Glottic-Ca and IMRT

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Palex80

RAD ON
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
4,391
I was wondering how many of you use IMRT / VMAT for early stage (T1-T2) glottic cancer?

Do you contour it the same way you would treat with 3D or lateral fields?
Or do you try to spare tissue, like the contralateral cord, if there is no involvement going at the midline.

Do you use IGRT? I'm kind of troubled with IMRT, since its a moving target every time the patient swallows.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Agreed. If there is a compelling reason to try to avoid the carotids (like prior RT or super high stroke risk) we will use IMRT but that almost never happens here. I have seen maybe 2 in the last 2 years, and our group treats probobly 1-2 T1-T2 N0 glottic cancers per month.
 
I use the "postage stamp" field 99% of the time. The only instance when I use IMRT for early stage glottic larynx ca. is in someone with very calcified carotid arteries, hx of TIA, PAD, bad cardiovascular dz, high risk for CVA, etc. MDACC published their series on carotid-sparing IMRT for glottic larynx ca; the difference in dose to carotid as. is significant, local control just as good.
 
Same here, I avoid IMRT unless neck is way too short to clear shoulders. "Carotid-sparing IMRT" was made up to jack up reimbursement.
 
Thank you for all your responses, yet I have to ask again:

Why wouldn't you use IMRT? Sure, the carotid-sparing argument may not be enough, but what about the contralateral cord?

Would't you be able to spare the posterior part of the contralateral cord, if the lesion was well lateralized?
In other words: What is the CTV for an early glottic cancer, that does not cross the midline? Are we not being driven by a field design based on anatomic landmarks and not individual tumor size, when we use lateral opposed fields?
 
I hear you Palex... I'm taking the IMRT contralateral cord sparing and raise you a SBRT with 1 mm margins with daily Cone beam for localization!
 
Thank you for all your responses, yet I have to ask again:

Why wouldn't you use IMRT? Sure, the carotid-sparing argument may not be enough, but what about the contralateral cord?

Would't you be able to spare the posterior part of the contralateral cord, if the lesion was well lateralized?
In other words: What is the CTV for an early glottic cancer, that does not cross the midline? Are we not being driven by a field design based on anatomic landmarks and not individual tumor size, when we use lateral opposed fields?

Has that been studied? The traditional glottic fields include some of the lymphatics and larynx treatment as a whole always includes the bilateral neck, unlike say, early stage tonsil.
 
Thank you for all your responses, yet I have to ask again:

Why wouldn't you use IMRT? Sure, the carotid-sparing argument may not be enough, but what about the contralateral cord?

Would't you be able to spare the posterior part of the contralateral cord, if the lesion was well lateralized?
In other words: What is the CTV for an early glottic cancer, that does not cross the midline? Are we not being driven by a field design based on anatomic landmarks and not individual tumor size, when we use lateral opposed fields?

Seems reasonable enough, especially when compared to the logic driving IMRT decisions at other sites. Some of those principles are already applied in traditional field design in early stage glottic cancer such as unequal weighting to push dose to the involved side, reduced wedging to drive hotspots anterior if the tumor is there, coming off the arytenoids after a certain dose if they are low risk. IMRT could likely accomplish these same goals, maybe more effectively.

There is no doubt that we are still be driven by historic field design. However, it seems to work pretty well and is well tolerated, hence the American phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Like others have said though, if you have a compelling enough reason to do it, like someone who is at high risk for a specific toxicity (stroke, laryngeal edema, etc), then have at it.
 
Has that been studied? The traditional glottic fields include some of the lymphatics and larynx treatment as a whole always includes the bilateral neck, unlike say, early stage tonsil.
Thank you for all your responses, yet I have to ask again:

Why wouldn't you use IMRT? Sure, the carotid-sparing argument may not be enough, but what about the contralateral cord?

Would't you be able to spare the posterior part of the contralateral cord, if the lesion was well lateralized?
In other words: What is the CTV for an early glottic cancer, that does not cross the midline? Are we not being driven by a field design based on anatomic landmarks and not individual tumor size, when we use lateral opposed fields?

Why was the cord ever an issue?! You could spare the hippocampus as well.
 
He's talking about the vocal cord, not spinal cord

He couldn't have been serious (I hope). The post he quoted even referred to a contralateral cord. I guess that could be misconstrued as spinal cord for the rare patient with a duplicated CNS.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Contralateral cord/arytenoid sparing is an interesting research question. I would personally be concerned about accuracy of such treatment (very tight margins).
 
Why would we want to move in this direction as a field of sparing the contralateral cord? Seems to me that T1 larynx is one of our huge success stories of good control, limited toxicity..as someone above said, why mess with a good thing here?

I dunno, I guess I believe in treating the whole box to sterilize occult disease and not a cute IMRT plan targeted at the gross lesion. Otherwise, why not just laser all the T1's rather than put them through weeks of XRT?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I see your pont napoleondynamite, but:

1. Some patients do develop larynx cartilage necrosis, which may be less with less volume of larynx exposed to high dose treatment.
2. Lasering produces usually worse quality of voice.

Perhaps boosting after 50 Gy is the way to go?
 
'
Why would we want to move in this direction as a field of sparing the contralateral cord? Seems to me that T1 larynx is one of our huge success stories of good control, limited toxicity..as someone above said, why mess with a good thing here?

Could it be that the delta between 3D and IMRT reimbursement for laryngeal cancer is $20,000 per 2014 CMS codes?

No, that's impossible. It must be to "clincially improve" a treatment that has 95% efficacy and minimal late toxicity.

$$$ is the mother of all invention in Rad Onc. See protons.

And no I'm not cynical at all. :)
 
'

Could it be that the delta between 3D and IMRT reimbursement for laryngeal cancer is $20,000 per 2014 CMS codes?

No, that's impossible. It must be to "clincially improve" a treatment that has 95% efficacy and minimal late toxicity.

$$$ is the mother of all invention in Rad Onc. See protons.

And no I'm not cynical at all. :)
... if you're telling it like it is, that's some proof there's a decent # of people that agree and you can be a little less cynical :thumbup:
 
If you haven't tried yet, I would recommend anterior gantry rotation or couch kicks first.
 
Has that been studied? The traditional glottic fields include some of the lymphatics and larynx treatment as a whole always includes the bilateral neck, unlike say, early stage tonsil.


Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jun 14. pii: S0360-3016(15)00637-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.016. [Epub ahead of print]
Single Vocal Cord Irradiation: Image Guided Intensity Modulated HypofractionatedRadiation Therapy for T1a Glottic Cancer: Early Clinical Results.
Al-Mamgani A1, Kwa SL2, Tans L2, Moring M2, Fransen D2, Mehilal R2, Verduijn GM2, Baatenburg de Jong RJ3, Heijmen BJ2,Levendag PC2.
Author information

Abstract
PURPOSE:
To report, from a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, on the feasibility, outcome, toxicity, and voice-handicap index (VHI) of patients with T1a glottic cancer treated by a novel intensity modulated radiation therapy technique developed at our institution to treat only the involved vocal cord: single vocal cord irradiation (SVCI).

METHODS AND MATERIALS:
Thirty patients with T1a glottic cancer were treated by means of SVCI. Dose prescription was set to 16 × 3.63 Gy (total dose 58.08 Gy). The clinical target volume was the entire vocal cord. Setup verification was done by means of an online correction protocol using cone beam computed tomography. Data for voice quality assessment were collected prospectively at baseline, end of treatment, and 4, 6, and 12 weeks and 6, 12, and 18 months after treatment using VHI questionnaires.

RESULTS:
After a median follow-up of 30 months (range, 7-50 months), the 2-year local control and overall survival rates were 100% and 90% because no single local recurrence was reported and 3 patients died because of comorbidity. All patients have completed the intended treatment schedule; no treatment interruptions and no grade 3 acute toxicity were reported. Grade 2 acute dermatitis or dysphagia was reported in only 5 patients (17%). No serious late toxicity was reported; only 1 patient developed temporary grade 2 laryngeal edema, and responded to a short-course of corticosteroid. The VHI improved significantly, from 33.5 at baseline to 9.5 and 10 at 6 weeks and 18 months, respectively (P<.001). The control group, treated to the whole larynx, had comparable local control rates (92.2% vs 100%, P=.24) but more acute toxicity (66% vs 17%, P<.0001) and higher VHI scores (23.8 and 16.7 at 6 weeks and 18 months, respectively, P<.0001).

CONCLUSION:
Single vocal cord irradiation is feasible and resulted in maximal local control rate at 2 years. The deterioration in VHI scores was slight and temporary and subsequently improved to normal levels. Long-term follow-up is needed to consolidate these promising results.


Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Sep 1;93(1):190-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.04.049. Epub 2015 May 10.
Inter- and Intrafraction Target Motion in Highly Focused Single Vocal Cord Irradiation of T1a Larynx Cancer Patients.
Kwa SL1, Al-Mamgani A2, Osman SO2, Gangsaas A2, Levendag PC2, Heijmen BJ2.
Author information

Abstract
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was to verify clinical target volume-planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins insingle vocal cord irradiation (SVCI) of T1a larynx tumors and characterize inter- and intrafraction target motion.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:
For 42 patients, a single vocal cord was irradiated using intensity modulated radiationtherapy at a total dose of 58.1 Gy (16 fractions × 3.63 Gy). A daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was performed to online correct the setup of the thyroid cartilage after patient positioning with in-room lasers (interfraction motion correction). To monitor intrafraction motion, CBCT scans were also acquired just after patient repositioning and after dose delivery. A mixed online-offline setup correction protocol ("O2 protocol") was designed to compensate for both inter- and intrafraction motion.

RESULTS:
Observed interfraction, systematic (Σ), and random (σ) setup errors in left-right (LR), craniocaudal (CC), and anteroposterior (AP) directions were 0.9, 2.0, and 1.1 mm and 1.0, 1.6, and 1.0 mm, respectively. After correction of these errors, the following intrafraction movements derived from the CBCT acquired after dose delivery were: Σ = 0.4, 1.3, and 0.7 mm, and σ = 0.8, 1.4, and 0.8 mm. More than half of the patients showed a systematic non-zero intrafraction shift in target position, (ie, the mean intrafraction displacement over the treatment fractions was statistically significantly different from zero; P<.05). With the applied CTV-PTV margins (for most patients 3, 5, and 3 mm in LR, CC, and AP directions, respectively), the minimum CTV dose, estimated from the target displacements observed in the last CBCT, was at least 94% of the prescribed dose for all patients and more than 98% for most patients (37 of 42). The proposed O2 protocol could effectively reduce the systematic intrafraction errors observed after dose delivery to almost zero (Σ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.2 mm).

CONCLUSIONS:
With adequate image guidance and CTV-PTV margins in LR, CC, and AP directions of 3, 5, and 3 mm, respectively, excellent target coverage in SVCI could be ensured.

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Comparing toxicity rates to historical controls is almost never fair. Especially when you are comparing to something that is very well tolerated in the first place. Not saying this technique is no good. Local control results look fine. Just wouldn't expect to move anyone towards IMRT for early glottic cancer with this data.
 
It comes to outweighing the pros and cons.

With traditionsl tecniques you get sonething like 3-5% cartilage necrosis (depending on dose & fractionation), resulting into laryngevtomy and loss of larynnx. Perhaps IMRT results into lower rates around 1-2% necrosis.

The question is if IMRT will result into more recurrencies. Noone really knows. If ut doesn't, then we should probably do it. Necrosis rates are almost as high as revurrency rates in this disease.
 
It comes to outweighing the pros and cons.

With traditionsl tecniques you get sonething like 3-5% cartilage necrosis (depending on dose & fractionation), resulting into laryngevtomy and loss of larynnx. Perhaps IMRT results into lower rates around 1-2% necrosis.

3-5% larygectomy rates after lateral field radiation? That sounds astronomically high. I'd believe if you looked hard enough you could see necrosis in that many patients but surely only a fraction of them would need a laryngectomy purely because of toxicity. Our institution has treated about 75 patients with laterals over the last 5 years and only 1 needed laryngectomy and that was because of recurrence, not toxicity. Im always open to being wrong, I just have a hard time thinking this will actually translate into something clinically meaningful other than a huge bill.
 
3-5% larygectomy rates after lateral field radiation? That sounds astronomically high. I'd believe if you looked hard enough you could see necrosis in that many patients but surely only a fraction of them would need a laryngectomy purely because of toxicity. Our institution has treated about 75 patients with laterals over the last 5 years and only 1 needed laryngectomy and that was because of recurrence, not toxicity. Im always open to being wrong, I just have a hard time thinking this will actually translate into something clinically meaningful other than a huge bill.

BINGO!

In the olden days, you just slapped on a couple of wedges and prayed that the heterogeneity wasn't too bad. Nowadays, with 3D planning, I obsess over minimizing the hotspot by tinkering with dynamic wedges and field-in-field optimization. It's easy to justify IMRT when you are comparing it to 1970s technology.
 
Anyone treat Tis (in-situ) SCCa of the glottis? Or do you send them for other things, i.e. stripping/laser? Referred from the ENT btw.
 
Yes, I recently completed a Tis treatment with definitive XRT. Pt saw ENT first but both patient and ENT preferred XRT based on improved long-term voice preservation compared to stripping/laser. This is based on a 2014 study in the Red Journal comparing the two via a randomized clinical trial. The caveat was that it was for early invasive only (cT1aN0).
 
I treat 1-2 per year, usually to the same dose as T1a invasive (presuming inadequate tissue sampling). NCCN gudelines do advocate lower dose for CIS, but I don't know what that idea is based on.
 
Top