores represent better functioning, whereas increases in the symptom scales indicate the presence of symptoms. Nonparametric statistics were used because the HRQOL data were not normally distributed. Differences in scoring of 10 points were regarded as clinically relevant.19 For the comparisons between groups, the Fisher exact test was applied to dichotomous variables, and the Mantel-Haenszel χ2 exact test was applied to ordered categorical variables. The χ2 exact test was used for nonordered categorical variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test was applied to continuous variables. A significance level of .05 was applied throughout.

Results

Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The majority was male, and the mean age was approximately 60 years. Oropharyngeal cancer was the most common tumor site, with 78 patients (70.3%) in the IMRT group and 60 patients (62.5%) in the 3D-CRT group. Most patients (85%) had an advanced clinical stage (stage III-IV) in both groups.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics

Characteristic IMRT (n = 111) 3D-CRT (n = 96) P value
Sex
 Female 26 (23.4%) 27 (28.1%)
 Male 85 (76.6%) 69 (71.9%) .5392
Age (mean years) 60.7 (40.0-82.0) 59.2 (31.0-81.0) .2591
Tumor site
 Pharynxa 85 (76.6%) 64 (66.7%)
 Oral 16 (14.4%) 23 (24.0%)
 Unknown primary 10 (9.0%) 9 (9.4%) .2199
T-stage
 T 0-2 69 (62.2%) 54 (56.3%)
 T 3-4 42 (37.8%) 42 (43.8%) .4703
Stage
 I-II 16 (14.4%) 14 (14.6%)
 III-IV 95 (85.6%) 82 (85.4%) 1.00
Additional treatment
 CT 71 (78.9%) 58 (66.7%)
 Surgery 13 (14.4%) 21 (24.1%)
 Surgery + CT 6 (6.7%) 8 (9.2%) .1785
1-year survival
 Dead 7 (6.3%) 7 (7.3%)
 Alive 104 (93.7%) 89 (92.7%) .9920
Open in a new tab

CT, chemotherapy; 3D-CRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy; IMRT, intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Hypopharynx: 7/85 (8.2%); 4/64 (6.2%).

a

Oropharynx: 78/85 (9.8%); 60/64 (93.8%).

There were no significant differences in the distributions of sex, age, primary tumor size, clinical stage, 1-year survival rate, or treatment between the study and control groups.

HRQOL

Table 2 presents the proportions of patients who completed the questionnaires at each time point. At 12 months, 87 of the 104 patients who were still alive (83.7%) in the study group and 74 of the 89 living patients (83.1%) in the control group responded.

Table 2.

Numbers of patients who completed the questionnaires at each time point

Timepoint IMRT (n = 111) 3D-CRT (n = 96)
Inclusion 111 95
1 mo 76 86
2 mo 84 85
3 mo 85 82
6 mo 85 80
12 mo 87 74
Open in a new tab

Timepoints represent time after initiation of treatment. See Table 1 for abbreviations.

The mean scores for all symptom scales at each time point that were collected from the questionnaires are presented in Table 3. At baseline, there were significant differences in the following items that favored the IMRT group: loss of appetite (25.0 vs 15.5; P = .042), problems with the teeth (18.7 vs 10.6; P = .048), and problems opening the mouth (18.8 vs 11.8; P = .025).

Table 3.

Mean HRQOL score for each item at the measured time points

Baseline
 1 mo
 2 mo
 3 mo
 6 mo
 12 mo
IMRT 3D-CRT P value IMRT 3D-CRT P value IMRT 3D-CRT P value IMRT 3D-CRT P value IMRT 3D-CRT P value IMRT 3D-CRT P value
QLQ C-30
 Physical functioning 89 91 NS 70 75 NS 69 70 NS 67 71 NS 79 77 NS 88 84 NS
 Role functioning 76 70 NS 35 45 NS 39 40 NS 41 39 NS 62 60 NS 79 75 NS
 Emotional functioning 69 68 NS 74 68 NS 71 70 NS 71 70 NS 78 73 NS 81 77 NS
 Cognitive functioning 85 79 NS 76 73 NS 73 69 NS 73 70 NS 84 76 .020 87 79 .006
 Social functioning 82 78 NS 55 65 .013 56 62 NS 55 60 NS 75 70 NS 83 79 NS
 Global HRQOL 65 62 NS 50 51 NS 47 49 NS 46 51 NS 60 67 NS 69 67 NS
 Fatigue 25 30 NS 55 49 NS 57 53 NS 59 53 NS 40 41 NS 25 32 NS
 Nausea/vomiting 4 7 NS 27 19 .014 23 20 NS 24 17 NS 7 12 NS 3 6 NS
 Pain 31 28 NS 42 35 NS 52 46 NS 51 47 NS 27 31 NS 18 23 NS
 Dyspnea 20 18 NS 26 27 NS 37 34 NS 33 32 NS 28 29 NS 18 21 NS
 Insomnia 30 29 NS 35 34 NS 33 26 NS 38 27 .032 29 23 NS 21 23 NS
 Appetite loss 16 25 .042 52 41 NS 64 50 .019 66 55 NS 38 34 NS 17 23 NS
 Constipation 9 13 NS 32 26 NS 31 30 NS 33 32 NS 15 20 NS 8 10 NS
 Diarrhea 8 9 NS 20 11 .004 17 14 NS 13 15 NS 9 8 NS 6 5 NS
 Financial difficulties 19 18 NS 24 21 NS 26 26 NS 23 29 NS 25 26 NS 12 20 .019
EORTC HN-35
 Pain 26 30 NS 36 36 NS 56 52 NS 54 56 NS 31 35 NS 20 28 .018
 Swallowing 20 23 NS 31 30 NS 58 49 NS 62 55 NS 32 30 NS 19 22 NS
 Senses 12 8 NS 38 33 NS 54 41 .017 52 43 .017 33 32 NS 30 26 NS
 Speech 13 16 NS 22 20 NS 34 27 NS 37 30 NS 24 21 NS 14 16 NS
 Social eating 17 20 NS 39 37 NS 49 46 NS 53 50 NS 37 35 NS 22 26 NS
 Social contacts 6 9 NS 17 16 NS 14 18 NS 19 21 NS 11 13 NS 6 10 .026
 Sexuality 24 34 NS 55 59 NS 61 59 NS 61 54 NS 43 48 NS 23 37 .016
 Dry mouth 21 20 NS 36 40 NS 60 61 NS 68 63 NS 75 76 NS 63 72 .018
 Coughing 22 21 NS 20 17 NS 35 26 .024 39 26 .009 27 21 NS 21 20 NS
 Teeth 11 19 .048 13 17 NS 16 17 NS 15 23 NS 14 24 .029 18 28 NS
 Opening mouth 12 19 .025 21 30 NS 35 35 NS 31 37 NS 24 32 NS 22 30 NS
 Sticky saliva 20 24 NS 43 45 NS 76 70 NS 78 74 NS 60 60 NS 48 54 NS
 Feeling ill 20 23 NS 41 36 NS 41 39 NS 45 37 NS 22 27 NS 13 20 NS
Open in a new tab

NS, not significant. See Table 1 for other abbreviations.

High scores on a function and global quality of life scale imply high function. High scores on a symptom scale imply a high level of problems.

In the acute phase (ie, 2 and 3 months after the initiation of treatment), as expected, there was significant worsening in both groups. The deterioration was clinically significant for the majority of functions and symptoms. For both groups, the problems that increased the most were appetite loss, problems with swallowing, local pain, sticky saliva, dry mouth, fatigue, and decreased role functioning.

Significant differences between the groups, just after treatment, were found for the items regarding social functioning, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, senses (taste), coughing, and insomnia; all of these differences were related to worse outcomes in the IMRT group (Fig 1). Six months after treatment initiation, however, these differences vanished, and significant differences favoring the IMRT group appeared in the problems with teeth item (24.1 vs 14.5; P = .033) and the cognitive functioning scale (75.5 vs 83.5; P = .024).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Mean health-related quality of life scores plotted over time for items with significant differences between the intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) groups just after treatment. High scores on the function and global quality of life scale imply high function. High scores on a symptom scale imply a high level of problems.

At the 12-month follow-up, 161 of the 174 living patients completed the questionnaires. Significant differences favoring the IMRT group were observed in the QLQ-HN35 items related to problems with dry mouth (72.1 vs 62.8; P = .018), pain (28.3 vs 20.4; P = .018), decreased sexuality (36.9 vs 22.9; P = .016), and trouble with social contacts (9.77 vs 5.59; P = .026). The QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning scale results (78.6 vs 86.8; P = .0057) and the economy item (12.3 vs 20.3; P = .0019) also exhibited significant differences. These items and their respective changes over time are represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Mean health-related quality of life scores plotted over time for items with significant differences between the intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) groups at 12 months. High scores on the function and global quality of life scale imply high function. High scores on a symptom scale imply a high level of problems.

The global quality of life scale results exhibited similar changes over time in both groups that involved a decline during and shortly after treatment and a recovery to baseline or even slightly improved levels at 12 month of follow-up. The same pattern was observed for the majority of the items and scales, with the exception of the dry mouth item, which remained at significantly worse levels in both groups relative to the levels before treatment.

Parotid gland doses

Based on the DDPs of the IMRT patients, the mean ipsilateral and contralateral parotid doses were 44.5 Gy (standard deviation, 12.8) and 28.2 Gy (standard deviation, 8.5), respectively. For the cases treated with 3D-CRT, the available parotid gland dose data were insufficient for comparison.

Discussion

This study aimed to compare the patient-reported HRQOL between patients who were treated for SCCHNs with IMRT and those treated with 3D-CRT. Other clinical factors that could possibly have affected the outcome were adjusted for to highlight our focus on the radiation treatment technique. We believe the longitudinal design coupled with a high rate of completed questionnaires (more than 80% at 12 months) strengthens the outcome. The results support the beneficial long-term role of IMRT relative to 3D-CRT in several HRQOL domains, such as dryness of the mouth, pain, trouble with social contacts, decreased sexuality, cognitive functioning, and economy, which demonstrated significant improvements at 12 months posttreatment.

It was also noted, however, that the study group had worse HRQOL at the 2 and 3 months follow-up (ie, at the acute phase). This has to be considered when taking care of the patients' side effects. The patients probably need improved nutritional support during this period. One could speculate if the larger low-dose volumes distributed within the target area in the IMRT dose planning could contribute to the increased temporary problems after finishing treatment.

Several primarily retrospective studies have previously suggested the same advantages of using IMRT.11, 20, 21, 22, 23 Vergeer et al published a relatively large prospective cohort study that used a standardized follow-up program that included HRQOL questionnaires and found significantly better outcomes regarding patient-observed xerostomia.13 Two randomized studies with patient selections (ie, non-nasopharyngeal cancers) similar to that of the present study have been performed. The first and largest was the Parotid-Sparing Intensity Modulated versus Conventional Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (PARSPORT) multicenter study that included 47 patients in each arm. The late effects in normal tissues subjective, objective and management analytic scales and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scorings for xerostomia were significantly worse in the 3D-CRT arm; however, this effect was possibly due to an insufficient number of subjects. Moreover, the head and neck cancer module dry mouth scores did not differ significantly between the groups at 12 months.12 A trial by Rathod et al included 60 patients. Although the primary endpoint of the study was acute salivary gland toxicity, several symptom scales, such as dry mouth and opening mouth, were significantly improved at 12 months in the IMRT arm.24 As the authors themselves suggested, given the limited return rate of the HRQOL questionnaires (just over one-third of the patients completed all of the questionnaires), the statistical robustness was questionable.

There are few previous reports on effects over longer periods than 12 months after treatment. Chen et al published a study that demonstrated that IMRT was superior in specific domains, such as xerostomia, in addition to the global HRQOL, and that the effects lasted for at least 24 months.11 Graff et al also reported a significant improvement in the IMRT patients at approximately 24 months.21 These studies, however, report only retrospective data and lack baseline values. The PARSPORT trial demonstrated significant improvements in the clinical grade of xerostomia in the patients who were treated with IMRT both after 12 and 24 months. As mentioned previously, the difference in the HRQOL scores was not significant at either time point.12 Recently, Huang et al reported long-term (>5 years) HRQOL data from patients with nasopharyngeal carcinomas who were treated either with conventional radiation therapy or IMRT and demonstrated improvements in a multitude of head and neck–specific HRQOL items.25 Whether these findings can be translated to patients with other primary tumors in the head and neck area remains to be proven.

The importance of parotid-sparing treatment using IMRT and inverse treatment planning has been reported in several studies that linked this treatment with improvements in measured saliva production, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/late effects in normal tissues subjective, objective and management analytic scales scores, and patient-experienced xerostomia.10, 13, 20, 23, 26 In our present study, the mean dose to the ipsilateral parotid gland in the IMRT group was 28.2 Gy, which approaches the recommended threshold doses reported by both the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue effects in the Clinic review and a separate analysis from the PARSPORT trial.27, 28 Further DDP optimization and improvements in delineation methods using advanced imaging technologies (eg, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, computed tomography) could possibly yield even better outcomes in terms of various HRQOL parameters; however, even if we lack comparable parotid doses from the 3D-CRT group, the dose levels that we have achieved seem adequate.

Apart from dry mouth, the significant differences found in pain, social contacts, and sexuality are possibly linked with each other in that a decrease in oral health may negatively affect the patients' social lives. The differences in cognitive functioning and financial difficulties are nearly unique to this study. Apart from Vergeer et al, who reported a significant difference in cognitive functioning at 6 months, we have been unable to find any similar results in the literature.13 Whether these findings are clinically relevant is a matter for further investigation.

The relatively low amount of longer term data (ie, >1 year) reveals an area in which we would like to expand into in ongoing studies. Another area worthy of investigation is the effect of the most recently introduced radiation therapy techniques, such as volumetric arc therapy and proton therapy, on HRQOL.

Limitations

In this study, matched controls were used because IMRT was implemented as clinical routine shortly after its introduction at the department; therefore, it was not possible to perform a randomized study, which would have been ideal. Another limitation was that we had to exclude patients with nasopharyngeal cancer because we could not provide any matched controls.

Conclusions

This study adds to the growing evidence that IMRT in SCCHN improve HRQOL 1 year after treatment.

Footnotes

Sources of support: The distribution and administration of the health-related quality of life questionnaires and input of the resultant data were funded by grants from Västra Götalandsregionens regionala forskningsfond (the regional research fund of the administrative region of Western Sweden). The King Gustav V Jubilee Clinic Cancer Research Foundation in Gothenburg, Sweden, supports Edvard Abel. The sponsors had no involvement in the design of the study or in the writing of the text.

Conflicts of interest: None.

References

  • 1.Blanchard P., Baujet B., Holostenco V. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): A comprehensive analysis by tumour site. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100:33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bourhis J., Overgaard J., Audry H. Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;368:843–854. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69121-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hammerlid E., Bjordal K., Ahlner-Elmqvist M. A prospective study of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients. Part I: At diagnosis. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:669–680. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200104000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jellema A.P., Slotman B.J., Doornaert P. Impact of radiation-induced xerostomia on quality of life after primary radiotherapy among patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;9:751–760. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Langendijk J.A., Doornaert P., Verdonck-de Leeuw I.M. Impact of late treatment-related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3770–3776. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lee W.T., Akst L.M., Adelstein D.J. Risk factors for hypopharyngeal/upper esophageal stricture formation after concurrent chemoradiation. Head Neck. 2006;28:808–812. doi: 10.1002/hed.20427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mendenhall W.M., Amdur R.J., Palta J.R. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the standard management of head and neck cancer: Promises and pitfalls. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2618–2623. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Deacon J., Peckham M.J., Steel G.G. The radioresponsiveness of human tumours and the initial slope of the cell survival curve. Radiother Oncol. 1984;2:317–323. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(84)80074-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fertil B., Malaise E.P. Inherent cellular radiosensitivity as a basic concept for human tumor radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1981;7:621–629. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(81)90377-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.O'Neill M., Heron D.E., Flickinger J.C., Smith R., Ferris R.L., Gibson M. Posttreatment quality-of-life assessment in patients with head and neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34:478–482. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3181f4759c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chen A.M., Farwell D.G., Luu Q., Vazquez E.G., Lau D.H., Purdy J.A. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is associated with improved global quality of life among long-term survivors of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:170–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nutting C.M., Morden J.P., Harrington J.K. Parotid-Sparing Intensity Modulated versus Conventional Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (PARSPORT): A phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:127–136. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Vergeer M.R., Doornaert P.A., Rietveld D.H., Leemans C.R., Slotman B.J., Langendijk J.A. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces radiation-induced morbidity and improves health-related quality of life: Results of a nonrandomized prospective study using a standardized follow-up program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fang F.M., Chien C.Y., Tasi W.L. Quality of life and survival outcome for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy-a longitudinal study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:356–364. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Aaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bjordal K., de Graeff A., Fayers P.M. A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. EORTC Quality of Life Group. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1796–1807. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00186-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bjordal K., Hammerlid E., Ahlner-Elmqvist M. Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1008–1019. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.1008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fayers P.M., Aaronson N.K., Bjordal K., Groenvold M., Curran D., Bottomley A., on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group . European Organisation for Research and Treatment; Brussels: 2001. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (3rd edition) [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Osoba D., Rodrigues G., Myles J., Zee B., Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:139–144. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jabbari S., Kim H.M., Feng M. Matched case-control study of quality of life and xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: Initial report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:725–731. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.02.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Graff P., Lapeyre M., Desandes E. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: Matched-pair comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1309–1317. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yao M., Karnell L.H., Funk G.F., Lu H., Dornfeld K., Buatti J.M. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes following IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:1354–1360. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.van Rij C.M., Oughlane-Heemsbergen W.D., Ackerstaff A.H., Lamers E.A., Balm A.J., Rasch C.R. Parotid gland sparing IMRT for head and neck cancer improves xerostomia related quality of life. Radiat Oncol. 2008;3:41. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-3-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rathod S., Gupta T., Ghosh-Laskar S. Quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT): Evidence from a prospective randomized study. Oral Oncol. 2013;49:634–642. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2013.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Huang T.L., Chien C.Y., Tsai W.L. Long-term late toxicities and quality of life for survivors of nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus non-intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Head Neck. 2016;38(Suppl 1):E1026–E1032. doi: 10.1002/hed.24150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Eisbruch A., Dawson L.A., Kim H.M. Conformal and intensity modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer: the potential for improved target irradiation, salivary gland function, and quality of life. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 1999;53:271–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Miah A.B., Guilliford S.L., Clark C.H. Dose-response analysis of parotid gland function: what is the best measure of xerostomia? Radiother Oncol. 2013;106:341–345. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Marks L.B., Yorke E.D., Jackson A. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(Suppl 3):S10–S19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Advances in Radiation Oncology are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES