Re-irradiation of adenoid cystic carcinoma: Analysis and evaluation of outcome in 52 consecutive patients treated with raster-scanned carbon ion therapy

• Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology 2015-02, Vol.114 (2), p.182-188
• Main Authors: Jensen, Alexandra D, Poulakis, Melanie, Nikoghosyan, Anna V, Chaudhri, Naved, Uhl, Matthias, Münter, Marc W, Herfarth, Klaus K, Debus, Jürgen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adenoid cystic carcinoma; Adult; Aged; Carbon - chemistry; Carbon - therapeutic use; Carbon ions; Carcinoma, Adenoid Cystic - radiotherapy; Female; Gland tumours; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Heavy Ion Radiotherapy - adverse effects; Heavy Ion Radiotherapy - methods; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Male; Malignant salivary; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - radiotherapy; Particle therapy; Re-irradiation; Retrospective Studies; Salvage Therapy - methods; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0167-8140; 1879-0887
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.002

Abstract Background Treatment of local relapse in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) following prior radiation remains a challenge: without the possibility of surgical salvage patients face the choice between palliative chemotherapy and re-irradiation. Chemotherapy yields response rates around 30% and application of tumouricidal doses is difficult due to proximity of critical structures. Carbon ion therapy (C12) is a promising method to minimize side-effects and maximize re-treatment dose in this indication. We describe our initial results for re-irradiation in heavily pre-treated ACC patients. Methods Patients treated with carbon ion therapy between 04/2010 and 05/2013 ( N = 52 pts, median age: 54 a) were retrospectively evaluated regarding toxicity (NCI CTC v.4), tumour response (RECIST) and control rates. 48 pts (92.3%) received carbon ions only, 4 pts received IMRT plus C12. Results 4 pts were treated following R1-resection, 43 pts for inoperable local relapse. Most common tumour sites were paranasal sinus (36.5%), parotid (19.2%), and base of skull (17.3%). Pts received a median dose of 51 GyE C12/63 Gy BED and cumulative dose of 128 Gy BED [67–182 Gy] after a median RT-interval of 61 months. Median target volume was 93 ml [9–618 ml]. No higher-grade (>°II) acute reactions were observed, 7 pts showed blood–brain-barrier changes (°I/II: 8 pts; °III: 2 pts), 1 pt corneal ulceration, xerophthalmia 7 pts, °IV bleeding 1 pt, tissue necrosis 2 pts, otherwise no significant late reactions. Objective response rate (CR/PR) was 56.6%. With a median follow-up of 14 months [1–39 months] local control and distant control at 1a are 70.3% and 72.6% respectively. Of the 18 pts with local relapse, 13 pts have recurred in-field, 1 pt at the field edge, 3 pts out of field, and one in the dose gradient. Conclusion Despite high applied doses, C12 re-irradiation shows moderate side-effects, response rates even in these heavily pre-treated patients are encouraging and present a good alternative to palliative chemotherapy. Though most local recurrences occur within the high-dose area, further dose escalation should be viewed with caution.