Purpose: The physical properties of proton therapy allow for decreased dose delivery to nontarget structures. The purpose of this study was to determine if this translates into a clinical benefit by comparing acute and chronic morbidity between patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who are treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and those treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Patients receiving IMPT for nasopharyngeal cancer from 2011-13 were matched in a 2:1 IMPT to IMRT ratio. Matching criteria were, in order, T-stage, N-stage, radiation dose, chemotherapy type, World Health Organization classification, sex, and age. Results: Ten patients treated with IMPT and 20 matched patients treated with IMRT were included. By the end of treatment, 2 IMPT-treated patients (20%) and 13 IMRTtreated patients (65%) required gastrostomy tube (GT) insertion (P ¼ .020). Patients receiving IMPT had significantly lower mean doses to the oral cavity, brainstem, whole brain, and mandible. Increased mean dose to the oral cavity was associated with a higher rate of GT placement (P , .001), but mean dose to the brainstem, whole brain, and mandible was not. Partitioning analysis showed that no patient required GT insertion if the mean oral cavity dose was ,26 Gy, but all patients with a mean oral cavity dose. 41.8 Gy required GT insertion. Treatment type (IMPT versus IMRT), induction chemotherapy (yes versus no), mean oral cavity dose, mean brainstem dose, and mean mandible dose were entered into the multivariable model. Only higher mean oral cavity dose remained significantly associated with higher GT rates on multivariable analysis http://theijpt.org

BackgroundOral stents have been shown to reduce the deleterious effects of head and neck radiotherapy through the displacement of normal tissues away from the areas of high dose irradiation. While these stents are commonly used in the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer at many large academic cancer centers, their use is much more limited outside of these institutions due to the time and expertise required for their fabrication.ResultsIn the study, we describe a novel method to design and manufacture oral stents from routine computed tomography (CT) imaging studies through the use of 3D printing technologies.ConclusionOur proposed method may help to greatly expand access to these beneficial devices for patients undergoing radiation treatment at centers without access to dental and oral/maxillofacial specialists.

Purpose: The authors aimed to illustrate the potential dose differences to clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) volumes after proton adaptive treatment planning was used. Patients and Methods: The records of 10 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient's treatment plan was generated by using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Verification computed tomography (CT) scan was performed during the fourth week of treatment. Deformable image registrations were performed between the 2 CT image sets, and the CTVs and major OARs were transferred to the verification CT images to generate the adaptive plan. We compared the accumulated doses to CTVs and OARs between the original and adaptive plans, as well as between the adaptive and verification plans to simulate doses that would have been delivered if the adaptive plans were not used. Results: Body contours were different on planning and week-4 verification CTs. Mean volumes of all CTVs were reduced by 4% to 8% (P .04), and the volumes of left and right parotid glands also decreased (by 11% to 12%, P .004). Brainstem and oral cavity volumes did not significantly differ (all P ! .14). All mean doses to the CTV were decreased for up to 7% (P .04), whereas mean doses to the right parotid and oral cavity increased from a range of 5% to 8% (P .03), respectively. Conclusion: Verification and adaptive planning should be recommended during the course of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer to ensure adequate dose deliveries to the planned CTVs, while safe doses to OARs can be respected.

Second primary malignancy (SPM) may occur after index head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. This study evaluated the prevalence and outcome of SPM in patients with HNC treated with definitive radiotherapy. Eligible patients include those with index mucosal HNC treated with definitive radiotherapy between 2000 and 2010. SPM was defined as an invasive cancer at a noncontiguous site diagnosed at least 6 months after completion of radiotherapy. Clinical data were collected, and the Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate overall survival. In total, 1512 patients were studied. The majority of patients had index oropharyngeal cancer (86%). In all, 130 (9%) patients developed a SPM. The risk of SPM increased exponentially with time with 5-, 10-, and 15-year rates of 4, 10, and 25%. Half of SPMs were within the head and neck or thoracic regions. SPM rates were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in current smokers and former smokers than never smokers with 5-, 10-, and 15-year risk being: never smoker (2, 4, 14%), former smokers with <10-pack year (5, 10, 23%), former smokers with ≥10-pack year (5, 14, 35%), and current smokers (6, 18, 32%). In total, 102 (78%) had subsequent curative-intent therapy. The 5-year overall survival from SPM was 44%. The majority of SPMs were in those with significant smoking history reflecting the same risk factor as for the index mucosal HNC. Nearly one in two patients with SPMs were salvaged underscoring the importance of regular surveillance for SPMs.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic has strained human and material resources around the world. Practices in surgical oncology had to change in response to these resource limitations, triaging based on acuity, expected oncologic outcomes, availability of supportive resources, and safety of health care personnel.Methods: The MD Anderson Head and Neck Surgery Treatment Guidelines Consortium devised the following to provide guidance on triaging head and neck cancer (HNC) surgeries based on multidisciplinary consensus. HNC subsites considered included aerodigestive tract mucosa, sinonasal, salivary, endocrine, cutaneous, and ocular.Recommendations: Each subsite is presented separately with diseasespecific recommendations. Options for alternative treatment modalities are provided if surgical treatment needs to be deferred. Conclusion: These guidelines are intended to help clinicians caring for patients with HNC appropriately allocate resources during a health care crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We continue to advocate for individual consideration of cases in a multidisciplinary fashion based on individual patient circumstances and resource availability. K E Y W O R D S oncology, otolaryngology, SARS-CoV-2