NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Comparative Effectiveness Review Summary Guides for Clinicians [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007-.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Clinical Issue
What is the comparative effectiveness and safety of external-beam radiation therapies for head and neck cancer?
Decisions about treatment for head and neck cancer are largely dependent on the site, stage, and histological characteristics of the disease. Treatment may include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these.
In recent years, the techniques for external-beam radiation therapy have evolved with the intended purpose of delivering more radiation to the tumor while sparing normal tissues and adjacent vulnerable organs. In recent years, two-dimensional radiation therapy (2DRT), three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have been the most commonly used techniques for head and neck cancer. Despite the widespread adoption of IMRT throughout the United States, few prospective, randomized studies have directly compared the clinical effectiveness of IMRT with that of either 3DCRT or 2DRT. Proton beam therapy is less commonly used.
Clinical Bottom Line
Comparative Evidence for 2DRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT |
Tumor Control or Survival: There is insufficient evidence to determine if 2DRT, 3DCRT, or IMRT confers any advantages when compared to each other in terms of tumor control or survival. |
Adverse Effects: IMRT is
associated with a lower incidence of late xerostomia when compared
to 3DCRT (![]() ![]() |
Quality of Life: Patients who
received IMRT had improved quality of life, with respect to late
xerostomia, when compared with those who received 3DCRT
(![]() ![]() |
Experience of Treatment Team: The data is insufficient to determine whether the experience of the clinical team confers an advantage, because no comparative studies addressed this issue. |
Comparative Evidence for Proton Beam Therapy vs. 2DRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT |
Across Outcomes: No comparative studies addressed the domains of tumor control, survival, adverse effects, quality of life, or experience of the treatment team. Therefore, the data are insufficient to permit any conclusions about proton beam therapy when compared to other radiotherapy modalities for head and neck cancer. |
Confidence Scale
High: There are consistent results from
good-quality studies. Further research is very unlikely to change the
conclusions.
Moderate: Findings are supported, but
further research could change the conclusions.
Low: There are very few studies, or
existing studies are flawed.
Conclusions
Despite proposed advantages and risks of various radiotherapies for head and neck cancer, the current evidence is insufficient to determine if 2DRT, 3DCRT, or IMRT confers any advantages in terms of tumor control and survival. This does not mean that differences do not exist but that future study is required. However, with respect to adverse events and quality of life, IMRT is associated with a lower incidence of late xerostomia and with improved quality of life for domains related to late xerostomia. For other adverse effects, differences and risks may exist, but there is insufficient evidence from which to permit conclusions about any comparative effects.
Gaps in Knowledge
- Because of insufficient evidence, high-quality studies are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness of IMRT, 3DCRT, 2DRT, and proton beam therapy:
- In achieving tumor control and improving patient survival.
- In reducing adverse events and improving quality of life.
- In understanding how outcomes are affected by the characteristics of the tumor, the patient, and the physician/radiotherapy team (e.g., experience), or by radiation treatment planning (e.g., target volume delineation, dosimetric parameters).
- Further research is needed to define the extent to which discrepancies between planned dose and the amount of radiation delivered to the tumor occur.
- Well-designed, multicenter, prospective observational studies—where randomized trials are not practical or advisable—would improve the usefulness and generalizability of the evidence.
- The body of evidence would be improved by studies that use standardized terminology, use valid and reliable outcome measures with blinded assessments, and assess quality-of-life and patient-reported outcomes with validated instruments.
- Research is needed to improve the management of xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer and to better understand risk factors for xerostomia.
What To Discuss With Your Patients
- Whether critical normal structures are present in the field to be irradiated (e.g., salivary glands, pituitary gland, optic nerve) and the potential resulting adverse events.
- The potential benefits and the acute and late harms of the proposed radiation treatment for the individual patient—given the type, location, and stage of his or her cancer.
- The potential long-term adverse effects of radiation on quality of life—given the patient’s individual lifestyle and values.
- The likely out-of-pocket expense to the patient for each type of radiation therapy, depending on the patient’s insurance coverage.
Resource for Patients
Understanding Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer, A Guide for Adults and Their Caregivers is a free companion to this clinician guide. It can help patients talk with their health care professionals about the many options for treatment. It provides information about:
- The differences between radiotherapy systems.
- The side effects of radiotherapy.
- Current evidence of effectiveness and harms.
- Questions for patients to ask their doctor.
For More Information
For electronic copies of Understanding Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer, A Guide for Adults and Their Caregivers (AHRQ Pub. No. 10(11)-EHC014-A), this clinician guide, and the full systematic review, visit www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. To order free print copies, call the AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse at 800-358-9295.
Source
The information in this summary is based on Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiation Therapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer, Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 20, prepared by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center and Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0026 for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, January 2009. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
A note about this Clinician Guide
A systematic review of 108 clinical studies was conducted by independent researchers, funded by AHRQ, to synthesize the evidence on what is known and not known on this clinical issue.
This topic was nominated through a public process. The research questions and the results of the report were subject to expert input, peer review, and public comment.
The results of this review are summarized here for use in your decisionmaking and in discussions with patients. The full report, with references for included and excluded studies, is available at www
.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
- Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer: Results From a Prospective, Real-World Data Study With Brazilian Patients Treated With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, Conformal and Conventional Radiation Techniques.[Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. ...]Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer: Results From a Prospective, Real-World Data Study With Brazilian Patients Treated With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, Conformal and Conventional Radiation Techniques.Santos M, Oliveira E Silva LF, Kohler HF, Curioni O, Vilela R, Fang M, Passos Lima CS, Gomes JP, Chaves A, Resende B, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Feb 1; 109(2):485-494. Epub 2020 Sep 29.
- Review Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional and 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer: is there a worthwhile quality of life gain?[Cancer Treat Rev. 2011]Review Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional and 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer: is there a worthwhile quality of life gain?Tribius S, Bergelt C. Cancer Treat Rev. 2011 Nov; 37(7):511-9. Epub 2011 Feb 15.
- Reduced toxicity with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a secondary analysis of data from four prospective clinical trials.[Dis Esophagus. 2016]Reduced toxicity with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with conventional two-dimensional radiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a secondary analysis of data from four prospective clinical trials.Deng JY, Wang C, Shi XH, Jiang GL, Wang Y, Liu Y, Zhao KL. Dis Esophagus. 2016 Nov; 29(8):1121-1127. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
- Second cancer risk after primary cancer treatment with three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, or proton beam radiation therapy.[Cancer. 2020]Second cancer risk after primary cancer treatment with three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, or proton beam radiation therapy.Xiang M, Chang DT, Pollom EL. Cancer. 2020 Aug 1; 126(15):3560-3568. Epub 2020 May 19.
- Review Can Intensity-Modulated-Radiotherapy Reduce Toxicity in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma?[Cancers (Basel). 2017]Review Can Intensity-Modulated-Radiotherapy Reduce Toxicity in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma?van der Veen J, Nuyts S. Cancers (Basel). 2017 Oct 6; 9(10). Epub 2017 Oct 6.
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Nec...Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer - Comparative Effectiveness Review Summary Guides for Clinicians
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...