Premium
Recurrent and second primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: When and how to reirradiate
Author(s) -
Strojan Primož,
Corry June,
Eisbruch Avraham,
Vermorken Jan B.,
Mendenhall William M.,
Lee Anne W. M.,
Haigentz Missak,
Beitler Jonathan J.,
Bree Remco,
Takes Robert P.,
Paleri Vinidh,
Kelly Charles G.,
Genden Eric M.,
Bradford Carol R.,
Harrison Louis B.,
Rinaldo Alessandra,
Ferlito Alfio
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
head and neck
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.012
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1097-0347
pISSN - 1043-3074
DOI - 10.1002/hed.23542
Subject(s) - medicine , radiation therapy , context (archaeology) , head and neck squamous cell carcinoma , head and neck cancer , concomitant , toxicity , dose fractionation , oncology , primary tumor , radiology , cancer , metastasis , paleontology , biology
Background Local and/or regional recurrence and metachronous primary tumor arising in a previously irradiated area are rather frequent events in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Re‐treatment is associated with an increased risk of serious toxicity and impaired quality of life (QOL) with an uncertain survival advantage. Methods We analyzed the literature on the efficacy and toxicity of photon/electron‐based external beam reirradiation for previously irradiated patients with HNSCC of non‐nasopharyngeal origin. Studies were grouped according to the radiotherapy technique used for reirradiation. Patient selection criteria, target volume identification method, tumor dose, fractionation schedule, systemic therapy administration, and toxicities were reviewed. Results In addition to disease‐related factors, current comorbidities and preexisting organ dysfunction must be considered when selecting patients for reirradiation. As morbidity from re‐treatment may be considerable and differ depending on which mode of re‐treatment is used, it is important to give patients information on potential morbidity outcomes so that an informed choice can be made within a shared decision‐making context. With improved dose distribution and adequate imaging support, including positron emission tomography‐CT, modern radiotherapy techniques may improve local control and reduce toxicity of reirradiation. A reirradiation dose of ≥60 Gy and a volume encompassing the gross tumor with up to a 5‐mm margin are recommended. Concomitant administration of systemic therapeutics and reirradiation is likely to be of similar benefit as observed in large randomized studies of upfront therapy. Conclusion Reirradiation, administered either with or without concurrent systemic therapy, is feasible and tolerable in properly selected patients with recurrent or a new primary tumor in a previously irradiated area of the head and neck, offering a meaningful survival (in the range of 10% to 30% at 2 years). Whenever feasible, salvage surgery is the method of choice for curative intent; patients at high‐risk for local recurrence should be advised that postoperative reirradiation is expected to increase locoregional control at the expense of higher toxicity and without survival advantage compared to salvage surgery without reirradiation. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 37 : 134–150, 2015