Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Split-Course Accelerated Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (SCAHRT): A Safe and Effective Option for Head and Neck Cancer in the Elderly or Infirm

TREVOR J. BLEDSOE, ANISHA R. NOBLE, CHANDANA A. REDDY, BRIAN B. BURKEY, JOHN F. GRESKOVICH, TOBENNA NWIZU, DAVID J. ADELSTEIN, JERROLD P. SAXTON and SHLOMO A. KOYFMAN
Anticancer Research March 2016, 36 (3) 933-939;
TREVOR J. BLEDSOE
1Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANISHA R. NOBLE
2Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CHANDANA A. REDDY
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
BRIAN B. BURKEY
4Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOHN F. GRESKOVICH
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOBENNA NWIZU
5Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DAVID J. ADELSTEIN
5Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JERROLD P. SAXTON
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHLOMO A. KOYFMAN
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: koyfmas{at}ccf.org
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Achieving locoregional control in high-risk patients with head and neck cancer who are poor candidates for standard continuous-course (chemo) radiotherapy due to advanced age, comorbidities, or very advanced disease is challenging. At our Institution, we have significant experience with a regimen of split-course, accelerated, hypofractionated radiotherapy (SCAHRT) for these patients. Patients and Methods: The SCAHRT regimen consisted of 60-72 Gy in 20-24 fractions separated by several weeks mid-course to allow for toxicity recovery and disease reassessment. It was used for patients with advanced age, significant co-morbidities, anticipated intolerance to definitive (chemo)radiation, and those with oligometastatic disease. Disease-free and overall survival rates were calculated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: Fifty-eight out of 65 patients (89%) completed both courses of treatment. Patients without metastatic or recurrent disease were evaluated for treatment response and survival (n=39). Among this group, total tumor response was 91%, and median locoregional failure-free survival and overall survival were 25.7 and 8.9 months, respectively. Conclusion: In high-risk patients unable to tolerate continuous-course definitive (chemo)radiation, SCAHRT is a safe, well-tolerated and effective method of achieving durable locoregional disease control. In properly selected patients, this regimen is preferable to purely palliative approaches.

  • Head and neck cancer
  • radiotherapy
  • split course
  • hypofractionated
  • elderly

Radiation with concurrent systemic therapy is the standard-of-care for non-operative treatment of locally advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer (1, 2). For patients ineligible for systemic therapy, accelerated radiotherapy regimens are also beneficial compared to conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (RT) (3). Large randomized trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated that these intensification strategies increase the rate of tumor control and improve survival, at the cost of increased rates of severe treatment-related toxicity (2-8). However, a small proportion of patients with head and neck cancer are not suitable candidates for aggressive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, accelerated fractionation RT, or even conventional definitive RT, because of poor performance status, medical co-morbidities, expected poor tolerance to or compliance with treatment, or a combination of these factors. Patients with oligometastatic but locally advanced disease also represent a therapeutic challenge. In these patients, durable locoregional control (LRC) remains a priority despite the presence of metastases because of the possible substantial morbidity and mortality associated with uncontrolled head and neck disease. This often necessitates aggressive RT with its associated toxicity, despite the palliative intent of therapy.

Deciding on optimal treatment for these compromised patients poses a challenge to surgeons and oncologists alike. While RT is often used palliatively for symptom reduction, there are no consensus guidelines or Level I evidence to direct treatment decisions. Several retrospective studies and prospective single-arm trials have evaluated various regimens of RT for compromised patients with head and neck cancer, including several studies evaluating split-course regimens (9-16). However, significant variability in treatment approaches abound, and physicians often struggle to agree on the best therapeutic option for these high-risk patients (10, 12, 16).

At our Institution, in an effort to safely achieve LRC, we have long treated these patients with a planned split-course regimen of accelerated, hypofractionated radiotherapy (SCAHRT). This study reviews our safety and efficacy outcomes with this approach.

Patients and Methods

High-risk patients with head and neck malignancy who underwent SCAHRT between 2002-2010 were identified from our Institutional Review Board-approved head and neck registry, and their electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients were classified as being at high risk for one or more of the following reasons: low performance status, significant co-morbidities, anticipated intolerance to definitive (chemo)radiation, and presence of oligometastatic disease. Patients with both newly diagnosed and recurrent cancer of the head and neck were included.

Initially, the regimen consisted of two courses of 30 Gy/10 fractions separated by approximately 3-5 weeks to allow for toxicity recovery. In recent years, the total dose has been increased up to a maximum of two courses of 36 Gy in 12 fractions for those who tolerate the initial course well and have advanced disease. A conventional 3-field approach was used most often earlier in the first half of the study, while intensity modulated radiation therapy exclusively has been used during past 5 years.

All patients were evaluated for safety and toxicity. A subset of patients without metastatic or recurrent disease with technically “curable” disease were also evaluated for efficacy outcomes including response to treatment, LRC, and overall survival. Locoregional tumor response was categorized as complete resolution for patients with no clinical evidence of residual tumor; partial resolution, for patients with a measurable decrease in gross disease; stable disease, for patients who experienced no change in size of gross disease; and progressive disease, for patients with a measured increased in size of disease despite treatment. Patients who experienced measurable disease progression after treatment, including local, regional, or distant failure, were recorded as having failed treatment. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria could not be used due to the unavailability of images for patients treated in the earlier years of this series. Patients with a partial response to treatment were not recorded as treatment failures unless the patient demonstrated disease progression after completing treatment.

Toxicities were graded retrospectively and were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (17). Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to calculate LRC and overall survival (OS). LRC was calculated as the time from the end of treatment to local or regional failure (in patients with a complete response to treatment) or measurable disease progression (in patients with a partial response to treatment). Overall survival was defined as time from biopsy to death. Univariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression to identify factors associated with locoregional failure.

Results

Patients' characteristics. Sixty-five patients (43 men and 22 women) treated with SCAHRT were identified on a retrospective review. Median follow-up for patients overall was 8.5 months. The most common tumors were squamous carcinomas of the oropharynx (40%), hypopharynx (14%), and larynx (12%), followed by small numbers of tumors of other sites and/or histologies (Table I). Fifty-five patients (85%) were previously untreated; 10 patients (15%) presented with recurrent tumors. The majority of patients had stage IV disease. The most common reason (75%) for SCAHRT among patients with stage I-III disease was anticipated intolerance to definitive treatment. The most common reasons for SCAHRT among patients overall were: patient comorbidities (32%), anticipated intolerance to treatment (32%), oligometastatic disease (29%), and low Karnofsky Performance Status (22%). Some patients had more than one documented reason for SCAHRT.

Treatment characteristics. Both courses of treatment were completed in 58 out of 65 (89%) patients. Seven patients did not complete the second course of treatment for the following reasons: one patient developed profound hyponatremia and was discharged to hospice; one patient refused the second course of treatment; one patient developed significant sore throat, dry mouth, and malaise, and decided against a second course of treatment; two patients continued to physically decline after the first course of treatment; and one patient with metastatic disease was asymptomatic at the primary site after the first course of RT and did not receive a second course.

The median number of calendar days from the start of treatment to completion was 14 for both first and second courses of RT. The median number of days between courses was 38 (range=24-263). Four patients had more than 100 days between courses. This was due to patients refusing the second course of treatment and later requiring additional RT for symptomatic progression or because they required additional time to recuperate. These patients were included in the analysis because they were initially planned for the standard split-course approach. Median dose and number of fractions of RT was 33 Gy/11 fractions for the first course and 30 Gy/10 fractions for the second course.

Concurrent chemotherapy was administered to four patients. They were treated with SCAHRT rather than continuous-course RT due to a concern that they would not be able to tolerate continuous-course RT with concurrent systemic therapy given their advanced age. Fifteen patients (23%) underwent surgery prior to SCAHRT. Of these 15 patients, 6 had a complete resection with negative margins.

Toxicity. No grade 4 or 5 radiotherapy toxicities were observed during or after treatment. Twenty-seven (42%) patients required a feeding tube at some point during treatment; 13 patients had a feeding tube at the last follow-up. At 90 days after treatment, one patient had a pain grade 3 or more. One patient experienced diffuse mucosal ulceration/necrosis of the pharyngeal wall and palate 1.5 years after the completion of treatment. She slowly developed progressive dysphagia and required admission for hydration and feeding tube placement (grade 3). At the time, she was disease-free. Unfortunately, she became delirious in the hospital, contracted pneumonia and died several weeks later. Her death was not directly attributable to her treatment. No patient experienced grade 4/5 toxicity directly attributable to RT.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient and tumor characteristics.

Survival. Of the 65 patients in the study, 39 (60%) presented with disease stage I-IVB, without distant metastasis or recurrent disease. These patients were evaluated for treatment response and survival. Of this cohort, 32 patients had a recorded response at follow-up 3 months after treatment. Sixteen (50%) had a complete response, 13 (41%) had a partial response, and three (9%) had stable or progressive disease despite treatment. Overall, 12 patients (31%) subsequently failed after treatment. This included eight (21%) locoregional failures and 4 (17%) distant failures. Median LRC was for 25.7 months, and median overall survival was 8.9 months. Kaplan–Meier curves for LRC and OS are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. No patient-, tumor-, or treatment-related variables were found to be significantly associated with locoregional failure on Cox proportional hazards regressions analysis (Table II).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for locoregional failure.

Discussion

This study presents the outcomes of 65 high-risk patients treated at our Institution with SCAHRT. Our cohort included patients with recurrent disease, oligometastatic disease, as well as patients without metastatic disease who were deemed unable to tolerate a definitive regimen of continuous (chemo)radiation due to reasons such as advanced age, anticipated intolerance to definitive treatment, poor performance status, or comorbidities. Overall, our analysis suggests that SCAHRT is a safe, well-tolerated regimen in a variety of clinical situations involving compromised patients including patients with recurrent disease, prior to surgery, or prior to chemotherapy. Additionally, we found SCAHRT to be effective in achieving LRC among patients without metastatic or recurrent disease. Our findings are similar to previously published reports of split-course regimens (11, 12, 16).

Given the potential morbidity and catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled disease in the head and neck, durable LRC is a particularly important outcome in these patients and rivals survival as a worthy goal of care. To evaluate the effectiveness of SCAHRT in achieving durable LRC, we analyzed a subset of 39 previously untreated patients with disease stage I-IVB, excluding patients with distant metastasis or recurrent disease. This subset represented a cohort of patients with locoregionally-confined disease who would otherwise be considered curable if not for their being ineligible for standard chemoradiotherapy. Median OS among this cohort was 8.9 months, consistent with rates published in similar studies, which ranged from 4-13.3 months (Table III). The median LRC among this cohort was 25.7 months–considerably longer than the median OS in this study, as well as similar studies. Given that the rate of LRC is considerably longer than OS in our study suggests that SCAHRT is an effective means of achieving durable LRC in high-risk patients with compromised expectations of OS.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Locoregional control for patients with stage I to IVB head and neck cancer (N=39).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Overall survival for patients with stage I to IVB head and neck cancer (N=39).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Overview of studies of radiation for high-risk patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Determining the optimal treatment regimen for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are unable to tolerate definitive (chemo)radiation poses a clinical challenge. A number of published reports describe different palliative treatment regimens that have been used for high-risk patient populations similar to those included in this study (9-16) (Table III). The most important observation made from data in Table III is the heterogeneity with which these patients are approached, from more palliative regimens (e.g. Quad Shot) to more definitive regimens, underscoring the therapeutic challenge these patients present. While differences in patients, tumors, and methods of assessment used in these studies make comparisons between these various treatment regimens difficult, the tumor response rate of 91% in this study compares favorably to those of other published regimens. The higher rate of tumor response is likely due to the comparatively aggressive regimen of SCAHRT as patients were treated to higher total doses of radiation than in other studies (Table III). Our approach therefore offers a more aggressive approach with an opportunity to achieve durable LRC in this high-risk population.

An illustrative example is displayed in Figure 3. The patient was a 91-year-old male with a history of multiply recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the left hard palate, previously treated with several resections and prior radiotherapy, who presented with recurrent disease at the left skull base. Pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging revealed a 4.5×4.5×3.8 cm transfacial mass involving the left masticator space, left parapharyngeal space, nasopharynx and pterygomaxillary fissure. Enhancement was seen in trigeminal nerve branches V2 and V3, tracking along the foramen ovale, the foramen rotundum and the vidian canal to abut Meckel's cave. The patient was subsequently treated with two courses of 33 Gy in 11 fractions separated by a 4-week break. Post-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (Figure 3) demonstrated dramatically reduced tumor size with residual non-specific enhancement consistent with treatment effect. At 11 months post-treatment, the patient had not experienced disease progression and was active, living independently, exercising and eating a normal diet. He experienced grade 2 trismus and grade 3 soft tissue necrosis of the left cheek with a non-healing wound that remained stable at 11 months post-treatment.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Imaging of a 91-year-old male with a history of multiply recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the left hard palate previously treated with several resections and prior radiotherapy who presented with recurrent disease at the left skull base. A: Pre-treatment, T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrating a 4.5×4.5×3.8 cm transfacial mass involving the left masticator space, left parapharyngeal space, nasopharynx and pterygomaxillary fissure. Enhancement was seen in trigeminal nerve branches V2 and V3, tracking along the foramen ovale, the foramen rotundum and the vidian canal to abut meckel's cave. B: Axial image from the radiation planning computed tomography scan displaying isodose lines from the first course of treatment (33 Gy in 11 fractions). C: Post-treatment, T2-weighted MRI demonstrating dramatically reduced tumor size with residual non-specific enhancement consistent with treatment effect.

The toxicity profile of this regimen also compares favorably with similar studies of split-course radiation (Table III). Twenty-seven patients (42%) required a feeding tube at some point during treatment, and 13 patients (20%) were using a feeding tube at the last follow-up. No other significant toxicities were observed. Perhaps the best measure of tolerability, 58 out of 65 patients (89%) completed both courses of treatment. With the more recent implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and the resultant decrease in skin and mucosal toxicity in general, this regimen is even easier to deliver without substantial morbidity.

Recently, the use of stereotactic body RT has been increasingly used in the re-irradiation setting in head and neck cancer. After early-phase studies demonstrated that doses of 40-50 Gy in five fractions delivered to a limited treatment volume were safe, a significant corpus of published data is emerging which catalogs treatment of hundreds of patients with this approach. While some articles describe a 15-20% risk of severe, life-threatening complications, most demonstrate surprisingly favorable toxicity profiles and fairly promising control rates. Some are now considering the use of stereotactic body RT in high-risk patients who have never been irradiated, similarly to our cohort. It certainly is a novel treatment paradigm worth considering as an alternative to SCAHRT (18).

This study has a number of limitations. It is retrospective, the sample size is limited, and some patients had limited follow-up information. The treatment regimen changed over the years, with intensification of total radiation dose, which may have impacted outcomes. However, as no patient experienced grade 4/5 toxicity and most grade 3 toxicities were well managed with a feeding tube, we believe the high-dose regimen to be safe and would likely only lead to improved local disease control. Another challenge of the study was that it comprised a heterogeneous patient population. However, this lends to the clinical relevance in that our findings apply to a broad spectrum of high-risk patients encountered in clinical practice. Our ability to analyze the LRC and OS of our non-metastatic, non-recurrent disease cohort also helped provide more detail on the data.

Conclusion

For patients with high-risk, locally advanced head and neck cancer who are not candidates for standard continuous course RT or chemoradiotherapy, SCAHRT is a safe and effective treatment regimen that offers the potential for long-term, durable LRC in addition to effective palliation. For these high-risk patients, this regimen may have advantages over purely palliative approaches by providing more durable LRC than standard palliative treatment regimens. Comparative studies are needed to better define optimal treatment strategies for this unique and heterogeneous patient population.

Footnotes

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Received December 18, 2015.
  • Revision received January 21, 2016.
  • Accepted January 28, 2016.
  • Copyright© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bonner JA,
    2. Harari PM,
    3. Giralt J,
    4. Azarnia N,
    5. Shin DM,
    6. Cohen RB,
    7. Jones CU,
    8. Sur R,
    9. Raben D,
    10. Jassem J,
    11. Ove R,
    12. Kies MS,
    13. Baselga J,
    14. Youssoufian H,
    15. Amellal N,
    16. Rowinsky EK,
    17. Ang KK
    : Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. New England Journal of Medicine 354(6): 567-578, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Pignon J-P,
    2. Maître Al,
    3. Maillard E,
    4. Bourhis J
    : Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): An update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. Radiotherapy and Oncology 92(1): 4-14, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bourhis J,
    2. Overgaard J,
    3. Audry H,
    4. Ang KK,
    5. Saunders M,
    6. Bernier J,
    7. Horiot J-C,
    8. Le Maître A,
    9. Pajak TF,
    10. Poulsen MG,
    11. O'Sullivan B,
    12. Dobrowsky W,
    13. Hliniak A,
    14. Skladowski K,
    15. Hay JH,
    16. Pinto LHJ,
    17. Fallai C,
    18. Fu KK,
    19. Sylvester R,
    20. Pignon J-P
    : Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet 368(9538): 843-854, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Adelstein DJ,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Adams GL,
    4. Wagner H,
    5. Kish JA,
    6. Ensley JF,
    7. Schuller DE,
    8. Forastiere AA
    : An intergroup phase iii comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 21(1): 92-98, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Bourhis J,
    2. Sire C,
    3. Graff P,
    4. Grégoire V,
    5. Maingon P,
    6. Calais G,
    7. Gery B,
    8. Martin L,
    9. Alfonsi M,
    10. Desprez P,
    11. Pignon T,
    12. Bardet E,
    13. Rives M,
    14. Geoffrois L,
    15. Daly-Schveitzer N,
    16. Sen S,
    17. Tuchais C,
    18. Dupuis O,
    19. Guerif S,
    20. Lapeyre M,
    21. Favrel V,
    22. Hamoir M,
    23. Lusinchi A,
    24. Temam S,
    25. Pinna A,
    26. Tao YG,
    27. Blanchard P,
    28. Aupérin A
    : Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): An open-label phase III randomised trial. The lancet oncology 13(2): 145-153, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fu KK,
    2. Pajak TF,
    3. Trotti A,
    4. Jones CU,
    5. Spencer SA,
    6. Phillips TL,
    7. Garden AS,
    8. Ridge JA,
    9. Cooper JS,
    10. Ang KK
    : A radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare hyperfractionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: First report of RTOG 9003. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 48(1): 7-16, 2000.
    OpenUrl
    1. Horiot J-C,
    2. Bontemps P,
    3. van den Bogaert W,
    4. Le Fur R,
    5. van den Weijngaert D,
    6. Bolla M,
    7. Bernier J,
    8. Lusinchi A,
    9. Stuschke M,
    10. Lopez-Torrecilla J,
    11. Begg AC,
    12. Pierart M,
    13. Collette L
    : Accelerated fractionation (af) compared to conventional fractionation (CF) improves loco-regional control in the radiotherapy of advanced head and neck cancers: Results of the eortc 22851 randomized trial. Radiotherapy and Oncology 44(2): 111-121, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Machtay M,
    2. Moughan J,
    3. Trotti A,
    4. Garden AS,
    5. Weber RS,
    6. Cooper JS,
    7. Forastiere A,
    8. Ang KK
    : Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: An rtog analysis. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 26(21): 3582-3589, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Agarwal JP,
    2. Nemade B,
    3. Murthy V,
    4. Ghosh-Laskar S,
    5. Budrukkar A,
    6. Gupta T,
    7. D'Cruz A,
    8. Pai P,
    9. Chaturvedi P,
    10. Dinshaw K
    : Hypofractionated, palliative radiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer. Radiotherapy and oncology: journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 89(1): 51-56, 2008.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Chen AM,
    2. Vaughan A,
    3. Narayan S,
    4. Vijayakumar S
    : Original article palliative radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: Toward an optimal fractionation scheme. December: 1586-1591, 2008.
  7. ↵
    1. Corry J,
    2. Peters LJ,
    3. Costa ID,
    4. Milner AD,
    5. Fawns H,
    6. Rischin D,
    7. Porceddu S
    : The ‘quad shot’ – a phase II study of palliative radiotherapy for incurable head and neck cancer. Radiotherapy and oncology: journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 77(2): 137-142, 2005.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Kancherla KN,
    2. Oksuz DC,
    3. Prestwich RJD,
    4. Fosker C,
    5. Dyker KE,
    6. Coyle CC,
    7. Sen M
    : The role of split-course hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 23(2): 141-148, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Minatel E,
    2. Gigante M,
    3. Franchin G,
    4. Gobitti C,
    5. Mascarin M,
    6. Bujor L,
    7. Barzan L,
    8. Trovò MG
    : Combined radiotherapy and bleomycin in patients with inoperable head and neck cancer with unfavourable prognostic factors and severe symptoms. Oral oncology 34(2): 119-122, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mohanti BK,
    2. Umapathy H,
    3. Bahadur S,
    4. Thakar A,
    5. Pathy S
    : Short course palliative radiotherapy of 20 Gy in 5 fractions for advanced and incurable head and neck cancer: Aims of study. Radiotherapy and oncology: journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 71(3): 275-280, 2004.
    OpenUrl
    1. Porceddu SV,
    2. Rosser B,
    3. Burmeister BH,
    4. Jones M,
    5. Hickey B,
    6. Baumann K,
    7. Gogna K,
    8. Pullar A,
    9. Poulsen M,
    10. Holt T
    : Hypofractionated radiotherapy for the palliation of advanced head and neck cancer in patients unsuitable for curative treatment – “hypo trial”. Radiotherapy and oncology: journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 85(3): 456-462, 2007.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Stevens CM,
    2. Huang SH,
    3. Fung S,
    4. Bayley AJ,
    5. Cho JB,
    6. Cummings BJ,
    7. Dawson La,
    8. Hope AJ,
    9. Kim JJ,
    10. O'Sullivan B,
    11. Waldron JN,
    12. Ringash J
    : Retrospective study of palliative radiotherapy in newly diagnosed head and neck carcinoma. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 81(4): 958-963, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Trotti A,
    2. Colevas AD,
    3. Setser A,
    4. Rusch V,
    5. Jaques D,
    6. Budach V,
    7. Langer C,
    8. Murphy B,
    9. Cumberlin R,
    10. Coleman CN,
    11. Rubin P
    : Ctcae v3.0: Development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 13(3): 176-181, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lim CM,
    2. Clump DA,
    3. Heron DE,
    4. Ferris RL
    : Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for primary and recurrent head and neck tumors. Oral Oncology 49(5): 401-406, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research
Vol. 36, Issue 3
March 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Split-Course Accelerated Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (SCAHRT): A Safe and Effective Option for Head and Neck Cancer in the Elderly or Infirm
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Split-Course Accelerated Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (SCAHRT): A Safe and Effective Option for Head and Neck Cancer in the Elderly or Infirm
TREVOR J. BLEDSOE, ANISHA R. NOBLE, CHANDANA A. REDDY, BRIAN B. BURKEY, JOHN F. GRESKOVICH, TOBENNA NWIZU, DAVID J. ADELSTEIN, JERROLD P. SAXTON, SHLOMO A. KOYFMAN
Anticancer Research Mar 2016, 36 (3) 933-939;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Split-Course Accelerated Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (SCAHRT): A Safe and Effective Option for Head and Neck Cancer in the Elderly or Infirm
TREVOR J. BLEDSOE, ANISHA R. NOBLE, CHANDANA A. REDDY, BRIAN B. BURKEY, JOHN F. GRESKOVICH, TOBENNA NWIZU, DAVID J. ADELSTEIN, JERROLD P. SAXTON, SHLOMO A. KOYFMAN
Anticancer Research Mar 2016, 36 (3) 933-939;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Combining chemotherapy and tislelizumab with preoperative split-course hypofraction radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: study protocol of a prospective, single-arm, phase II trial
  • Updated Outcomes of Split Course Radiotherapy in Elderly or Infirm Patients With Advanced Cancers of the Head and Neck
  • Chemotherapy-based split stereotactic body radiation therapy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: study protocol of a prospective, single-arm phase II trial
  • Phase I-II Study of Short-course Accelerated Radiotherapy (SHARON) for Palliation in Head and Neck Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy of Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Platinum-sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer During PARP Inhibitor Treatment: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
  • Uniformity Between Serological Biomarker Test, Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy and Biopsy Histology in Triage of Upper Abdominal Symptoms in Gastroscopy Referral Patients
  • Renal Function With Enfortumab Vedotin in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in Japan
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Head and neck cancer
  • radiotherapy
  • Split course
  • hypofractionated
  • elderly
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire