Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
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
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.

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
    PDF Downloaded244    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal