IMRT vs 2DRT for NPC Patients

Completed

• Conditions: NPC
• Interventions: Radiation: 2DRT; Radiation: IMRT

• Registration Number: NCT03352778
• Lead Sponsor: Chinese University of Hong Kong

Brief Summary

Irradiation of the parotid gland with subsequent long-term xerostomia is a well-recognized complication after radiotherapy for head and neck (HAN) cancers. A number of studies have shown that IMRT could minimize the radiation dose to the parotid glands and hence the risk of developing xerostomia. The benefit of IMRT has also been demonstrated in prior dosimetric and non-randomized studies in NPC patients. In 2007, the investigators have published the prospective randomized study of IMRT versus 2DRT in early stage NPC patients. In the study, IMRT had lower incidence of observer-rated severe xerostomia, higher parotid and whole saliva flow rate, than patients in 2DRT arm at 1 year after treatment. However, there was no significant difference in patient-reported outcome, i.e. subjective xerostomia scoring, between the 2 arms. The underlying reason for the incoherent findings in terms of objective and subjective xerostomia outcome remains uncertain. One of the possible explanations for this observation could be the better parotidsparing with IMRT alone may not entirely sufficient to maintain oral cavity lubrication while the other mucin-secretory salivary gland protection is also essential. Another possible explanation for the insignificant improvement in patient-reported outcome with IMRT is the short follow-up time. Gradual recovery or improvement in various quality of life parameters was not uncommonly seen several years after definitive radiotherapy for HAN cancer patients. There is much interest in studying the long term clinical outcome, especially the treatment-related complications, for the patients who had randomized and treated in the prior presented prospective study.

In this study, the long term results, in particular the xerostomia rating will be assessed and compared in NPC patients who had participated in the prior reported prospective randomized study of IMRT vs 2DRT.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2017-11-15
• Study First Submitted QC: 2017-11-22
• Study First Posted: 2017-11-24
• Study Start: 2017-11-29
• Primary Completion: 2021-06-30
• Study Completion: 2021-06-30
• Status Verified: 2021-10
• Last Update Submitted: 2021-10-21
• Last Update Posted: 2021-10-22

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 60

Inclusion Criteria

• The NPC patient, who had been enrolled, randomized and treated in the prior prospective randomized study of IMRT vs 2DRT.
• Regular follow-up for more than five years from the end of study intervention (i.e. IMRT or 2DRT for NPC).
• Patient is able to sign the study-specific informed consent.
• ECOG performance status 0 or 1.
• Patient is able to complete the study's questionnaire.

Read More

Exclusion Criteria

• NPC patients who had not been randomized or allocated to the study intervention, even though had been enrolled in the prior reported study.
• Loss of regular follow-up from the end of study intervention.
• Regular follow-up for less than five years from the end of study intervention.
• Patients with known recurrent or metastatic disease.
• Patients with secondary malignancy occurred after completion of the previous study's treatment (i.e. radiotherapy).
• Active untreated infections
• Major medical or psychiatric illness

Read More

Study & Design

• Study Type: OBSERVATIONAL
• Study Design: Not specified

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
2DRT	2DRT	-
IMRT	IMRT	-

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To measure QOL difference between 2DRT vs IMRT by EORTC QLQ-H&N 35 questionnaire. A 10-point difference of mean scores of QOL between groups were significant.	2 years
To measure difference in xerostomia score between 2DRT vs IMRT by using the xerostomia questionnaire (6-item xerostomia questionnaire. Johnson et al). A low score indicates worse xerostomia.	2 years
To measure QOL difference between 2DRT vs IMRT by EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire. A 10-point difference of mean scores of QOL between groups were significant.	2 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To measure the difference of the incidence of loco-regional recurrence between 2DRT vs IMRT.	2 years
To measure the difference of numbers of 2DRT vs IMRT patients with treatment-related adverse events as assessed by RTOG/EORTC Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria.	2 years
To measure the difference of the overall survival and progression-free survival between 2DRT vs IMRT.	2 years

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

The Chinese University of Hong Kong; 🇭🇰 Hong Kong, Hong Kong