Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 478-484

A comparative study of concomitant boost radiation versus concomitant boost with concurrent chemoradiation versus standard fractionation chemoradiation in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer


Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Pt. B. D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Anil Kumar Dhull
Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Pt. B. D. Sharma PGIMS, P. O. Box: 100, GPO, Rohtak - 124 001, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_475_18

Rights and Permissions

Context: As the number of head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients are high in our subcontinent, the study was designed to reduce the treatment time and increase efficacy. Aims: Comparative evaluation of the efficacy, toxicity, local control, and survival of concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT), CBRT with concurrent chemoradiation (CBRT + CCT) and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (CFRT + CCT) in locally advanced HNC (LAHNC). Materials and Methods: Patients with LAHNC were randomly assigned to 3-groups of 30-patients each. Group I (CBRT) received, 45 Gy/25#/5-weeks and 18 Gy/10# concomitant boost in the last 2-week of treatment, receiving a total dose of 63 Gy. Group II (CBRT + CCT) received CBRT with concomitant cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1, 17, and 34. Group III (CFRT + CCT) received 64 Gy/32#/6.2 weeks, concurrent with injection cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1, 22, and 42. Statistical Analysis Used: Stata 9.0 SPSS and Chi-square test were used for analysis and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: The median follow-up period was 8.2 months. At last follow-up, locoregional control was 36%, 57%, and 40% and DFS was seen in 33%, 53%, and 40% of patients in Group I, II, and III, respectively. Grade-3 cutaneous reactions were significantly higher in Group-II as compared to that of Group-III (P = 0.033) and Group-I (P = 0.715). Conclusion: All three groups have similar response rates and DFS with manageable toxicity.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed925    
    Printed243    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded244    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal