Skip Navigation
Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
 
Slide Tray
0 slides

Return to Slide Library

Slides

Add Presentation to Slide Tray Presentation:

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer

Slides: 13–24 of 36
This slide includes a table with two columns and four rows. Column 1, row 1: potential advantages. Column 2, row 1: potential disadvantages.Column 1, row 2: Higher dose delivered to tumor. Column 2, row 2: Higher total body dose. Column 1, row 3: Sparing of normal, surrounding tissue from radiation damage. Column 2, row 3: Increased risk of marginal miss and dose perturbation. Column 1, row 4: Decreased toxicity. Column 2, row 4: time and expense. A definition of abreviations is included on the slide: IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy; 2DRT = two-dimensional radiation therapy; 3DCRT = three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. A footnote includes the following references: (1) Ballivy O, Santamaria RG, Borbalas AL, et al. Clinical application of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2008;10:407-14; (2) Burri MK, Bevan A, Roach M III. Advances in radiation therapy: conventional to 3D, to IMRT, to 4D, and beyond. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:117-34; (3) Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, Palta JR. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the standard management of head and neck cancer: promises and pitfalls. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2618-23; (4) Samson DJ, Ratko TA, Rothenberg BM, et al. Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer, Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 20 (Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0026). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2010. AHRQ Publication No. 10-EHC014-EF. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=447.

Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of IMRT When Compared With 2DRT and 3DCRT

Proton Beam Therapy

The Comparative Effectiveness Review Development Process

This slide includes a table with two columns and three rows. Column 1, row 1: high. Column 2, row 2: High confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Column 1, row 2: moderate. Column 2, row 2: Moderate confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research may change our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Column 1, row 3: low. Column 2, row 3: Low confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research is likely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Column 1, row 4: insufficient. Column 2, row 4: Evidence is either unavailable or does not permit estimation of an effect. There is a footnote at the bottom that includes the following references: Guyatt GH, et al. BMJ 2008;336:924-6; Owens DK, et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:513-23; Samson  DJ, et al. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 20. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=447.

Rating the Strength of Evidence From the CER: A Modification of the GRADE Methodology

Comparative Effectiveness Review: Outcomes of Interest

Clinical Questions Addressed by the Comparative Effectiveness Review of Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer

Overview of Available Literature

Clinical Bottom Line: Comparative Evidence for 2DRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT

Clinical Bottom Line: Comparative Evidence for 2DRT, 3DCRT, and IMRT (continued)

Clinical Bottom Line: Comparative Evidence for Proton Beam versus 2DRT, 3DRT, and IMRT

Pages: Previous 1 [2] 3 Next