PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of brjradiolSubmitSubscribeAboutBJR
 
Br J Radiol. 2012 May; 85(1013): 487–494.
PMCID: PMC3479880

Clinical evaluation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers

S A Bhide, PhD, FRCR,1 K L Newbold, MRCP, FRCR,1 K J Harrington, PhD, FRCR,2 and C M Nutting, MD, FRCR2

Abstract

Radiotherapy and surgery are the principal curative modalities in treatment of head and neck cancer. Conventional two-dimensional and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy result in significant side effects and altered quality of life. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can spare the normal tissues, while delivering a curative dose to the tumour-bearing tissues. This article reviews the current role of IMRT in head and neck cancer from the point of view of normal tissue sparing, and also reviews the current published literature by individual head and neck cancer subsites. In addition, we briefly discuss the role of image guidance in head and neck IMRT, and future directions in this area.

Radiotherapy (RT) is an extremely effective treatment for head and neck cancer, both as a primary modality and as an adjuvant treatment following surgery. RT causes significant acute (during and up to 3 months post radiation) and late toxicities when used at doses required to sterilise the locoregional disease (radical doses). The acute toxicities of RT include mucositis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dermatitis and pain. Radiation-induced mucositis of the upper aerodigestive tract results in significant morbidity and altered quality of life (QOL) during RT [1]. The late radiation-induced toxicities include xerostomia [2] (60–90% incidence), grade 3 dysphagia [2,3] (15–30%), osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaws [4] (5–15%), sensorineural hearing loss [5] (40–60%), skin fibrosis and laryngeal cartilage necrosis. The late radiation toxicity is permanent and results in reduced QOL for the patient (particularly xerostomia and dysphagia) [6].

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is an advanced approach to three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning and conformal therapy. It optimises the delivery of irradiation to irregularly shaped volumes and has the ability to produce concavities in radiation treatment volumes. For head and neck cancer, the clinical target volume 1 (CTV1), which includes the primary tumour and the involved nodes, typically receives a higher radiation dose than CTV2. The different doses to CTV1 and 2 can be delivered simultaneously, while sparing the parotid salivary glands and the spinal cord. In the head and neck region, IMRT has a number of potential advantages: (i) it allows for greater sparing of normal structures such as salivary glands, oesophagus, optic nerves, brain stem and spinal cord [7,8]; (ii) it allows treatment to be delivered in a single treatment phase without the requirement for matching additional fields to provide tumour boosts, and eliminates the need for electron fields to the posterior (levels II and V) neck nodes; and (iii) it offers the possibility of simultaneously delivering higher radiation doses to regions of gross disease and lower doses to areas of microscopic disease—the so-called simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) IMRT [9].

IMRT can be delivered using linear accelerators with static multileaf collimators (MLCs; step and shoot IMRT) or dynamic leaf MLCs, tomotherapy machines or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Tomotherapy enables the simultaneous use of image guidance and treatment delivery [10]. However, adaptive RT based on image guidance is yet to be clinically optimised in head and neck cancer. VMAT is a newer technique of delivering IMRT. VMAT delivers IMRT-like distributions in a single rotation of the gantry, varying the gantry speed and dose rate during delivery, in contrast to standard IMRT, which uses fixed gantry beams. Planning studies using RT demonstrate shorter planning and treatment time, fewer monitor units for treatment delivery and better dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing [11,12]. There is a lack of data as regards clinical implementation of this technique.

IMRT was first described in 1999; in the last decade numerous retrospective case series (single and multi-institution) and a few randomised trials have been published studying the clinical implementation of this technique. Here we review the current clinical evidence for the use of IMRT in head and neck cancer.

The role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer

Parotid sparing

IMRT was first used to spare salivary gland tissue in head and neck cancer patients in Phase I/II studies performed at the University of Michigan [8,13]. IMRT reduced the radiation dose to the contralateral parotid gland to 32% compared with 93% for the standard plans. Follow-up of these patients showed that spared parotid glands received a mean dose of 19.9 Gy and recovered 63% of their pre-treatment stimulated salivary flow rates at 1 year. This compared with only a 3% recovery for treated parotid glands, which received 57.5 Gy. A mean dose threshold for reduction in salivary output to less than 25% of the baseline was found for both stimulated (26 Gy) and unstimulated (24 Gy) saliva flow rates. Subsequent studies from other institutions have established similar threshold doses [7,14,15]. Local control and disease-specific survival were equivalent to patients treated with conventional treatment [16-21].

The multicentre study (PARSPORT) that compared parotid sparing IMRT with standard RT in patients with oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer showed a significant reduction (40 vs 74%) in the rate of grade 2 xerostomia (LENT-SOMA scale) in the IMRT arm at 1 year post-radiotherapy without affecting treatment outcomes [22]. Two Phase III randomised controlled trials, investigating parotid gland sparing using IMRT for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer, showed similar results [23,24].

Initial studies have focused on the prevention of xerostomia and included patients with a mixture of head and neck cancer subsites [7,25]. Single-centre experiences with various head and neck subsites have been reported and have demonstrated non-inferior disease-related outcomes with a reduced incidence of xerostomia.

Prevention of late dysphagia

Late radiation damage to the structures involved in swallowing leads to dysphagia and dependence on assisted feeding. Several studies using chemoradiation or altered radiation fractionation strategies have reported rates of 12–50% significant late dysphagia (i.e. feeding tube dependency at 1 year that significantly affects the patient's QOL) [26-31]. Studies have reported that late dysphagia following treatment for head and neck cancer is dependent on the dose to the pharyngeal constrictors (PCs), particularly the superior constrictor [32-35]. IMRT has the potential to prevent radiation-induced dysphagia by limiting the dose to the constrictors. Feng et al [33] recently reported on a prospective study of the constrictor-sparing approach using IMRT in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. The authors minimised the dose to the PCs by not treating the medial retropharyngeal nodes. Patients with posterior pharyngeal wall and retropharyngeal node involvement were excluded. At a median follow-up of 36 months, the treatment outcomes were equivalent to historical controls. The patient reported that QOL parameters improved post treatment. However, the late feeding-tube rates in patients were similar to historical controls and there was no improvement in objective videofluoroscopy measures at 24 months.

The constrictors lie in close proximity to the parapharyngeal spaces and cervical lymph node areas. Therefore, constrictor sparing could result in a geographical miss. In addition, a study has demonstrated that the swallowing-related QOL at 1 year post-treatment (slightly accelerated RT with concomitant cisplatin) does not correlate to the dose to the PCs [36]. Long-term data on locoregional recurrence are required before the constrictor-sparing approach can be used in standard practice.

Oropharyngeal carcinoma

The critical structures when treating oropharyngeal cancers are the parotid salivary glands and the mandible. The role of IMRT in sparing the parotid glands has been described above. Radiation doses in excess of 60 Gy cause damage to the mandible and result in osteoradionecrosis [37]. The incidence of severe osteoradionecrosis after treatment to oropharyngeal cancer is 5–15%, depending on the dose to the mandible and factors such as dental hygiene [4,38]. Studies have demonstrated that the dose to the mandible can be minimised without affecting the dose to the target volumes [38,39]. Table 1 summarises the published reports of IMRT in oropharyngeal cancer. These studies demonstrate excellent locoregional control and overall survival rates. The rates of xerostomia and osteoradionecrosis of the mandible are lower than the historical controls. The normal tissue sparing, however, has not resulted in marginal failure (geographical miss). In the study by Sanguineti et al [40], the 4% failure outside the high-dose region was due to involved lymph nodes not being identified on the pre-treatment diagnostic imaging and hence being included in the low-dose volume.

Table 1
The various published single-institution reports of outcomes and toxicity using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for radiation delivery in oropharyngeal cancers

Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer

Concurrent chemoradiation is now the standard of care as an organ-sparing approach in the treatment of Stage III and IV squamous cell carcinomas of the larynx and the hypopharynx [41-43]. The overall survival at 5 years for Stage III and IV laryngeal cancers using the most aggressive chemoradiation approaches is only 50–60%. Escalation of radiation dose may improve outcomes in this group of patients, taking advantage of the steep dose–response relationships for squamous cell carcinomas. The initial results from a Phase I dose-escalation study using IMRT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx/hypopharynx have recently been reported [44]. The patients were initially treated with a standard dose equivalent of 63 Gy in 28 fractions (2.25 Gy fraction−1). Subsequently the dose was escalated to 67.2 Gy in 28 fractions (2.4 Gy fraction−1). Acute radiation toxicity was comparable to standard RT and recovered over time. After 2 years of follow-up, only 5% of the patients had Grade 2 xerostomia and 5% had Grade 3 dysphagia (feeding tube dependency). The 2-year disease-specific survival was 64% and 78% for the standard and escalated dose patients, respectively. There was no other significant late toxicity of note. Although the patient numbers are small and the follow-up short, the results are encouraging and justify further investigation [45].

There are three retrospective single-centre experiences using IMRT for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer reported in the literature, and these are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2
The various published single-institution reports of outcomes and toxicity using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for radiation delivery in laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancers

Nasopharyngeal cancer

CTVs for tumours of the nasopharynx lie in close proximity to the optic nerves, optic chiasm, orbit, pituitary gland and brain stem. In addition, the parotid glands and the cochlea receive a significant radiation dose. Radical treatment of nasopharyngeal cancers frequently requires treatment of multiple cervical lymph node areas, which entails radiation delivery using large field portals, treatment field matching and use of electrons to keep the spinal cord dose below 48 Gy. Radiation delivery using the SIB-IMRT technique enables delivery of a single-phase treatment while sparing the organs at risk (OARs). Two Phase III randomised controlled trials investigating parotid gland sparing using IMRT for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer have been reported in the literature [23,24]. Kam et al [23] randomised 60 patients between IMRT and conventional RT. The primary end point of observer-assessed xerostomia score was significantly better for the IMRT group, as were the secondary end points of parotid and whole salivary flow rates. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the patient-reported xerostomia score [23]. Pow et al [24] randomised 51 patients to receive either IMRT or conventional RT. 83% of patients in the IMRT group had recovered parotid salivary flow vs 9.5% in the conventional group at 1 year. The global QOL was significantly better in the IMRT group vs the conventional group [24]. These findings of improved QOL were confirmed in a longitudinal non-randomised study comparing IMRT with conventional RT [46]. Reports of single-institution retrospective studies reporting on outcomes and xerostomia rates have been summarised in Table 3.

Table 3
The various published single institution reports of outcomes and toxicity using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for radiation delivery in nasopharyngeal cancers

Paranasal sinus tumours

Tumours of the nasal cavity and the paranasal sinuses lie in close proximity to vital structures like the optic nerves, the orbit, optic chiasm, pituitary gland and brain stem. IMRT enables delivery of adequate doses to these tumours while minimising the dose to these OARs [47]. Combs et al [48] and Daly et al [49] have reported on the outcomes and toxicity with IMRT as the primary treatment for this site. There were no incidences of Grade 3 late radiation toxicities affecting the OARs in either of the studies. The local control rates were 62% at 2 years in the study by Daly et al [48] and 81% at 3 years in the study by Combs et al [49]. The overall survival rates were 45% (5 years) and 80% (3 years), respectively. Two studies have been reported using IMRT for post-operative radiotherapy for the tumours of paranasal sinuses [50,51]. There were no reported Grade 3 late radiation toxicities with satisfactory tumour control rates.

Parotid tumours

Radiation to the post-operative (after parotidectomy for malignant parotid tumours) parotid bed results in damage to the cochlea as it lies within the high-dose volume. This results in sensorineural hearing loss, especially at higher frequencies. The literature review suggests a significant effect of RT on auditory apparatus, especially hearing (incidence 40–60%) [5,52]. The sensorineural hearing loss that results after RT is permanent. Sensorineural hearing loss has been shown to result in significant cognitive impairment, depression and reduction in functional status [53]. Planning studies indicate that the dose to the cochlea can be reduced with the use of IMRT [54]. This might reduce the incidence of sensorineural hearing loss. IMRT needs to be evaluated in the setting of a randomised controlled trial comparing it against standard 3D-conformal RT with sensorineural deafness as the primary end point. A Phase III study of cochlear-sparing IMRT is now open and recruiting (COchlear Sparing Therapy And conventional Radiation; COSTAR).

Thyroid cancer

For patients with thyroid cancer considered at high risk of locoregional recurrence after thyroidectomy, external beam RT is used, sometimes in addition to radio-iodine. With current RT techniques, 32% do not obtain a complete response (CR), and of those obtaining a CR 39% relapse within the radiation portals, especially in the thyroid bed. Techniques that enable safe dose escalation to the thyroid bed and/or nodal areas may be able to improve local control. Planning studies have shown that the maximal spinal cord dose can be reduced, so that the dose to the thyroid bed can be escalated above the standard dose of 60 Gy, and possibly to doses of 65–68 Gy. Moreover, the coverage of the thyroid and node target volume is also significantly improved with IMRT [55]. Preliminary results on acute toxicity from a study using IMRT for dose escalation in patients with thyroid cancer requiring external beam therapy have recently been reported [56]. The results on late toxicity and disease outcomes from this study are awaited. Schwartz et al [57] performed a retrospective review of 131 patients treated with external beam RT for thyroid cancer, of whom 57 had IMRT. The use of IMRT reduced the late treatment-related morbidity but not outcomes [57].

Squamous cell carcinoma with unknown primary

Typically, patients with squamous cell carcinoma with unknown primary (SCCUP) are treated with ipsilateral modified radical neck dissection and post-operative RT or chemoradiotherapy. There is a lack of consensus on the RT target volumes that should be treated after neck dissection. The most common RT techniques are either unilateral cervical lymph node irradiation to achieve local control in the ipsilateral neck, or total mucosal irradiation (TMI) of the head and neck region with the aim of eradicating the primary and the microscopic neck disease. Treatment of the ipsilateral hemi-neck alone is of low toxicity and may achieve local control in the cervical nodes. Some groups recommend bilateral neck and TMI in this setting, claiming improved local control [58,59]. With conventional RT technique, this is at the price of significant acute toxicity and chronic morbidity (mainly xerostomia with its associated complications [6,60,61] and effects on QOL [13,62]).

In a planning study, Bhide et al [63] showed that, using SIB-IMRT technique for TMI, 60 Gy in 30 Gy fractions or equivalent to the post-operative bed and 50 Gy in 25 Gy fractions or equivalent (i.e. 54 Gy in 30 Gy fractions) to the contralateral neck and the mucosal axis could be delivered in a single phase. The dose to the contralateral parotid gland was less than 26 Gy and the dose to other OARs was within tolerance [63]. Three centres have reported their experience of using IMRT to deliver TMI for SCCUP [64-66]. The 2-year locoregional control and overall survival were 85–88% and 74–85%, respectively. The TMI was well tolerated. The results are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4
The various published single-institution reports of outcomes and toxicity using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for total mucosal irradiation in squamous cell carcinoma with unknown primary

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image guidance

Target volume delineation

The sharp dose gradients required for optimum target sparing during IMRT necessitate accurate delineation of targets. CT scans are the standard imaging modality used in radiation treatment planning as they provide a 3D view of the tumours and normal anatomy, along with the electron density data which enables dose calculations. However, CT scans are inferior to MRI scans in providing detailed definition of soft tissues (microscopic tumour extension) and tissue planes, and can be affected by artefact-like dental amalgam and hip arthroses. CT–MRI fusion should be considered for RT planning wherever possible, especially when delineating gross tumour volume (GTV), particularly in central nervous system and skull base tumours. Initial studies using 18-F fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), which highlights the proliferating areas of the tumour, have been reported [67] and have shown that FDG-PET can aid delineation of the GTV [68-73]. Detailed clinical and radiological assessment of the tumours should be undertaken to ensure that the entire microscopic disease is encompassed in the high-dose CTV1. The selection and delineation of lymph node areas in N+ and N0 neck should be based on the international consensus guidelines [16,74]. The choice of the dose delivered to nodal areas should be based on the primary site and evidence from patterns of recurrences after surgical treatment and pathological assessment of neck dissection specimens.

Image guidance for treatment verification

Verification is a vital cog in the radiation treatment delivery cycle, especially with IMRT where the sharp dose gradients increase the likelihood of a geographical miss. Verification is undertaken both before treatment starts and regularly during treatment, and ensures that underdosing to the tumour and overdosing to the OARs is avoided by minimising the systematic and random errors. In addition to the conventional two-dimensional verification using portal imaging, modern devices also enable 3D volumetric verification (using kilovoltage cone beam CT) and in vivo dosimetry.

Future directions

IMRT has become the standard of care for delivery of RT for head and neck cancer. The role of IMRT in salivary gland sparing is well established. IMRT can be optimised further, making use of advances in the imaging techniques (i.e. image-guided RT). Radiation dose escalation (taking advantage of the slope of the dose–response curves) could improve the outcomes in advanced head and neck cancers. Clinical trials that attempted to further intensify RT using hyperfractionation and/or acceleration have had to close prematurely or have the radiation schedule modified owing to excessive acute toxicity [75,76]. Selective dose escalation based on the biological activity of tumours might improve the outcomes without increasing the normal tissue toxicity. PET enables biological imaging of tumours. Initial studies using FDG-PET, which highlights the proliferating areas of the tumour, have been reported [67]. These have shown that FDG-PET guided dose escalation using IMRT is feasible. Hypoxic regions of tumours are radioresistant and increasing the radiation dose might help overcome the radioresistance. PET scanning using two radioactive tracers—namely F-18-labelled fluoromisonidazole and copper (II)-diacetyl-bis[N(4)-methylthiosemicarbazone]—have been shown to highlight the hypoxic areas of tumours. Preliminary studies escalating the radiation dose to the hypoxic areas have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach in terms of acute toxicity [77,78]. The PET images could be fused with the planning CT scans, and these could be used for biological dose optimisation (as opposed to the currently used dose–volume histogram-based optimisation) during inverse planning IMRT. However, follow-up data for outcomes and toxicity from larger studies using PET-guided dose escalation are required before this approach can be used in standard clinical practice.

Conclusions

The role of IMRT in salivary gland sparing is well established. The role of IMRT for constrictor sparing is less well established. The future of head and neck RT lies in optimally using IMRT for biologically based individualised patient treatment in order to maximise the therapeutic ratio. However, IMRT uses two to three times more monitor units, which results in increased total body dose due to increased radiation leakage. Optimal organ sparing using IMRT necessitates the use of more treatment fields, which results in larger volume of normal tissue exposed to a lower radiation dose. These factors increase the risk of radiation-induced malignancies twofold compared with 3D concomitant radiotherapy [79]. Therefore, IMRT is not recommended in situations where it fails to offer significant advantages while delivering radical RT. This includes target volumes that can be covered using a wedge pair technique (ipsilateral oropharynx, oral cavity) or treating small target volumes, such as for T1 tumours of the larynx.

Acknowledgments

This work was undertaken at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, which received a proportion of its funding from the NHS Executive; the views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS Executive.

References

1. Kelly C, Paleri V, Downs C, Shah R. Deterioration in quality of life and depressive symptoms during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:108–11. [PubMed]
2. Wijers OB, Levendag PC, Braaksma MM, Boonzaaijer M, Visch LL, Schmitz PI. Patients with head and neck cancer cured by radiation therapy: a survey of the dry mouth syndrome in long-term survivors. Head Neck 2002;24:737–47. [PubMed]
3. Trotti A, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, Frame D, Fuchs HJ, Gwede CK, et al. Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review. Radiother Oncol 2003;66:253–62. [PubMed]
4. Mendenhall WM. Mandibular osteoradionecrosis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4867–8. [PubMed]
5. Bhide SA, Harrington KJ, Nutting CM. Otological toxicity after postoperative radiotherapy for parotid tumours. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2007;19:77–82. [PubMed]
6. Hammerlid E, Taft C. Health-related quality of life in long-term head and neck cancer survivors: a comparison with general population norms. Br J Cancer 2001;84:149–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Chao KS, Deasy JO, Markman J, Haynie J, Perez CA, Purdy JA, et al. A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head-and-neck cancers receiving intensity-modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: initial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:907–16. [PubMed]
8. Eisbruch A, Marsh LH, Martel MK, Ship JA, Ten Haken R, Pu AT, et al. Comprehensive irradiation of head and neck cancer using conformal multisegmental fields: assessment of target coverage and noninvolved tissue sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;41:559–68. [PubMed]
9. Butler EB, Teh BS, Grant WH, 3rd, Uhl BM, Kuppersmith RB, Chiu JK, et al. Smart (simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy) boost: a new accelerated fractionation schedule for the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:21–32. [PubMed]
10. Dawson LA, Jaffray DA. Advances in image-guided radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:938–46. [PubMed]
11. Vanetti E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Ghosh-Laskar S, Agarwal JP, et al. Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009;92:111–17. [PubMed]
12. Verbakel WF, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:252–9. [PubMed]
13. Eisbruch A, Ship JA, Martel MK, Ten Haken RK, Marsh LH, Wolf GT, et al. Parotid gland sparing in patients undergoing bilateral head and neck irradiation: techniques and early results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;36:469–80. [PubMed]
14. Blanco AI, Chao KS, El Naqa I, Franklin GE, Zakarian K, Vicic M, et al. Dose-volume modeling of salivary function in patients with head-and-neck cancer receiving radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:1055–69. [PubMed]
15. Bussels B, Maes A, Flamen P, Lambin P, Erven K, Hermans R, et al. Dose-response relationships within the parotid gland after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2004;73:297–306. [PubMed]
16. Gregoire V, Levendag P, Ang KK, Bernier J, Braaksma M, Budach V, et al. CT-based delineation of lymph node levels and related CTVs in the node-negative neck: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, NCIC, RTOG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 2003;69:227–36. [PubMed]
17. Eisbruch A, Marsh LH, Dawson LA, Bradford CR, Teknos TN, Chepeha DB, et al. Recurrences near base of skull after IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: implications for target delineation in high neck and for parotid gland sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:28–42. [PubMed]
18. 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;57:49–60. [PubMed]
19. Sultanem K, Shu HK, Xia P, Akazawa C, Quivey JM, Verhey LJ, et al. Three-dimensional intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the University of California-San Francisco experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:711–22. [PubMed]
20. Yao M, Dornfeld KJ, Buatti JM, Skwarchuk M, Tan H, Nguyen T, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation treatment for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma—the University of Iowa experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:410–21. [PubMed]
21. Zhen WLW, Lydiatt D, Richards A, Ayyangar K, Enke C. A preliminary analysis of patterns of failure in patients treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: the University of Nebraska Medical Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:318.
22. Nutting C, A'Hern R, Rogers MS, Sydenham MA, Adab F, Harrington K, et al. First results of a phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial of intensity modulated (IMRT) versus conventional radiotherapy (RT) in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT: ISRCTN48243537; CRUK/03/005). Lancet Oncol 2011;12:127–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Kam MK, Leung SF, Zee B, Chau RM, Suen JJ, Mo F, et al. Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4873–9. [PubMed]
24. Pow EH, Kwong DL, McMillan AS, Wong MC, Sham JS, Leung LH, et al. Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66:981–91. [PubMed]
25. Eisbruch A, Ten Haken RK, Kim HM, Marsh LH, Ship JA. Dose, volume, and function relationships in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity-modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:577–87. [PubMed]
26. Budach V, Stuschke M, Budach W, Baumann M, Geismar D, Grabenbauer G, et al. Hyperfractionated accelerated chemoradiation with concurrent fluorouracil-mitomycin is more effective than dose-escalated hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer: final results of the radiotherapy cooperative clinical trials group of the German Cancer Society 95–06 prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1125–35. [PubMed]
27. Huguenin P, Beer KT, Allal A, Rufibach K, Friedli C, Davis JB, et al. Concomitant cisplatin significantly improves locoregional control in advanced head and neck cancers treated with hyperfractionated radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4665–73. [PubMed]
28. Machtay M, Rosenthal DI, Hershock D, Jones H, Williamson S, Greenberg MJ, et al. Organ preservation therapy using induction plus concurrent chemoradiation for advanced resectable oropharyngeal carcinoma: a University of Pennsylvania phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3964–71. [PubMed]
29. Nguyen NP, Sallah S, Karlsson U, Antoine JE. Combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy for head and neck malignancies: quality of life issues. Cancer 2002;94:1131–41. [PubMed]
30. Staar S, Rudat V, Stuetzer H, Dietz A, Volling P, Schroeder M, et al. Intensified hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy limits the additional benefit of simultaneous chemotherapy—results of a multicentric randomized German trial in advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:1161–71. [PubMed]
31. Vokes EE, Stenson K, Rosen FR, Kies MS, Rademaker AW, Witt ME, et al. Weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by concomitant paclitaxel, fluorouracil, and hydroxyurea chemoradiotherapy: curative and organ-preserving therapy for advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:320–6. [PubMed]
32. Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, Vineberg K, Damen E, Van As CJ, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:1425–39. [PubMed]
33. Feng FY, Kim HM, Lyden TH, Haxer MJ, Feng M, Worden FP, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of head and neck cancer aiming to reduce dysphagia: early dose-effect relationships for the swallowing structures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:1289–98. [PubMed]
34. Jensen K, Lambertsen K, Grau C. Late swallowing dysfunction and dysphagia after radiotherapy for pharynx cancer: frequency, intensity and correlation with dose and volume parameters. Radiother Oncol 2007;85:74–82. [PubMed]
35. Levendag PC, Teguh DN, Voet P, van derEst H, Noever I, de Kruijf WJ, et al. Dysphagia disorders in patients with cancer of the oropharynx are significantly affected by the radiation therapy dose to the superior and middle constrictor muscle: a dose-effect relationship. Radiother Oncol 2007;85:64–73. [PubMed]
36. Bhide SA, Gulliford S, Kazi R, El-Hariry I, Newbold K, Harrington KJ, et al. Correlation between dose to the pharyngeal constrictors and patient quality of life and late dysphagia following chemo-IMRT for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009;93:539–44. [PubMed]
37. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goitein M, Munzenrider JE, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:109–22. [PubMed]
38. Studer G, Studer SP, Zwahlen RA, Huguenin P, Gratz KW, Lutolf UM, et al. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible: minimized risk profile following intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182:283–8. [PubMed]
39. Ben-David MA, Diamante M, Radawski JD, Vineberg KA, Stroup C, Murdoch-Kinch CA, et al. Lack of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: likely contributions of both dental care and improved dose distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:396–402. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Sanguineti G, Gunn GB, Endres EJ, Chaljub G, Cheruvu P, Parker B. Patterns of locoregional failure after exclusive IMRT for oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:737–46. [PubMed]
41. Lefebvre JL. Laryngeal preservation in head and neck cancer: multidisciplinary approach. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:747–55. [PubMed]
42. Pfister DG, Laurie SA, Weinstein GS, Mendenhall WM, Adelstein DJ, Ang KK, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline for the use of larynx-preservation strategies in the treatment of laryngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3693–704. [PubMed]
43. Zbaren P, Weidner S, Thoeny HC. Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinomas after (chemo)radiotherapy: a diagnostic dilemma. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;16:147–53. [PubMed]
44. Guerrero Urbano T, Clark CH, Hansen VN, Adams EJ, A'Hern R, Miles EA, et al. A phase I study of dose-escalated chemoradiation with accelerated intensity modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007;85:36–41. [PubMed]
45. Bhide S, Guerrero Urbano MT, Clark C, Hansen V, Adams E, Miles E, et al. Results of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer: a dose escalation study. Radiother Oncol 2007;82:S74–5.
46. Fang FM, Chien CY, Tsai WL, Chen HC, Hsu HC, Lui CC, et al. 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;72:356–64. [PubMed]
47. Adams EJ, Nutting CM, Convery DJ, Cosgrove VP, Henk JM, Dearnaley DP, et al. Potential role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of tumors of the maxillary sinus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:579–88. [PubMed]
48. Combs SE, Konkel S, Schulz-Ertner D, Munter MW, Debus J, Huber PE, et al. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with carcinomas of the paranasal sinuses: clinical benefit for complex shaped target volumes. Radiat Oncol 2006;1:23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Daly ME, Chen AM, Bucci MK, El-Sayed I, Xia P, Kaplan MJ, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for malignancies of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:151–7. [PubMed]
50. Dirix P, Nuyts S, Vanstraelen B, Nulens A, Hermans R, Jorissen M, et al. Post-operative intensity-modulated radiotherapy for malignancies of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Radiother Oncol 2007;85:385–91. [PubMed]
51. Hoppe BS, Wolden SL, Zelefsky MJ, Mechalakos JG, Shah JP, Kraus DH, et al. Postoperative intensity-modulated radiation therapy for cancers of the paranasal sinuses, nasal cavity, and lacrimal glands: technique, early outcomes, and toxicity. Head Neck 2008;30:925–32. [PubMed]
52. Raaijmakers E, Engelen AM. Is sensorineural hearing loss a possible side effect of nasopharyngeal and parotid irradiation? A systematic review of the literature. Radiother Oncol 2002;65:1–7. [PubMed]
53. Cacciatore F, Napoli C, Abete P, Marciano E, Triassi M, Rengo F. Quality of life determinants and hearing function in an elderly population: Osservatorio Geriatrico Campano Study Group. Gerontology 1999;45:323–8. [PubMed]
54. Nutting CM, Rowbottom CG, Cosgrove VP, Henk JM, Dearnaley DP, Robinson MH, et al. Optimisation of radiotherapy for carcinoma of the parotid gland: a comparison of conventional, three-dimensional conformal, and intensity-modulated techniques. Radiother Oncol 2001;60:163–72. [PubMed]
55. Nutting CM, Convery DJ, Cosgrove VP, Rowbottom C, Vini L, Harmer C, et al. Improvements in target coverage and reduced spinal cord irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with carcinoma of the thyroid gland. Radiother Oncol 2001;60:173–80. [PubMed]
56. Urbano TG, Clark CH, Hansen VN, Adams EJ, Miles EA, Mc Nair H, et al. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in locally advanced thyroid cancer: acute toxicity results of a phase I study. Radiother Oncol 2007;85:58–63. [PubMed]
57. Schwartz DL, Lobo MJ, Ang KK, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Ahamad A, et al. Postoperative external beam radiotherapy for differentiated thyroid cancer: outcomes and morbidity with conformal treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1083–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Grau C, Johansen LV, Jakobsen J, Geertsen P, Andersen E, Jensen BB. Cervical lymph node metastases from unknown primary tumours. Results from a national survey by the Danish Society for Head and Neck Oncology. Radiother Oncol 2000;55:121–9. [PubMed]
59. Nieder C, Gregoire V, Ang KK. Cervical lymph node metastases from occult squamous cell carcinoma: cut down a tree to get an apple? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:727–33. [PubMed]
60. Hammerlid E, Silander E, Hornestam L, Sullivan M. Health-related quality of life three years after diagnosis of head and neck cancer—a longitudinal study. Head Neck 2001;23:113–25. [PubMed]
61. Talmi YP, Horowitz Z, Bedrin L, Wolf M, Chaushu G, Kronenberg J, et al. Quality of life of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Cancer 2002;94:1012–17. [PubMed]
62. Eisbruch A, Rhodus N, Rosenthal D, Murphy B, Rasch C, Sonis S, et al. How should we measure and report radiotherapy-induced xerostomia? Semin Radiat Oncol 2003;13:226–34. [PubMed]
63. Bhide S, Clark C, Harrington K, Nutting CM. Intensity modulated radiotherapy improves target coverage and parotid gland sparing when delivering total mucosal irradiation in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck of unknown primary site. Med Dosim 2007;32:188–95. [PubMed]
64. Klem ML, Mechalakos JG, Wolden SL, Zelefsky MJ, Singh B, Kraus D, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer of unknown primary: toxicity and preliminary efficacy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:1100–7. [PubMed]
65. Lu H, Yao M, Tan H. Unknown primary head and neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy: to what extent the volume should be irradiated. Oral Oncol 2008;45:474–9. [PubMed]
66. Madani I, Vakaet L, Bonte K, Boterberg T, De Neve W. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical lymph node metastases from unknown primary cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:1158–66. [PubMed]
67. Madani I, Duthoy W, Derie C, De Gersem W, Boterberg T, Saerens M, et al. Positron emission tomography-guided, focal-dose escalation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:126–35. [PubMed]
68. Bentzen SM. Radiation therapy: intensity modulated, image guided, biologically optimized and evidence based. Radiother Oncol 2005;77:227–30. [PubMed]
69. Lonneux M, Hamoir M, Reychler H, Maingon P, Duvillard C, Calais G, et al. Positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose improves staging and patient management in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1190–5. [PubMed]
70. Deniaud-Alexandre E, Touboul E, Lerouge D, Grahek D, Foulquier JN, Petegnief Y, et al. Impact of computed tomography and 18F-deoxyglucose coincidence detection emission tomography image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:1432–41. [PubMed]
71. Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, Reiner B, Burger C, Davis JB, et al. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:853–63. [PubMed]
72. Bassi MC, Turri L, Sacchetti G, Loi G, Cannillo B, La Mattina P, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in preoperative conformal radiotherapy of rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:1423–6. [PubMed]
73. Grosu AL, Piert M, Weber WA, Jeremic B, Picchio M, Schratzenstaller U, et al. Positron emission tomography for radiation treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181:483–99. [PubMed]
74. Gregoire V, Eisbruch A, Hamoir M, Levendag P. Proposal for the delineation of the nodal CTV in the node-positive and the post-operative neck. Radiother Oncol 2006;79:15–20. [PubMed]
75. Jackson SM, Weir LM, Hay JH, Tsang VH, Durham JS. A randomised trial of accelerated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 1997;43:39–46. [PubMed]
76. Maciejewski B, Skladowski K, Pilecki B, Taylor JM, Withers RH, Miszczyk L, et al. Randomized clinical trial on accelerated 7 days per week fractionation in radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Preliminary report on acute toxicity. Radiother Oncol 1996;40:137–45. [PubMed]
77. Chao KS, Bosch WR, Mutic S, Lewis JS, Dehdashti F, Mintun MA, et al. A novel approach to overcome hypoxic tumor resistance: Cu-ATSM-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:1171–82. [PubMed]
78. Lee NY, Mechalakos JG, Nehmeh S, Lin Z, Squire OD, Cai S, et al. Fluorine-18-labeled fluoromisonidazole positron emission and computed tomography-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:2–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
79. Hall EJ, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:83–8. [PubMed]
80. Huang K, Xia P, Chuang C, Weinberg V, Glastonbury CM, Eisele DW, et al. Intensity-modulated chemoradiation for treatment of stage III and IV oropharyngeal carcinoma: the University of California, San Francisco experience. Cancer 2008;113:497–507. [PubMed]
81. de Arruda FF, Puri DR, Zhung J, Narayana A, Wolden S, Hunt M, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:363–73. [PubMed]
82. Chao KS, Ozyigit G, Blanco AI, Thorstad WL, Deasy JO, Haughey BH, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:43–50. [PubMed]
83. Garden AS, Morrison WH, Wong PF, Tung SS, Rosenthal DI, Dong L, et al. Disease-control rates following intensity-modulated radiation therapy for small primary oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:438–44. [PubMed]
84. Eisbruch A, Harris J, Garden AS, Chao CK, Straube W, Harari PM, et al. Multi-institutional trial of accelerated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage oropharyngeal cancer (RTOG 00-22). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76:1333–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
85. Studer G, Lutolf UM, Davis JB, Glanzmann C. IMRT in hypopharyngeal tumors. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182:331–5. [PubMed]
86. Lee NY, O'Meara W, Chan K, Della-Bianca C, Mechalakos JG, Zhung J, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:459–68. [PubMed]
87. Studer G, Peponi E, Kloeck S, Dossenbach T, Huber G, Glanzmann C. Surviving hypopharynx-larynx carcinoma in the era of IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77:1391–6. [PubMed]
88. Lee N, Harris J, Garden AS, Straube W, Glisson B, Xia P, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: radiation therapy oncology group phase II trial 0225. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3684–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. Kam MK, Teo PM, Chau RM, Cheung KY, Choi PH, Kwan WH, et al. Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: the Hong Kong experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:1440–50. [PubMed]
90. Wolden SL, Chen WC, Pfister DG, Kraus DH, Berry SL, Zelefsky MJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharynx cancer: update of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:57–62. [PubMed]
91. Lai SZ, Li WF, Chen L, Luo W, Chen YY, Liu LZ, et al. How does intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy influence the treatment results in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:661–8. [PubMed]
92. Han L, Lin SJ, Pan JJ, Chen CB, Zhang Y, Zhang XC, et al. Prognostic factors of 305 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Chin J Cancer 2010;29:145–50. [PubMed]
93. Lin S, Pan J, Han L, Zhang X, Liao X, Lu JJ. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with reduced-volume intensity-modulated radiation therapy: report on the 3-year outcome of a prospective series. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:1071–8. [PubMed]

Articles from The British Journal of Radiology are provided here courtesy of British Institute of Radiology