Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • 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 2025
  • 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

Is Locally Advanced Head-Neck Cancer One More Candidate for Accelerated Hypofractionation?

IOANNIS M. KOUKOURAKIS, ANNA ZYGOGIANNI, VASSILIOS KOULOULIAS, GEORGE KYRGIAS, MARIANTHI PANTELIADOU, CHRISTOS NANOS, IOANNIS ABATZOGLOU and MICHAEL I. KOUKOURAKIS
Anticancer Research January 2021, 41 (1) 467-475; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14797
IOANNIS M. KOUKOURAKIS
11st Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Aretaieion University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANNA ZYGOGIANNI
11st Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Aretaieion University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VASSILIOS KOULOULIAS
22nd Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Attikon University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GEORGE KYRGIAS
3Department of Radiotherapy, University of Thessaly, University Hospital of Larisa, Larisa, Greece;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIANTHI PANTELIADOU
4Department of Radiotherapy/Oncology, Democritus University of Thrace, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CHRISTOS NANOS
4Department of Radiotherapy/Oncology, Democritus University of Thrace, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
IOANNIS ABATZOGLOU
4Department of Radiotherapy/Oncology, Democritus University of Thrace, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MICHAEL I. KOUKOURAKIS
4Department of Radiotherapy/Oncology, Democritus University of Thrace, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: targ@her.forthnet.gr
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HypoAR) is widely applied for the treatment of early laryngeal cancer. Its role in locally advanced head-neck cancer (LA-HNC) is unexplored. Patients and Methods: We present results of a prospective trial on 124 patients with LA-HNC, treated with radio-chemotherapy with three different HypoAR fractionations (3.5 Gy/day × 14-15 fractions, 2.7 Gy/day × 20-21 fractions, and 2.5 Gy/day × 21-22 fractions). Results: Protraction of the overall treatment time due to oropharyngeal mucositis was enforced in 18/57 laryngeal, 6/19 nasopharyngeal, and 15/48 cancer patients with other tumors. Regarding late toxicities, laryngeal edema grade 3 was noted in 5/57 patients with laryngeal cancer, while severe dysphagia was noted in 4/124 and tracheoesophageal fistula formation in 1/124 patients. The complete response rates obtained were 73%, 84%, and 67% in patients with laryngeal, nasopharyngeal, and other tumors, respectively. The 3-year locoregional progression-free survival was 58%, 73%, and 55%, respectively. Conclusion: HypoAR chemoradiotherapy is feasible, with acceptable early and late radiotherapy toxicities, response rates and LPFS.

Key Words:
  • Locally advanced head-neck cancer
  • radiotherapy
  • hypofractionation
  • acceleration
  • chemo-radiation

The justified, to a certain point, phobia spread over the 1980s and 1990s regarding the severity of late complications from hypofractionation, promoted the switch of clinical trials towards hyperfractionated regimens. Hypofractionation was reduced to a clinical tool for overloaded radiotherapy departments or was used as a research tool by few heretics. In his ‘lessons from complications’ paper, G.H. Fletcher appeared convinced that hypofractionation produces unacceptable late toxicities in breast cancer (1). However, the whole breast’s dose in the image case presented in the article was equal to a normalized biological total dose of 60Gy (5 fractions of 670 cGy). This dose would have produced similarly poor cosmetic results even if given with conventional fractionation. Today, hypofractionated and accelerated radiotherapy (HypoAR) is the standard of care for breast cancer patients (2, 3).

The reconsideration of hypofractionation became feasible due to the technological advances in radiotherapy and, most importantly, the optimized calculation of the biological radiation dose (according to the linear-quadratic model formulas). Moreover, radiobiological analysis of large clinical data dissolved the long-lasting misconception that all tumors have a high α/β-value, challenging the supremacy of small doses per fraction. Today, HypoAR has gained the trust of Radiation Oncologists worldwide for the treatment of breast, prostate, and rectal cancer (2-6). The use of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy SBRT, applying super-hypofractionated regimens, is gradually increasing, as the publications of favorable experiences are rapidly increasing (7).

Regarding head-neck cancer, HypoAR is considered the standard of care for early laryngeal cancer (8). HypoAR is more effective than conventional radiotherapy (ConvRT) or even surgery for early laryngeal carcinomas (9). However, the overall world experience on HypoAR in locally advanced head-neck cancer (LA-HNC) is limited. Shuryak, Hall, and Brenner have recently suggested that optimized HypoAR can be better tolerated and effective (10). The optimal regimen suggested by the authors for patients with early and LA-HNC, is 18 daily fractions of 3 Gy (delivered in 24 days), while a possible 19th fraction would increase local control rates to 52.7% vs. 35% expected after ConvRT (delivered in 48 days). The normalized total dose (NTD) (without time correction) for early and late toxicities (α/β=10 Gy and 4 Gy, respectively), of the 19-fraction regimen, is estimated at 61.75 Gy and 66.5 Gy, respectively.

Due to the continuously increasing number of patients demanding radiotherapy and the low number of Linear Accelerators available in our Department, schedules similar to the above-proposed radiotherapy regimen have been tested to treat LA-HNC. Here, we report our favorable experience with HypoAR for LA-HNC patients.

Patients and Methods

One-hundred twenty-four patients with LA-HNC treated prospectively with 3D-conformal or intensity modulated VMAT/IGRT HypoAR were analyzed. All patients gave written informed consent, and the study was approved by the local Ethics and Scientific Committee of (SD7/26-2-04 and SD36/34/28-9-06). Patient and disease characteristics are listed in Table I. Table II summarizes the treatment characteristics. The median follow-up of patients alive at the time of last follow-up was 24 months (range=6-106 months).

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

Patient and disease characteristics.

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

Treatment characteristics.

Radiotherapy details. For patients treated with 3D-conformal radiotherapy, irradiation was performed using a 6/18MV linear accelerator (ELEKTA) endowed with a multi-leaf collimator, after CT-simulation and conformal radiotherapy planning (Plato, Nucletron, Stockholm, Sweden). We used two different fractionation schemes: i. 3.5 Gy for a total of 14-15 fractions to deliver the whole planned dose within 26 days (insertion of a split of 1 week after the first two weeks of therapy) and, ii. 2.7 Gy × 21-22 fractions in 30 days. A new CT-simulation and treatment planning was performed to shield the spinal cord after eight fractions of 3.5 Gy or 14 fractions of 2.7 Gy. Supraclavicular/lower neck areas were irradiated through anterior/posterior fields, receiving 11 fractions of 3.5 Gy or 14-15 fractions of 2.7 Gy. Involved node areas received a higher dose (12-15 fractions of 3.5 Gy or 18-20 fractions of 2.7 Gy). The distribution of radiotherapy schedules according to primary tumor location is shown in Table II.

For intensity-modulated image-guided IGRT/VMAT radiotherapy, multiple targets receiving different fractionation were designed. The treatment plans were produced at Monaco TPS version 5.1 (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and therapy. They were delivered by a 6MV ELEKTA Infinity™ Linear Accelerator (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) with an Agility™ head (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and multileaf collimator (MLC) featuring 5mm leaves at the isocenter. The gross tumor received 20-22 fractions of 2.5-2.7 Gy. Involved nodal areas received 2.5 Gy x 20-22 fractions, while uninvolved node areas 2.1 Gy × 22 or 2.2 × 20 fractions. During therapy, patients were re-evaluated with a new simulation followed by re-planning, when clinical or IGRT-detected shrinkage of the tumor demanded planning adjustments. The distribution of radiotherapy schedules according to primary tumor location is shown in Table II.

The structures outlined included the gross tumor volumes (GTV), the clinical target volumes (CTV) and planning target volumes (PTV) of the regions of interest. Contouring of organs at risk (OAR: eyes, lenses of eyes, larynx, parotids, submandibular and spinal cord) was performed. A mean margin of 5 mm (0.2-10 mm) was applied to delineate the PTVs from CTVs. The cost functions that were used for PTVs were two target penalties and a quadratic overdose. The first target penalty was set to prescribe 95% of total dose to 98% of minimum volume in order to have sufficient coverage and the second one was set to prescribe 100% of total dose to 50% of minimum volume in order to control the mean dose of the target. Quadratic overdose cost function was used for controlling the maximum dose of PTVs and was set as 100% of the maximum dose a with root mean square (RMS) of 50 cGy. In terms of dosimetry, for dose constrains in OARs, we used the QUANTEC criteria adapted for head and neck treatment (11, 12). In order to assess the biological dose in critical organs according to QUANTEC, all relevant Dose Volume Histograms DVHs derived from the hypofractionated schedules representing OARs were transformed into equivalent histograms by using a Niemierko model as described in a previous publication (13).

Radiobiological analysis. The ‘biological equivalent normalized total dose’ (NTD) was calculated using the formula proposed by Maciejewski (14) as follows: NTD=D ((α/β + d)/(α/β + 2)), where ‘D’ is the total physical dose, ‘d’ the dose per fraction and α/β is the tissue specific α/β-ratio. The NTD corrected for overall treatment time was calculated using a previously proposed formula (15), NTD(T)= D ((α/β + d)/(a/b + 2)) + λ(Tc-To), where Tc is the number of days required for the delivery of the NTD using a conventionally fractionated scheme, To is the number of days required for the delivery of the current scheme, and ‘λ’ is the estimated daily radiation dose consumed to compensate for rapid tumor repopulation. For cancer tissues, an α/β-ratio ranging between 4-10 Gy was considered. We also assumed a median ‘λ’ value of 0.2 Gy/day for late responding normal tissues and 0.4-0.8 Gy/day for cancer cells (16). The radiobiological analysis of the schedules applied is shown in Table III.

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

Radiobiological analysis of the HypoAR schedules applied.

Concurrent chemotherapy. Induction chemotherapy with 2-3 bi-weekly cycles of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil, cisplatin/cetuximab, or docetaxel/cisplatin/5-fluorouracil was offered to 108 patients (Table III). Subsequently, patients received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin (35-40 mg/m2 per week) and/or cetuximab 250 mg/m2/week (17). In patients with poor performance status, chemotherapy was omitted. Amifostine was applied subcutaneously daily before each radiotherapy fraction, in 60/124 patients.

Patient support and treatment delays. Since, in our Institute, no gastric tubes are routinely applied for the nutrition of our HNC patients undergoing radiotherapy, the introduction of 1- or 2-week breaks is enforced when dysphagia grade 3 develops. Meticulous oral hygiene with tooth brushing and mouthwashes with chlorhexidine is recommended throughout the therapy. Supplemental nutrition with high protein/calorie drinks is also used. Development of oropharyngeal fungal infection is treated with posaconazole suspension, 200 mg × 4 per day, till the end of radiotherapy. Analgesics (paracetamol with codeine phosphate combination) are also used to alleviate symptoms. Consumption of 1L of chamomile tea (at room temperature) per day is also recommended to support patients’ hydration and swallowing function.

Pre-treatment and treatment evaluation. Baseline studies included physical examination, blood tests and a complete biochemical profile. These were repeated weekly during therapy. Computerized tomography (CT-scan) or PET-SCAN was performed before radiotherapy. Radiation toxicity was monitored daily during radiotherapy, weekly for one month following the end of radiotherapy, at 3-months and 6-monthly after that. The NCI (National Cancer Institute) Common Toxicity Criteria Version 4.0 scale was used to score acute radiation toxicity. The LENT-SOMA toxicity scale was used to score late radiation sequel.

Response to treatment of measurable lesions was assessed with CT-scan 2 and 4 months after treatment completion, and 6-monthly thereafter. CR was defined as a 95-100% reduction of measurable lesions. Any residual scar measuring less than 5% of the initial tumor volume that does not progress for at least four months following response documentation was considered a complete response. Similarly, partial and minimal response refers to 50-95% and 25-49% reduction of tumor dimensions, respectively. A small reduction of tumor dimensions between 0-24% that lasted at least two months after response documentation, was considered a stable disease. All other cases were considered progressive disease, regardless of the initial response.

Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis and graph presentation were performed using the GraphPad Prism 7.0 package. The chi-square and Fisher’s exact two-tailed tests were used for testing relationships between categorical tumor variables. Locoregional control (time to locoregional disease progression following tumor regression) curves were plotted using the method of Kaplan–Meier. p-Values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Radiation-induced toxicities. A direct index of the severity of acute toxicities in the current study was the enforcement and duration of treatment delays. For laryngeal carcinomas, this ranged from 0-21 days (mean value 4.3 days). Oropharyngeal mucositis grade 3 complicated or not with fungal infection was the cause of delays in all patients. Protraction of the overall treatment time beyond one week was enforced in 18/57 cases. There was no case of fatal acute toxicity. Regarding late toxicities, these concerned laryngeal edema grade 3 noted in 5/57 cases, dysphagia grade 2 in 2/57, and tracheoesophageal fistula creation in 1/57 cases.

For the rest of tumor locations, the delays in treatment completion, related to acute toxicities, ranged from 0-30 days (mean 4.5 days). Again, oropharyngeal mucositis grade 3 caused treatment delays, while there was no grade 4 toxicity. Protraction of the overall treatment time beyond one week was enforced in 6/19 nasopharyngeal cancer patients and 15/48 in the rest of patients Regarding late radiation toxicities, pharyngeal fibrosis and dysphagia grade 2 and 3 were recorded in 2/67 patients. Fibrosis grade 2 at the neck area corresponding to pre-existing large lymph nodes, where high radiation dose was delivered, was a common finding, but no severe fibrosis or necrosis was noted.

Response rates. Table IV shows the response rates obtained, as assessed two months after the end of radiotherapy. For patients with laryngeal cancer, the CR-rate ranged from 69% to 81% according to the dose per fraction, but no significant difference between the three radiotherapy schedules was noted (p=0.49). Similarly, there was no difference in the group of patients with nasopharyngeal tumors (p=0.32). In the rest of the patients, the CR-rate was significantly better in patients treated with the 3.5 Gy fractionation (p=0.02).

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

Response rates after radiotherapy according to the dose per fraction and overall radiotherapy time delays.

Table IV provides an analysis of response rates according to radiotherapy delays (less than one week vs. more than one week). More than one week of delay for laryngeal cancer patients resulted in an 18% reduction of CR-rates, but the difference did not reach significance (p=0.11). A similar effect was noted for nasopharyngeal cancer patients (p=0.15). No significant difference in terms of CR-rates was noted in the rest of the patients (p=0.44).

Loco-regional control. The local/regional progression-free survival (LPFS) of patients was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier curves. Figure 1A shows the LPFS stratified for major tumor locations. Nasopharyngeal cancer patients showed a better LPFS, as expected, although the difference did not reach significance (p=0.11). Figure 1Β focuses on the role of dose per fraction in laryngeal cancer, the largest tumor group in the current study. The LPFS seemed to be worse for fractions of 3.5 compared to lower fractions (p=0.10), but the group of patients treated with the 3.5Gy fractionation was too small. According to the overall radiotherapy time delays (less vs. more than one week), the analysis showed a marginal, not statistically significant, loss of efficacy with time prolongation (p=0.37), Figure 1C. Analysis for other tumor locations (excluding laryngeal and nasopharyngeal cancer) according to the dose per fraction showed a marginal benefit from larger doses per fraction (p=0.06); Figure 1D.

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

Local progression-free survival, plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method, was stratified according to: (A) primary tumor location, (B) overall treatment time delays in laryngeal cancer patients, (C) dose per fraction in laryngeal cancer patients and, (D) dose per fraction in non-laryngeal/non-nasopharyngeal cancer cases.

Amifostine and time delays. In the laryngeal group of cancer patients, delays exceeding one week were noted in 3/21 patients receiving amifostine vs. 15/36 patients who did not (p=0.04). In the nasopharyngeal cancer group, delays were noted in 2/8 vs. 4/11 patients receiving and not-receiving amifostine, respectively (p=0.97). For the rest of patients, out of 31 amifostine-treated patients, eight experienced more than a 1-week delay vs. 7/17 who did not receive amifostine (p=0.33). Overall, amifostine significantly protected patients against prolonged time delays (p=0.03).

Discussion

The role of accelerated tumor repopulation during radiotherapy has been well established, and JF Fowler suggested that an overall treatment time of 4-6 weeks would improve the radiotherapy efficacy (18). Trott et al. suggested that between the 3rd and 7th week of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy 0.5-0.7 Gy (out of the 2 Gy fraction) are consumed to compensate for rapid repopulation (19). Based on a radiobiological analysis of a large set of clinical data, Shuryak et al. suggested that the last five fractions of a conventional RT scheme do not enhance disease control. These simply compensate for increase accelerated cancer cell growth (20).

Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (twice or thrice-a-day) or patient irradiation during weekends have shown, indeed, better outcomes (21, 22). Irradiating patients two to three times a day, or at weekends, is certainly a cumbersome task that renders such schemes less appealing to radiotherapy departments. Standard fractionation combined with cisplatin (or cetuximab) remains the worldwide accepted treatment policy. A cumulative dose of 200 mg/m2 of cisplatin during radiotherapy is considered adequate, whether given as weekly or an every-three-week scheme (23). Of interest, in this later referenced analysis by Szturz et al., altered fractionation combined with high dose cisplatin seemed to offer improved survival.

Acceleration of radiotherapy could be easily achieved by using hypofractionation. Radiation oncologists, however, are reluctant to use such schemes, as the anticipated increase of late radiotherapy toxicities demands reduction of the total physical dose. Nevertheless, the biological dose can be accurately calculated by applying the linear-quadratic model for a 4 Gy α/β-ratio characterizing normal tissues (2 Gy for the spinal cord). By doing so and considering a median α/β-ratio of 10 Gy for cancer tissues, it is believed that the biologically active dose to the tumor diminishes. This, however, is a disputable concept for two main reasons. First, the individual tumor α/β-ratio is unknown. Highly hypoxic, highly senescent, or intrinsically radio-resistant cancer cells with large dose-response curve shoulders, thriving in large tumors, may have a far lower α/β value and increased resistance to low doses per fraction. Second, highly proliferating tumors or tumors able to undergo rapid tumor repopulation during radiotherapy would suffer radiation damage mainly dependent on radiotherapy’s time-density. The above, heretical for many colleagues, hypothesis is strongly supported by Shuryak, Hall and Brenner’s recent analysis suggesting that HypoAR applying around 3Gy per fraction in 4 weeks would increase the local control rates from 35% to 52.7% compared to conventional radiotherapy (10).

In the current study, we report results of a cohort of 124 patients with LA-HNC treated with HypoAR schedules, using 2.5-3.5 Gy per fraction, planned to deliver the total radiotherapy dose within 28-30 days (4-4.5 weeks). Cisplatin and/or cetuximab chemotherapy was concurrently applied. This schedule matches the one suggested by Shuryak et al. Radiobiological analysis, including time-correction, shows that these schedules deliver a biological dose between 58-66 Gy to early responding normal tissues (α/β=10 Gy), which is lower than the one provided by conventionally fractionated schemes (66-70 Gy). For late responding tissues included with the PTV (α/β=4 Gy) the biological radiation dose was between 62-69 Gy. This dose is within the range of the one delivered with standard fractionation. The minimum biological dose calculated for tumors (α/β=10 Gy) is 62 Gy, and the maximum (calculated for α/β=4 Gy) was 80Gy (depending upon the λ-factor considered). Thus, HypoAR is expected to be more or less effective depending upon the individual tumor α/β-value and the λ-value, which, alas, is impossible to predict, as yet.

Our study analyzed early toxicities showing patterns similar to those expected by standard radiotherapy. The rate of the severe late toxicities was well below 5%. These clinical results are along with the predicted toxicities from the radiobiological analysis performed herein. The complete response rates obtained were 73%, 84%, and 67% in patients with laryngeal, nasopharyngeal or other tumors, respectively. The 3-year loco-regional progression-free survival was 58%, 73%, and 55%, respectively. Such figures are at least similar to the ones expected by non-hypoAR regimens. Further analysis, according to the dose per fraction, showed that the 3.5 Gy/day schedule was slightly better, and this reached significance in non-laryngeal, non-nasopharyngeal tumors.

As gastric tubes for patient feeding during radiotherapy for head-neck patients is not the standard approach in Greece, we had to deal with inevitable treatment interruptions. Delays of more than one week were enforced in 31% of patients. Loss of any benefit from acceleration, due to a 3-week delay, is expected to have occurred in 5.6% of patients. Administration of amifostine significantly protected against prolonged delays. Analysis of the response rate and survival showed a reduction in radiotherapy efficacy for delays beyond one week, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. This shows that the acceleration of therapy is, indeed, an essential factor in HypoAR. However, it may be that concurrent chemotherapy may reduce the adverse impact of time factors, either by targeting more effectively highly proliferating cancer cells during the repopulation phase or by better sensitizing cancer cells to larger than conventional radiotherapy fractions. This latter hypothesis is supported by the recorded slightly higher efficacy of larger (3.5 Gy) fractions. A recent meta-analysis shows that concurrent conventional chemo-radiotherapy was superior to hyper-fractionated radiotherapy (without chemotherapy), which may also support chemotherapy’s role in reducing the impact of rapid tumor repopulation (24).

HypoAR is used worldwide as a palliative radiotherapy regimen for LA-HNC patients with poor performance status (25). The clinical data available on the usage of HypoAR as a radical radiotherapy scheme are limited. A feasibility study by Jacinto et al. on twenty patients with LA-HNC treated with cisplatin-supported HypoAR (2.75 Gy per fraction) showed good tolerance and a feasible median overall treatment time of 29 days (26). A hypofractionated non-accelerated regimen applying 3Gy per fraction and chemotherapy exhibited acceptable toxicity and 51% 1-year progression-free survival in patients with LA-HNC (27). In the current COVID-19 pandemic era, Huang et al. reported a trial of definitive radiotherapy, without chemotherapy, delivering 25 fractions of 2.4 Gy, suggesting acceptable tolerance and results similar to conventional radiotherapy (28).

Our study provides evidence that hypoAR chemoradiotherapy is feasible, with acceptable early and late radiotherapy sequels and high complete response rates. A larger than 2Gy fraction to the tumor area can be easily given daily with concomitant boost techniques, in the current era of image-guided and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, reducing the overall treatment time down to 4-5 weeks. Radiobiological analysis supports that the expected toxicity of HypoAR should be low, and that a benefit, in terms of anti-tumor radiotherapy efficacy, should be expected. As the benefit from HypoAR depends on the α/β-value of each tumor, any superiority in terms of overall efficacy should depend on the median value of α/βs characterizing LA-HNCs. Unlike prostate and breast cancer, this value is unknown for LA-HNC. For early laryngeal cancer, HypoAR is considered the standard therapy, and clinical data suggest a higher efficacy compared to conventional fractionation (9), which favors the assumption that the median α/β in head-neck cancer is lower than believed. Large randomized trials are needed to investigate the HypoAR hypothesis for LA-HNC.

Our clinical experience with hypoAR regimens confirms feasibility, good efficacy, and tolerance in head-neck malignancies. HypoAR is also a better than the ConvRT model to test the cytoprotective effectiveness of amifostine, as prolonged administration of the agent is avoided, and the dose of amifostine is concentrated to support far fewer fractions of RT. Accelerated hypofractionation, reducing the days of radiotherapy by 30%, is a convenient method for both patients and overloaded departments, minimizing the cost of therapy. Following the publication by Shuryak et al., sound biological rational supports the conduct of randomized clinical trials, anticipating the establishment of HypoAR as a safe, effective and convenient regimen. Our clinical experience from a single arm prospective study supports this proposal.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Ioannis M. Koukourakis: Data collection, analysis, writing of the paper; Anna Zygogianni: Data analysis, writing of the paper; Vassilios Kouloulias: Data analysis, writing of the paper; George Kyrgias: Data analysis, writing of the paper; Marianthi Panteliadou: Radiotherapy planning, treatment of patients, data collection, writing of the paper; Christos Nanos: Radiotherapy planning, writing of the paper; Ioannis Abatzoglou: Radiotherapy planning, writing of the paper; Michael I. Koukourakis: Conception, design, analysis, treatment of patients, writing of the paper.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    There are no conflicts of interest to report regarding this study.

  • Received November 21, 2020.
  • Revision received November 30, 2020.
  • Accepted December 2, 2020.
  • Copyright© 2021, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Fletcher GH
    : Hypofractionation: lessons from complications. Radiother Oncol 20: 10-15, 1991. PMID: 2020750. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8140(91)90106-q
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ratosa I,
    2. Chirilă ME,
    3. Steinacher M,
    4. Kozma E,
    5. Vojtíšek R,
    6. Franco P and
    7. Poortmans P
    : Hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer: Preferences amongst radiation oncologists in Europe - Results from an international survey. Radiother Oncol 155: 17-26, 2020. PMID: 33065187. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.10.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Murray Brunt A,
    2. Haviland JS,
    3. Wheatley DA,
    4. Sydenham MA,
    5. Alhasso A,
    6. Bloomfield DJ,
    7. Chan C,
    8. Churn M,
    9. Cleator S,
    10. Coles CE,
    11. Goodman A,
    12. Harnett A,
    13. Hopwood P,
    14. Kirby AM,
    15. Kirwan CC,
    16. Morris C,
    17. Nabi Z,
    18. Sawyer E,
    19. Somaiah N,
    20. Stones L,
    21. Syndikus I,
    22. Bliss JM,
    23. Yarnold JR and FAST-Forward Trial Management Group
    : Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 395: 1613-1626, 2020. PMID: 32580883. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30932-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hickey BE,
    2. James ML,
    3. Daly T,
    4. Soh FY and
    5. Jeffery M
    : Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9: CD011462, 2019. PMID: 31476800. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011462.pub2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Widmark A,
    2. Gunnlaugsson A,
    3. Beckman L,
    4. Thellenberg-Karlsson C,
    5. Hoyer M,
    6. Lagerlund M,
    7. Kindblom J,
    8. Ginman C,
    9. Johansson B,
    10. Björnlinger K,
    11. Seke M,
    12. Agrup M,
    13. Fransson P,
    14. Tavelin B,
    15. Norman D,
    16. Zackrisson B,
    17. Anderson H,
    18. Kjellén E,
    19. Franzén L and
    20. Nilsson P
    : Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RTPC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 394: 385-395, 2019. PMID: 31227373. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31131-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Erlandsson J,
    2. Holm T,
    3. Pettersson D,
    4. Berglund Å,
    5. Cedermark B,
    6. Radu C,
    7. Johansson H,
    8. Machado M,
    9. Hjern F,
    10. Hallböök O,
    11. Syk I,
    12. Glimelius B and
    13. Martling A
    : Optimal fractionation of preoperative radiotherapy and timing to surgery for rectal cancer (Stockholm III): a multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 18: 336-346, 2017. PMID: 28190762. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30086-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Donovan EK and
    2. Swaminath A
    : Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the management of non-small-cell lung cancer: Clinical impact and patient perspectives. Lung Cancer (Auckl) 9: 13-23, 2018. PMID: 29588624. DOI: 10.2147/LCTT.S129833
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Sapienza LG,
    2. Ning MS,
    3. Taguchi S,
    4. Calsavara VF,
    5. Pellizzon ACA,
    6. Gomes MJL,
    7. Kowalski LP and
    8. Baiocchi G
    : Altered-fractionation radiotherapy improves local control in early-stage glottic carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 1762 patients. Oral Oncol 93: 8-14, 2019. PMID: 31109700. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.04.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Kim KN,
    2. Dyer MA,
    3. Qureshi MM,
    4. Shah NK,
    5. Grillone GA,
    6. Faden DL,
    7. Jalisi SM and
    8. Truong MT
    : Hypofractionated radiotherapy and surgery compared to standard radiotherapy in early glottic cancer. Am J Otolaryngol 41: 102544, 2020. PMID: 32505989. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102544
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Shuryak I,
    2. Hall EJ and
    3. Brenner DJ
    : Optimized hypofractionation can markedly improve tumor control and decrease late effects for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 104: 272-278, 2019. PMID: 30776451. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.02.025
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Brodin NP and
    2. Tomé WA
    : Revisiting the dose constraints for head and neck OARs in the current era of IMRT. Oral Oncol 86: 8-18, 2018. PMID: 30409324. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.08.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Marks LB,
    2. Yorke ED,
    3. Jackson A,
    4. Ten Haken RK,
    5. Constine LS,
    6. Eisbruch A,
    7. Bentzen SM,
    8. Nam J and
    9. Deasy JO
    : Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76: S10-19, 2010. PMID: 20171502. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Thrapsanioti Z,
    2. Karanasiou I,
    3. Platoni K,
    4. Efstathopoulos EP,
    5. Matsopoulos G,
    6. Dilvoi M,
    7. Patatoukas G,
    8. Chaldeopoulos D,
    9. Kelekis N and
    10. Kouloulias V
    : Transformation of physical DVHs to radiobiologically equivalent ones in hypofractionated radiotherapy analyzing dosimetric and clinical parameters: a practical approach for routine clinical practice in radiation oncology. Comput Math Methods Med 2013: 71342, 2013. PMID: 24348743. DOI: 10.1155/2013/713420
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Maciejewski B and
    2. Majewski S
    : Dose fractionation and tumour repopulation in radiotherapy for bladder cancer. Radiother Oncol 21: 163-170, 1991. PMID: 1924851. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8140(91)90033-d
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Koukourakis MI and
    2. Damilakis J
    : LQ-based model for biological radiotherapy planning. Med Dosim 19: 269-277, 1994. PMID: 7893363. DOI: 10.1016/s0958-3947(16)30037-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Slevin NJ,
    2. Hendry JH,
    3. Roberts SA and
    4. Agren-Cronqvist A
    : The effect of increasing the treatment time beyond three weeks on the control of T2 and T3 laryngeal cancer using radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 24: 215-220, 1992. PMID: 1410576. DOI: 10.1016/s0958-3947(16)30037-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Koukourakis MI,
    2. Tsoutsou PG,
    3. Karpouzis A,
    4. Tsiarkatsi M,
    5. Karapantzos I,
    6. Daniilidis V and
    7. Kouskoukis C
    : Radiochemotherapy with cetuximab, cisplatin, and amifostine for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77: 9-15, 2010. PMID: 19744802. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.060
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Fowler JF
    : Is there an optimum overall time for head and neck radiotherapy? A review, with new modelling. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19: 8-22, 2007. PMID: 17305251. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2006.09.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Pedicini P,
    2. Caivano R,
    3. Fiorentino A and
    4. Strigari L
    : Clinical radiobiology of head and neck cancer: the hypothesis of stem cell activation. Clin Transl Oncol 17: 469-476, 2015. PMID: 25487602. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-014-1261-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Shuryak I,
    2. Hall EJ and
    3. Brenner DJ
    : Dose dependence of accelerated repopulation in head and neck cancer: Supporting evidence and clinical implications. Radiother Oncol 127: 20-26, 2018. PMID: 29534828. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.02.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Overgaard J,
    2. Mohanti BK,
    3. Begum N,
    4. Ali R,
    5. Agarwal JP,
    6. Kuddu M,
    7. Bhasker S,
    8. Tatsuzaki H and
    9. Grau C
    : Five versus six fractions of radiotherapy per week for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (IAEA-ACC study): a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol 11: 553-560, 2010. PMID: 20382075. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70072-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Horiot JC,
    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 and
    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. Radiother Oncol 44: 111-121, 1997. PMID: 9288839. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(97)00079-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Szturz P,
    2. Wouters K,
    3. Kiyota N,
    4. Tahara M,
    5. Prabhash K,
    6. Noronha V,
    7. Adelstein D,
    8. Van Gestel D and
    9. Vermorken JB
    : Low-dose vs. high-dose cisplatin: Lessons learned from 59 chemoradiotherapy trials in head and neck cancer. Front Oncol 9: 86, 2019. PMID: 30847300. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00086
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Lacas B,
    2. Bourhis J,
    3. Overgaard J,
    4. Zhang Q,
    5. Grégoire V,
    6. Nankivell M,
    7. Zackrisson B,
    8. Szutkowski Z,
    9. Suwiński R,
    10. Poulsen M,
    11. O’Sullivan B,
    12. Corvò R,
    13. Laskar SG,
    14. Fallai C,
    15. Yamazaki H,
    16. Dobrowsky W,
    17. Cho KH,
    18. Beadle B,
    19. Langendijk JA,
    20. Viegas CMP,
    21. Hay J,
    22. Lotayef M,
    23. Parmar MKB,
    24. Aupérin A,
    25. van Herpen C,
    26. Maingon P,
    27. Trotti AM,
    28. Grau C,
    29. Pignon JP,
    30. Blanchard P and MARCH Collaborative Group
    : Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 18: 1221-1237, 2017. PMID: 28757375. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30458-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation Third Edition, The Royal College of Radiologists, March 2019, pp44. Available at: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/brfo193_radiotherapy_dose_fractionation_third-edition.pdf [Last accessed on November 30, 2020]
  24. ↵
    1. Jacinto AA,
    2. Batalha Filho ES,
    3. Viana LS,
    4. De Marchi P,
    5. Capuzzo RC,
    6. Gama RR,
    7. Boldrini Junior D,
    8. Santos CR,
    9. Pinto GDJ,
    10. Dias JM,
    11. Canton HP,
    12. Carvalho R,
    13. Radicchi LA,
    14. Bentzen S,
    15. Zubizarreta E and
    16. Carvalho AL
    : Feasibility of concomitant cisplatin with hypofractionated radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer 18: 1026, 2018. PMID: 30352576. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4893-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Monnier L,
    2. Touboul E,
    3. Durdux C,
    4. Lang P,
    5. St Guily JL and
    6. Huguet F
    : Hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer: the IHF2SQ regimen. Head Neck 35: 1683-1688, 2013. PMID: 23359352. DOI: 10.1002/hed.23219
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Huang SH,
    2. O’Sullivan B,
    3. Su J,
    4. Ringash J,
    5. Bratman SV,
    6. Kim J,
    7. Hosni A,
    8. Bayley A,
    9. Cho J,
    10. Giuliani M,
    11. Hope A,
    12. Spreafico A,
    13. Hansen AR,
    14. Siu LL,
    15. Gilbert R,
    16. Irish JC,
    17. Goldstein D,
    18. de Almeida J,
    19. Tong L,
    20. Xu W and
    21. Waldron J
    : Hypofractionated radiotherapy alone with 2.4 Gy per fraction for head and neck cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Princess Margaret experience and proposal. Cancer 126: 3426-3437, 2020. PMID: 32478895. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32968
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (1)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 1
January 2021
  • 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.
Is Locally Advanced Head-Neck Cancer One More Candidate for Accelerated Hypofractionation?
(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.
7 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Is Locally Advanced Head-Neck Cancer One More Candidate for Accelerated Hypofractionation?
IOANNIS M. KOUKOURAKIS, ANNA ZYGOGIANNI, VASSILIOS KOULOULIAS, GEORGE KYRGIAS, MARIANTHI PANTELIADOU, CHRISTOS NANOS, IOANNIS ABATZOGLOU, MICHAEL I. KOUKOURAKIS
Anticancer Research Jan 2021, 41 (1) 467-475; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14797

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Is Locally Advanced Head-Neck Cancer One More Candidate for Accelerated Hypofractionation?
IOANNIS M. KOUKOURAKIS, ANNA ZYGOGIANNI, VASSILIOS KOULOULIAS, GEORGE KYRGIAS, MARIANTHI PANTELIADOU, CHRISTOS NANOS, IOANNIS ABATZOGLOU, MICHAEL I. KOUKOURAKIS
Anticancer Research Jan 2021, 41 (1) 467-475; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14797
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy of Pembrolizumab as Second or Third-line Therapy for Local Advanced and Metastatic Urothelial Cancer
  • End-of-life Androgen Deprivation Syndrome With Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Case Report
  • Effect of a Biweekly Dosing Schedule on Severe Neutropenia Induced by Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Colorectal Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Locally advanced head-neck cancer
  • radiotherapy
  • hypofractionation
  • acceleration
  • chemo-radiation
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire