This randomized phase III trial studies the side effects and how well intensity-modulated proton beam therapy works and compares it to intensity-modulated photon therapy in treating patients with stage III-IVB oropharyngeal cancer. Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays, protons, and other types of radiation to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. It is not yet known whether intensity-modulated proton beam therapy is more effective than intensity-modulated photon therapy in treating oropharyngeal cancer.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To compare the progression-free survival (PFS) between concurrent chemo-radiation strategies with IMRT and IMPT following the treatment of oropharyngeal tumors. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess and compare overall survival between IMRT and IMPT along with estimating disease-related outcomes such as: \[2-year progression-free survival, patterns of failure, 2-year overall survival, 2-year distant metastasis free survival, and second primary cancers\] 2. To assess acute and chronic/late side effects, and to compare the rates of Grade 3-5 toxicity between IMRT and IMPT following the treatment of oropharyngeal tumors. 3. To assess Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) measures of symptoms using MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), FACT-HN, Xerostomia and Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), Work status (WPAI: SHP) 4. To assess Physician Reported Toxicity using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)-4.0 5. To evaluate and compare Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY) between IMPT and IMRT; 6. To perform Cost-benefit economic analysis of treatment; 7. To determine whether specific molecular profiles are associated with overall or progression-free survival; 8. To investigate associations between changes in blood biomarkers, or HPV-specific cellular immune responses, or HPV ctDNA (measured at baseline and three months and at each follow-up visit for up to 10 years) with overall or progression-free survival; 9. To bank peripheral blood at time of enrollment, weeks 2, 4, and 6 during treatment and at each follow up visits for up to 10 years to explore the ability of circulating markers to predict outcome; 10. To bank head and neck tissues to explore the ability of tissue-based markers to predict outcome; 11. To bank peripheral blood and tissues for future interrogations; Finally, all additional secondary endpoints EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVE: I. To assess potential differences between patients on study and patients who were considered eligible for randomized, were randomized to a treatment arm, but were denied insurance coverage for the treatment arm she/he was randomized to; or may have dropped out of the study for other reasons after being randomized. These patients will compromise Group 3: consisting of patients randomized to Protons but not treated and Group 4: consisting of patients randomized to IMRT but not treated at the designated institution. Furthermore, these patients will only be followed for recurrence and survival.(Phase III) OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. ARM I: Patients undergo IMRT once daily (QD) five days a week for approximately 6.5 weeks. ARM II: Patients undergo IMPT QD five days a week for approximately 6.5 weeks. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 1 year, every 4 months for 1 year, and then every 6 months for 5 years.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
440
Undergo IMRT
Undergo IMPT
Correlative studies
Undergo IMRT
Undergo IMPT
Ancillary studies
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Mayo Clinic in Arizona
Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
University of Florida Health Science Center - Gainesville
Gainesville, Florida, United States
Miami Cancer Institute
Miami, Florida, United States
Emory University Hospital/Winship Cancer Institute
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center Warrenville
Warrenville, Illinois, United States
Willis-Knighton Medical and Cancer Center
Shreveport, Louisiana, United States
University of Maryland/Greenebaum Cancer Center
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute
Detroit, Michigan, United States
...and 12 more locations
Cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity anytime (Phase II)
Will be graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. The methods described by Gooley will be used to estimate the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years for each treatment arm with death as a competing risk. The methods of Fine and Gray will be used to model the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years as a function of treatment arm and other potential prognostic factors (e.g., human papillomavirus (HPV)/p16 status, use of induction chemotherapy) considering death as a competing risk. Hazard ratios for the prognostic factors from this model with 95% confidence intervals will be estimated.
Time frame: Up to 2 years
Cumulative incidence of acute grade 3+ toxicity (Phase II)
Will be graded according to the NCI CTCAE version 4.0. The methods described by Gooley will be used to estimate the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years for each treatment arm with death as a competing risk. The methods of Fine and Gray will be used to model the cumulative incidence of late onset grade 3+ toxicity by 2 years as a function of treatment arm and other potential prognostic factors (e.g., HPV/p16 status, use of induction chemotherapy) considering death as a competing risk. Hazard ratios for the prognostic factors from this model with 95% confidence intervals will be estimated.
Time frame: Up to 2 years
Overall survival (OS) (Phase II)
Stratified by treatment arm and estimated using the product limit estimator of Kaplan and Meier. Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to model OS as a function of potential prognostic factors. Hazard ratios for the prognostic factors from this model will be estimated with 95% confidence intervals.
Time frame: Up to 5 years
Overall survival (Phase III)
Will be summarized at critical time points using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Kaplan-Meier plots will be used to visualize the time-to-event information by treatment arm, and the trial will be monitored based on results from log-rank tests used to compare treatment arms. Furthermore, Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to assess the time-to-event outcomes while adjusting for covariates of interest.
Time frame: Up to 5 years
Progression-free survival (Phase III)
Will be summarized at critical time points using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Kaplan-Meier plots will be used to visualize the time-to-event information by treatment arm, and the trial will be monitored based on results from log-rank tests used to compare treatment arms. Furthermore, Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to assess the time-to-event outcomes while adjusting for covariates of interest.
Time frame: Up to 3 years
Quality of life (QoL) (Phase II and III)
QoL assessments will be summarized using the mean score and standard deviation for each time point of interest. Mean response trajectories will be plotted over the time horizon for each QoL instrument administered to patients in order to explore differences between treatment arms along with other patient characteristics of interest. Other analyses such as area under the curve and linear mixed models will be used to make statistical comparisons between treatment arms while adjusting for covariates of interest.
Time frame: Up to 5 years
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.