Next Article in Journal
Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Levels May Improve Diagnostic Assessment for Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Typical and Atypical Symptoms of Petrous Apex Cholesterol Granuloma: Association with Radiological Findings
Previous Article in Journal
The Affective Dimension of Pain Appears to Be Determinant within a Pain–Insomnia–Anxiety Pathological Loop in Fibromyalgia: A Case-Control Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Endoscopic-Assisted Keyhole Middle Cranial Fossa Approach for Small Vestibular Schwannomas
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Commentary

Lower-Neck Sparing Using Proton Therapy in Patients with Uninvolved Neck Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Is It Safe?

1
Radiation Oncology, Policlinico Umberto I, Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 326, 00161 Rome, Italy
2
Radiation Oncology, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Strada Campeggi 53, 27100 Pavia, Italy
3
Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Via G. Venezian 1, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(12), 3297; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123297
Submission received: 9 May 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 7 June 2022 / Published: 9 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State of the Art—Treatment of Skull Base Diseases)

Abstract

:
Undifferentiated carcinoma of the nasopharynx (NPC) is a rare disease, which usually occurs in the Asian population. Due to its anatomic location, it is characterised by rich lymph node drainage and has a high incidence of cervical node metastasis. However, cervical nodal metastasis commonly involves retropharyngeal nodes and level II nodes, followed by level III nodes. In recent years, innovations in terms of systemic treatments and radiotherapy techniques have improved oncological outcome and treatment-related toxicities. Therefore, there is a growing interest in de-intensification strategies of reducing volumes and treatment-related side effects, especially in patients with NPC with N0–N1-stage disease. Proton therapy could represent a valid alternative to Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) in the management of NPC in this setting. With this Commentary, we aim to explore the feasibility of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) in upper-neck irradiation of NPC N1-stage disease. We selected an NPC patient with N1 disease and compared the original IMRT plan with the IMPT plan in terms of dosimetric parameters. IMPT offers a minimal dosimetric advantage over IMRT in the bilateral lower-neck sparing. Clinical trials are needed to evaluate the significance of these proposed suggestions and their applicability in non-endemic areas.

Undifferentiated carcinoma of the nasopharynx (NPC) is a unique disease, commonly affecting Asian countries and very rarely Caucasian ones [1,2]. Among others risk factors, Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV) is one of the most important causative factors and its DNA plasma load represents a prognostic factor, before and after treatment [3]. The nasopharynx is characterized by a high lymphatic network and NPC has, therefore, a high incidence of cervical node metastasis compared to other head and neck cancers [4]. Cervical nodal involvement follows an ordered pattern: retropharyngeal nodes (RLNs), level II nodes (LNs) being the most commonly involved, followed by level III LNs, VA, and IV, with probabilities of 44.9%, 26.7%, and 11.2%, respectively [5]. Skip metastases are considered rare in this setting [4]. It should be noted that LN metastases rarely occur out of the elective prophylactic irradiation of levels II, III, and VA in N0 patients and in patients with pathological RLNs only. Therefore, this might support the volume de-intensification strategy [6].
In recent years, the intensification of systemic treatment, the advent of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT), and diagnostic advances have improved the outcome for this disease and reduced the overall toxicity burden [3]. However, despite modern RT techniques, late radiation-related toxicities (such as hypothyroidism, dysphonia, dysphagia, and skin and soft tissue fibrosis) are still frequent and affect patients’ quality of life (QoL) [7,8]. In the view of de-escalating volumes in order to reduce toxicities, many studies, all conducted in endemic areas, have tried to answer the question whether it is necessary for patients with N0-N1 disease only to irradiate the whole-neck drainage areas (II-III-IV-V levels) with prophylactic intent [4,9]. All of them demonstrated there was no significant difference in disease-free survival and lower-neck control when reducing or omitting lower-neck irradiation field [6,10]. Recently, Tang et al. designed a non-inferiority, large-scale, multicentre, randomized phase 3 trial to assess whether elective upper-neck irradiation (UNI) of the uninvolved neck (including patients with both N0 and N1 disease) was non-inferior to standard whole-neck irradiation (WNI) in patients with NPC [11]. They showed that elective ipsilateral upper-neck irradiation (UNI) of the uninvolved neck provides similar regional relapse-free survival, with less late radiation-related toxicity compared with standard WNI in patients with N0–N1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The upper-neck lymphatic drainage areas included levels II, III, and VA; the lower-neck lymphatic drainage areas included levels IV and VB. Based on the absence or the presence of unilateral cervical lymph node involvement, patients in the UNI group received bilateral lower-neck sparing or contralateral lower-neck sparing, respectively. UNI treatment represents a simple and effective de-escalation strategy [11]. However, one remark could be if the dose received in UNI cases in ipsilateral, the lower-neck is likely to have a significant impact on contralateral regional disease control.
From the view of reducing volumes and treatment-related side effects, the development of techniques capable of sparing organs at risk with the same target coverage and local control should be pursued. Nowadays, proton therapy represents a promising alternative to IMRT in the management of NPC [6]. In the wake of fewer side effects and radiation-treatment-related toxicities, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) stands out in reducing the dose to the organs at risk, especially neurological structures (such as temporal lobes, optic pathways) and the oral cavity, while keeping a similar target coverage compared to IMRT [12,13]. IMPT could reduce the incidence of gastrostomy tube dependence, brain necrosis, and hypothyroidism [13].
In this context, perhaps we need to reframe the question. Is this high-level evidence, supporting UNI as a valid option to be considered in future treatment guidelines for NPC patients with N0–N1 stage disease, feasible in the case of IMPT delivery?
To try to answer the question, we selected an NPC patient with N1 disease, managed at our centre, and then we generated and optimized three different plans (see Figure 1). We compared the original IMRT plan with the IMPT plan in terms of dosimetric parameters. As per Tang et al.’s trial scenarios, we compared mean radiation doses to (i) lower-neck in bilateral lower-neck sparing, (ii) contralateral lower-neck sparing, and (iii) standard WNI. In the case of contralateral lower-neck sparing, mean doses to contralateral lymph nodes neck levels, as well as to medial structures, including thyroid gland, glottic larynx, cervical oesophagus, and spinal cord, were lower for IMPT. IMPT offers a minimal dosimetric advantage over IMRT in bilateral lower-neck sparing. Based on these empiric data and on the assumption that photon dose to contralateral neck when treating unilateral target remains in a range of 30–45 Gy (a dose sufficiently high to ensure favourable clinical outcomes), our concern is about the eventuality that a lower radiation dose with proton therapy could be associated with worse local control, especially in contralateral lower-neck sparing cases. Although these dosimetric comparisons are theoretical and non-validated, they represent an attempt to better understand lower-neck sparing while maintaining excellent target coverage. Surely, clinical trials are needed to evaluate the significance of these proposed suggestions and their applicability in non-endemic areas, where EBV-related NPC is less common [14]. Pre-treatment plasma EBV-DNA values, post-induction chemotherapy plasma EBV-DNA values and circulating tumour cells values could help in stratifying patients that would benefit the most from de-escalating strategies [15,16].

Author Contributions

F.D.F.: writing, data interpretation. A.V.: figure. A.M.C.: writing, literature search. E.O.: writing, data interpretation. N.A.I.: writing, literature search, data interpretation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chen, Y.P.; Chan, A.T.C.; Le, Q.T.; Blanchard, P.; Sun, Y.; Ma, J. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet 2019, 394, 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bossi, P.; Chan, A.T.; Licitra, L.; Trama, A.; Orlandi, E.; Hui, E.P.; Halámková, J.; Mattheis, S.; Baujat, B.; Hardillo, J.; et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 452–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Li, J.G.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, L.L.; Tang, Y.Q.; Liu, L.; Chen, X.D.; Gong, X.C.; Wan, G.F.; Liao, Y.L.; Ye, J.M.; et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing prophylactic upper versus whole-neck irradiation in the treatment of patients with node-negative nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 2013, 119, 3170–3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Ho, F.C.; Tham, I.W.; Earnest, A.; Lee, K.M.; Lu, J.J. Patterns of regional lymph node metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A meta-analysis of clinical evidence. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Chen, M.; Tang, L.L.; Sun, Y.; Mao, Y.P.; Li, W.F.; Guo, R.; Liu, L.Z.; Li, L.; Lin, A.H.; Ma, J. Treatment outcomes and feasibility of partial neck irradiation for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma with only retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis after intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Head Neck 2014, 36, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lee, N.; Xia, P.; Quivey, J.M.; Sultanem, K.; Poon, I.; Akazawa, C.; Akazawa, P.; Weinberg, V.; Fu, K.K. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An update of the UCSF experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2002, 53, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wolden, S.L.; Chen, W.C.; Pfister, D.G.; Kraus, D.H.; Berry, S.L.; Zelefsky, M.J. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharynx cancer: Update of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 64, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Chen, J.Z.; Le, Q.T.; Han, F.; Lu, L.X.; Huang, S.M.; Lin, C.G.; Deng, X.W.; Cui, N.J.; Zhao, C. Results of a phase 2 study examining the effects of omitting elective neck irradiation to nodal levels IV and Vb in patients with N(0-1) nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013, 85, 929–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hu, W.; Zhu, G.; Guan, X.; Wang, X.; Hu, C. The feasibility of omitting irradiation to the contralateral lower neck in stage N1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Radiat. Oncol. 2013, 8, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Tang, L.L.; Huang, C.L.; Zhang, N.; Jiang, W.; Wu, Y.S.; Huang, S.H.; Mao, Y.P.; Liu, Q.; Li, J.B.; Liang, S.Q.; et al. Elective upper-neck versus whole-neck irradiation of the uninvolved neck in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leeman, J.E.; Romesser, P.B.; Zhou, Y.; McBride, S.; Riaz, N.; Sherman, E.; Cohen, M.A.; Cahlon, O.; Lee, N. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: Expanding the therapeutic window. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, e254–e265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vai, A.; Molinelli, S.; Rossi, E.; Iacovelli, N.A.; Magro, G.; Cavallo, A.; Pignoli, E.; Rancati, T.; Mirandola, A.; Russo, S.; et al. Proton Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients: Dosimetric and NTCP Evaluation Supporting Clinical Decision. Cancers 2022, 14, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bossi, P.; Trama, A.; Bernasconi, A.; Grisanti, S.; Mohamad, I.; Galiana, I.L.; Ozyar, E.; Franco, P.; Vecchio, S.; Bonomo, P.; et al. Nasopharyngeal Cancer Portal Group of Investigators. Nasopharyngeal cancer in non-endemic areas: Impact of treatment intensity within a large retrospective multicentre cohort. Eur. J. Cancer 2021, 159, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Trevisiol, C.; Gion, M.; Vaona, A.; Fabricio, A.S.C.; Roca, E.; Licitra, L.; Alfieri, S.; Bossi, P. The appropriate use of circulating EBV-DNA in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Comprehensive clinical practice guidelines evaluation. Oral Oncol. 2021, 114, 105128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. You, R.; Liu, Y.P.; Lin, M.; Huang, P.Y.; Tang, L.Q.; Zhang, Y.N.; Pan, Y.; Liu, W.L.; Guo, W.B.; Zou, X.; et al. Relationship of circulating tumor cells and Epstein-Barr virus DNA to progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 145, 2873–2883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Dose map comparison. Low risk CTV with (a) whole bilateral neck; (b) contralateral lower-neck sparing; (c) bilateral lower-neck sparing according to [11]. In all cases target volumes were planned to receive 56 Gy [RBE] in 33 fractions, according to study protocol. In the three columns for each case, the following were reported, respectively: DDRs with the relative target; IMPT (continuous) versus IMRT (scattered) plans DVH for the low-dose target and selected OARs; dose values (Gy[RBE]) for the selected OARs.
Figure 1. Dose map comparison. Low risk CTV with (a) whole bilateral neck; (b) contralateral lower-neck sparing; (c) bilateral lower-neck sparing according to [11]. In all cases target volumes were planned to receive 56 Gy [RBE] in 33 fractions, according to study protocol. In the three columns for each case, the following were reported, respectively: DDRs with the relative target; IMPT (continuous) versus IMRT (scattered) plans DVH for the low-dose target and selected OARs; dose values (Gy[RBE]) for the selected OARs.
Jcm 11 03297 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

De Felice, F.; Vai, A.; Camarda, A.M.; Iacovelli, N.A.; Orlandi, E. Lower-Neck Sparing Using Proton Therapy in Patients with Uninvolved Neck Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Is It Safe? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3297. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123297

AMA Style

De Felice F, Vai A, Camarda AM, Iacovelli NA, Orlandi E. Lower-Neck Sparing Using Proton Therapy in Patients with Uninvolved Neck Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Is It Safe? Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(12):3297. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123297

Chicago/Turabian Style

De Felice, Francesca, Alessandro Vai, Anna Maria Camarda, Nicola Alessandro Iacovelli, and Ester Orlandi. 2022. "Lower-Neck Sparing Using Proton Therapy in Patients with Uninvolved Neck Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Is It Safe?" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 12: 3297. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123297

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop