# Comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Conventional Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

## TL;DR

This study compares two radiation therapy techniques for head and neck cancer, finding that VMAT improves overall survival compared to cIMRT.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence that VMAT leads to better survival outcomes than cIMRT for locally advanced HNSCC.

## Key findings

- VMAT showed significantly better five-year overall survival (63.4%) compared to cIMRT (43.8%).
- Locoregional control rates were high for both VMAT (81%) and cIMRT (74.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.
- Grade 3-4 acute toxicity was observed in 22% of patients across both treatment groups.

## Abstract

Purpose

This study examines the outcomes of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) following the adoption of conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) over a decade. The region under study has higher comorbidities associated with increased HNSCC incidence and poorer prognosis.

Materials and methods

A 10-year retrospective review of electronic medical records included 296 patients with stage III, IVA, and IVB HNSCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer, Seventh edition). Survival outcomes were compared between VMAT and cIMRT using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and adjusted for relevant demographic factors using Cox's proportional hazards model. Analysis was performed using R software (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria).

Results

The median age of the cohort was 63 years, comprising of 80% males. The oropharynx was the most common primary tumor site. 264 (89%) received 50Gy or higher dose radiation by either cIMRT (22%) or VMAT (67%). At five years, locoregional control (LC) and overall survival (OS) rates were 79.5% and 56.7%, respectively. VMAT showed a significant improvement in five-year OS (63.4% versus 43.8% for cIMRT, p=0.0023) but no significant difference in five-year LC (81% VMAT versus 74.5% cIMRT, p=0.17). Grade 3-4 acute toxicity was observed in 22% of patients.

Conclusions

VMAT and cIMRT demonstrated excellent LC in locally advanced HNSCC despite high comorbidity rates. Notably, VMAT was associated with significantly better OS compared to cIMRT. These outcomes surpass historical data, suggesting that VMAT technology may lead to improved patient outcomes. However, larger randomized controlled trials and dosimetric studies are needed to confirm these findings.