A phase 3 randomised controlled trial of proton beam therapy for oropharyngeal cancer

Background: The benefits of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) are controversial. This trial aimed to compare late functional, patient-reported, disease control, and survival outcomes between IMPT and IMRT.<br/> <br/>Methods: In a phase 3 trial (TORPEdO), patients with locally advanced OPSCC were assigned 2:1 to IMPT or IMRT (70 Gy in 33 fractions, over 6.5 weeks) with two cycles of high dose cisplatin (100mg/m², every 3 weeks). Co-primary endpoints at 12 months were gastrostomy tube dependence or severe weight loss (≥20% from baseline) and University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QoL) mean physical composite score for saliva, taste, chewing, swallowing, speech and appearance.<br/> <br/>Findings: Between February 25, 2020, and June 13, 2023, 205 patients (OPSCC: T3/4 48%, N2(c) 22%) from 20 UK centres were randomised (IMPT n=136; IMRT n=69). At 12 months, gastrostomy tube dependence was &lt;2% in both groups (IMPT: 2/119, IMRT: 1/59), severe weight loss higher for IMPT (IMPT: 20/110 [18%; 97·5% CI: 11–28%], IMRT: 3/53 [6%; 1–17%]), with a combined odds ratio of 2·80, 97·5% CI: 0·75–10·4, p=0·079. Mean UW-QoL physical composite scores at 12 months were 78·3 for IMPT vs 77·1 for IMRT (difference=1·3, 97·5% CI: -3·7–6·2, p=0·56). Four patients had treatment-related SAEs: one IMPT, three IMRT (one with two SAEs). There were no treatment-related deaths. At a median follow-up of 28·3 months (IQR 26·5-39·3), 24-month freedom from loco-regional recurrence rates for IMPT versus IMRT were 94% (99% CI: 86–98%) vs 97% (82–100%); HR=2·6 (99% CI: 0·3–20·3; 95% CI: 0·5–12·4, p=0·24), and overall survival rates: 95% (86–98%) vs 95% (81–99%); HR=1·6 (99% CI: 0·3–8.8; 95% CI 0·4–5·9, p=0·47).<br/><br/>Interpretation: IMRT and IMPT had similar late physical quality of life, gastrostomy tube dependence, local control and overall survival. In healthcare settings where IMPT is not used routinely for OPSCC, IMRT remains the standard of care.<br/><br/>Registration: ISRCTN16424014<br/>Funding: Cancer Research UK<br/>

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Research Explorer (The University of Manchester)
Published
2026-02-13
Primary Topic
Head and Neck Cancer Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A phase 3 randomised controlled trial of proton beam therapy for oropharyngeal cancer

Lorna Rachel Maven Wilson, Jane Wolstenholme, Deborah Gardiner, Helen Bulbeck et al.
Research Explorer (The University of Manchester)
Head and Neck Cancer Studies
article

A phase 3 randomised controlled trial of proton beam therapy for oropharyngeal cancer

Lorna Rachel Maven Wilson, Jane Wolstenholme, Deborah Gardiner, Helen Bulbeck, Justin Roe, Nachi Palaniappan, Matthew G. Lowe, Guy Betts, Justine Tyler, Judith Christian, Clare Cruickshank, Emma Hall, Catharine; id_orcid 0000-0002-0839-3449 West, Jim Lester, Frances Charlwood, Holly Tovey, Kevin Chiu, Matthew Clarke, Matthew Beasley, Christopher M. Nutting, James Price, David Thomson, Anna Thompson, Shanmugasundaram Ramkumar, Matthew Tyler, Robin Prestwich
article en

Abstract

Background: The benefits of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) are controversial. This trial aimed to compare late functional, patient-reported, disease control, and survival outcomes between IMPT and IMRT.<br/> <br/>Methods: In a phase 3 trial (TORPEdO), patients with locally advanced OPSCC were assigned 2:1 to IMPT or IMRT (70 Gy in 33 fractions, over 6.5 weeks) with two cycles of high dose cisplatin (100mg/m², every 3 weeks). Co-primary endpoints at 12 months were gastrostomy tube dependence or severe weight loss (≥20% from baseline) and University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QoL) mean physical composite score for saliva, taste, chewing, swallowing, speech and appearance.<br/> <br/>Findings: Between February 25, 2020, and June 13, 2023, 205 patients (OPSCC: T3/4 48%, N2(c) 22%) from 20 UK centres were randomised (IMPT n=136; IMRT n=69). At 12 months, gastrostomy tube dependence was &lt;2% in both groups (IMPT: 2/119, IMRT: 1/59), severe weight loss higher for IMPT (IMPT: 20/110 [18%; 97·5% CI: 11–28%], IMRT: 3/53 [6%; 1–17%]), with a combined odds ratio of 2·80, 97·5% CI: 0·75–10·4, p=0·079. Mean UW-QoL physical composite scores at 12 months were 78·3 for IMPT vs 77·1 for IMRT (difference=1·3, 97·5% CI: -3·7–6·2, p=0·56). Four patients had treatment-related SAEs: one IMPT, three IMRT (one with two SAEs). There were no treatment-related deaths. At a median follow-up of 28·3 months (IQR 26·5-39·3), 24-month freedom from loco-regional recurrence rates for IMPT versus IMRT were 94% (99% CI: 86–98%) vs 97% (82–100%); HR=2·6 (99% CI: 0·3–20·3; 95% CI: 0·5–12·4, p=0·24), and overall survival rates: 95% (86–98%) vs 95% (81–99%); HR=1·6 (99% CI: 0·3–8.8; 95% CI 0·4–5·9, p=0·47).<br/><br/>Interpretation: IMRT and IMPT had similar late physical quality of life, gastrostomy tube dependence, local control and overall survival. In healthcare settings where IMPT is not used routinely for OPSCC, IMRT remains the standard of care.<br/><br/>Registration: ISRCTN16424014<br/>Funding: Cancer Research UK<br/>

Research Explorer (The University of Manchester)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Head and Neck Cancer Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.