BackgroundLarge anatomical variations occur during the course of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). The risks are therefore a parotid glands (PG) overdose and a xerostomia increase.The purposes of the study were to estimate:- the PG overdose and the xerostomia risk increase during a “standard” IMRT (IMRTstd);- the benefits of an adaptive IMRT (ART) with weekly replanning to spare the PGs and limit the risk of xerostomia.Material and methodsFifteen patients received radical IMRT (70 Gy) for LAHNC. Weekly CTs were used to estimate the dose distributions delivered during the treatment, corresponding either to the initial planning (IMRTstd) or to weekly replanning (ART). PGs dose were recalculated at the fraction, from the weekly CTs. PG cumulated doses were then estimated using deformable image registration. The following PG doses were compared: pre-treatment planned dose, per-treatment IMRTstd and ART. The corresponding estimated risks of xerostomia were also compared. Correlations between anatomical markers and dose differences were searched.ResultsCompared to the initial planning, a PG overdose was observed during IMRTstd for 59% of the PGs, with an average increase of 3.7 Gy (10.0 Gy maximum) for the mean dose, and of 8.2% (23.9% maximum) for the risk of xerostomia. Compared to the initial planning, weekly replanning reduced the PG mean dose for all the patients (p < 0.05). In the overirradiated PG group, weekly replanning reduced the mean dose by 5.1 Gy (12.2 Gy maximum) and the absolute risk of xerostomia by 11% (p < 0.01) (30% maximum). The PG overdose and the dosimetric benefit of replanning increased with the tumor shrinkage and the neck thickness reduction (p < 0.001).ConclusionDuring the course of LAHNC IMRT, around 60% of the PGs are overdosed of 4 Gy. Weekly replanning decreased the PG mean dose by 5 Gy, and therefore by 11% the xerostomia risk.

Multicenter studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical potential value of radiomics as a prognostic tool. However, variability in scanner models, acquisition protocols and reconstruction settings are unavoidable and radiomic features are notoriously sensitive to these factors, which hinders pooling them in a statistical analysis. A statistical harmonization method called ComBat was developed to deal with the "batch effect" in gene expression microarray data and was used in radiomics studies to deal with the "center-effect". Our goal was to evaluate modifications in ComBat allowing for more flexibility in choosing a reference and improving robustness of the estimation. Two modified ComBat versions were evaluated: M-ComBat allows to transform all features distributions to a chosen reference, instead of the overall mean, providing more flexibility. B-ComBat adds bootstrap and Monte Carlo for improved robustness in the estimation. BM-ComBat combines both modifications. The four versions were compared regarding their ability to harmonize features in a multicenter context in two different clinical datasets. The first contains 119 locally advanced cervical cancer patients from 3 centers, with magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography imaging. In that case ComBat was applied with 3 labels corresponding to each center. The second one contains 98 locally advanced laryngeal cancer patients from 5 centers with contrast-enhanced computed tomography. In that specific case, because imaging settings were highly heterogeneous even within each of the five centers, unsupervised clustering was used to determine two labels for applying ComBat. The impact of each harmonization was evaluated through three different machine learning pipelines for the modelling step in predicting the clinical outcomes, across two performance metrics (balanced accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient). Before harmonization, almost all radiomic features had significantly different distributions between labels. These differences were successfully removed with all ComBat versions. The predictive ability of the radiomic models was always improved with harmonization and the improved ComBat provided the best results. This was observed consistently in both datasets, through all machine learning pipelines and performance metrics. The proposed modifications allow for more flexibility and robustness in the estimation. They also slightly but consistently improve the predictive power of resulting radiomic models.

Introduction: Large anatomical variations can be observed during the treatment course intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC), leading to potential dose variations. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) uses one or several replanning sessions to correct these variations and thus optimize the delivered dose distribution to the daily anatomy of the patient. This review, which is focused on ART in the HNC, aims to identify the various strategies of ART and to estimate the dosimetric and clinical benefits of these strategies. Material and methods: We performed an electronic search of articles published in PubMed/MEDLINE and Science Direct from January 2005 to December 2016. Among a total of 134 articles assessed for eligibility, 29 articles were ultimately retained for the review. Eighteen studies evaluated dosimetric variations without ART, and 11 studies reported the benefits of ART. Results: Eight in silico studies tested a number of replanning sessions, ranging from 1 to 6, aiming primarily to reduce the dose to the parotid glands. The optimal timing for replanning appears to be early during the first two weeks of treatment. Compared to standard IMRT, ART decreases the mean dose to the parotid gland from 0.6 to 6 Gy and the maximum dose to the spinal cord from 0.1 to 4 Gy while improving target coverage and homogeneity in most studies. Only five studies reported the clinical results of ART, and three of those studies included a non-randomized comparison with standard IMRT. These studies suggest a benefit of ART in regard to decreasing xerostomia, increasing quality of life, and increasing local control. Patients with the largest early anatomical and dose variations are the best candidates for ART. Conclusion: ART may decrease toxicity and improve local control for locally advanced HNC. However, randomized trials are necessary to demonstrate the benefit of ART before using the technique in routine practice.