Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional and 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer: Is there a worthwhile quality of life gain?

Background: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a technique that allows delivery of lower doses of radiation to normal tissue, while maintaining or increasing the tumour dose, compared with two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). This review of published data was undertaken to assess whether IMRT is associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits versus 2DRT and 3DCRT. Design: English-language literature published between January 2005 and August 2010 was searched for studies comparing IMRT versus 2DRT or 3DCRT in head and neck cancers that included QoL evaluation. Fourteen studies (five prospective and nine retrospective) were identified, two in abstract form only. Only one study was randomised. Studies included patients with nasopharyngeal cancer only, oropharyngeal cancer only and mixed populations. Results: The EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most widely used instrument, generally supplemented with the head and neck cancer module H&N35. IMRT was associated with statistically significant improvements in certain QoL domains versus 2DRT and 3DCRT, particularly those relating to xerostomia, including dry mouth, sticky saliva and eating-related domains. Improvements in global QoL were also observed in the IMRT groups in some studies. Conclusion: Based on the studies reviewed, patients treated with IMRT experience statistically significant improvements in several important QoL domains versus 2DRT and 3DCRT. However, studies included heterogeneous populations, different timepoints for measurements and a variety of instruments for QoL assessment. Accepting the difficulties in execution, IMRT should be compared with 3DCRT in prospective randomised studies in homogeneous patient populations, using appropriate QoL assessments and clinical end points, to establish if IMRT provides enough value for the additional resources involved. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.