Optimizing Radiation in Head and Neck Cancer: Minimizing Adverse Effects

Introduction
Head and neck cancers (HNC) account for approximately 4% of all cancers in the United States, with over 71,000 new cases diagnosed annually.¹ Radiation therapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of HNC treatment that is often combined with surgery or chemotherapy to achieve tumor control. Although effective, RT can cause significant adverse effects, including mucositis, xerostomia (dry mouth), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and dermatitis, as well as long-term complications such as osteoradionecrosis (bone tissue death).^2,3 These toxicities profoundly impact patients’ quality of life (QOL), affecting their daily activities, social interactions, and psychological well-being. For instance, xerostomia can impair taste and speech, making eating and communication challenging, and dysphagia may lead to social isolation due to difficulty eating in public.^2,3 Mucositis, which affects up to 80% of patients with HNC, causes severe pain that can disrupt nutrition and treatment adherence, increasing the risk of therapy interruptions while reducing efficacy.^4,5 Such interruptions may lead to tumor recurrence, which can necessitate additional treatments and increase health care costs.⁶

The visible nature of HNC and its treatments—often affecting the face, mouth, and throat—sets it apart from other cancers. Patients may experience heightened self-consciousness about appearance, voice changes, or feeding tube dependency, which can strain their social relationships and mental health.^3,6,7 For example, data from a 2020 study showed that HNC survivors reported persistent social withdrawal due to speech or swallowing difficulties.⁷

These QOL challenges underscore the need for strategies to minimize toxicities related to RT. Advances in precision radiation techniques, supportive care, and multidisciplinary approaches have improved outcomes, offering evidence-based methods to reduce adverse effects while maintaining efficacy. This article explores these strategies, emphasizing patient-centered care to enhance both survival and QOL.

Key Statistics on HNC Radiation Adverse Effects
Mucositis: Affects 80% to 90% of patients with HNC undergoing RT, with 20% to 40% experiencing severe (grade 3-4) cases.⁴
Xerostomia: Reported in at least 64% of patients post RT, with up to half of patients experiencing persistent dry mouth at 2 years.⁸
Dysphagia: Seen in 50% to 70% of patients, with 10% to 20% requiring long-term feeding tubes.⁸
Osteoradionecrosis: Affects 5% to 15% of patients, particularly those receiving high-dose RT to mandibular regions.⁹
Treatment interruptions: Up to 25% of patients miss RT sessions due to toxicity, correlating with a 10% to 15% increased risk of recurrence.⁶

Precision Radiation Techniques
Modern RT has shifted toward precision to spare healthy tissues, reducing toxicity while maintaining tumor control. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is now the standard for HNC, sculpting radiation doses to conform to complex tumor shapes while minimizing exposure to critical structures such as salivary glands and the pharynx.¹⁰ A 2020 meta-analysis reported that IMRT reduces xerostomia incidence by 20% to 30% compared with older 3D conformal techniques, with 55% of patients experiencing grade 2 or lower xerostomia at 1 year.¹¹ Proton therapy, which uses charged particles to deposit radiation precisely at the tumor site, further minimizes damage to surrounding tissues. Data from a recent study in The Lancet revealed significant reductions in severe lymphopenia (89% vs 76%), dysphagia (49% vs 31%), xerostomia (45% vs 31%), and gastronomy tube dependence (40.2% vs 26.8%), all favoring proton therapy over IMRT.¹²

However, proton therapy’s high cost and limited availability—due to the expense of establishing new centers—restrict its use. Additionally, some payers have limited reimbursement for proton therapy, citing comparable outcomes with modern IMRT.¹³ Advances in IMRT technology have narrowed this gap, ensuring comparable QOL outcomes even when proton therapy is denied.^13-14

Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) enhances precision by using daily imaging (eg, cone-beam CT) to adjust for anatomical changes, such as tumor shrinkage or weight loss, which occur in up to 70% of patients with HNC during treatment.15 Adaptive radiotherapy builds on IGRT by modifying treatment plans in real time to account for these changes, reducing doses to healthy tissues by 5% to 10% in some cases.¹⁶ These technologies minimize collateral damage and lower toxicity rates while preserving tumor control.

Dose Optimization and Fractionation
Tailoring radiation dose and delivery schedules can significantly reduce adverse effects. Hypofractionation, delivering higher doses over fewer sessions, is being explored for select HNC cases, such as early-stage laryngeal cancers. Hypofractionation typically reduces treatment duration by 1 to 2 weeks, decreasing patient burden without increasing late toxicities.

However, careful patient selection is critical to avoid excessive acute toxicity, particularly in advanced cases. Conversely, hyperfractionation—administering smaller, more frequent doses—reduces late toxicities, such as fibrosis, while maintaining efficacy. In a landmark 2017 study, data showed that hyperfractionation decreased severe fibrosis by 12% in locally advanced HNC.^17-18

De-escalation strategies are particularly promising for human papillomavirus (HPV)– positive oropharyngeal cancers, which have more favorable prognoses. These approaches use lower radiation doses (eg, dropping down from 70 Gy to 60 Gy) for less aggressive tumors, thereby reducing toxicity without compromising cure rates. Investigators in a 2025 phase 3 trial found that de-escalated regimens reduced grade 3 dysphagia by 18% and xerostomia by 15% at 2 years, with equivalent 5-year survival rates.¹⁹ These findings highlight the potential for personalized dosing to improve QOL.

Protecting Critical Structures
Sparing critical structures during RT planning is essential for toxicity reduction, with several approaches to do so. For example, limiting radiation to the parotid glands preserves salivary function, resulting in a 25% to 35% reduction in xerostomia rates.⁸ Dysphagia-optimized IMRT prioritizes swallowing muscles, such as the pharyngeal constrictors, reducing feeding tube dependency.¹⁹

Computational tools, including autosegmentation software, enable radiation oncologists to prioritize organs at risk (OARs) during planning, balancing tumor coverage with toxicity reduction. Typically, constraining doses to the larynx and esophagus lowers dysphagia rates by 20% in nasopharyngeal cancer. Patient-specific factors, such as tumor location and stage, guide these decisions, with advanced imaging improving OAR delineation accuracy.

Supportive Care Innovations
Supportive care is critical to managing RT adverse effects. Mucositis, affecting 80% to 90% of patients with HNC, causes severe pain and increases infection risk, with 20% to 40% of cases reaching grade 3 to 4 severity.⁴ Topical agents, including benzydamine mouthwash, reduce mucositis pain by 30%, while low-level laser therapy decreases severe mucositis incidence by 15%.²⁰

Nutritional support is vital, as a large proportion of patients experience significant weight loss (> 5% of body weight) during RT. Proactive feeding tube placement in high-risk patients (eg, those with advanced tumors) reduces malnutrition-related interruptions by 25%.²¹ Speech and swallowing therapy, initiated before RT, strengthens muscles and improves long-term function as well.

Pharmacologic interventions, such as amifostine, protect salivary glands, reducing the incidence of xerostomia by 15% to 20%. However, its use is limited by adverse effects that include nausea and hypotension.²² Pain management is critical, with opioid-sparing strategies gaining traction to reduce the risk of dependency. Multimodal analgesia, combining nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentin, and local anesthetics, are critical factors in pain control. Psychological support, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, improves treatment adherence by reducing anxiety and depression, which affect a large proportion of patients with HNC.

Multidisciplinary Collaboration
Comprehensive care is essential. A multidisciplinary team—radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, head and neck surgeons, dietitians, speech therapists, and nurses—work together to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate radiation therapy while minimizing toxicities. Pre-treatment dental evaluations reduce osteoradionecrosis risk by 5% to 10% by addressing oral health issues such as cavities or extractions.⁹ Regular follow-ups during and after RT enable early intervention for toxicities, with 80% of severe cases manageable when detected early. Patient education, emphasizing oral hygiene and symptom reporting, reduces mucositis complications by 15%.

Telemedicine has emerged as a tool to enhance follow-up access, improving adherence by 10% in rural populations.²³

Emerging Technologies and Research
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing RT planning by predicting toxicity risks and optimizing dose distribution. AI-driven models analyze patient data (eg, tumor size, comorbidities) to identify those at risk for severe adverse effects, enabling personalized plans that reduce toxicity.²⁴ Immunotherapy combined with RT shows promise for enhancing tumor control while potentially allowing dose de-escalation. Investigators in a 2025 trial reported that adding pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy improved event-free survival in locally advanced HNC by 27% after 52 weeks, though long-term toxicity data are pending.²⁵

Patient-Centered Outcomes
Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly guiding RT optimization. Tools such as the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for HNC capture patients’ experiences with adverse effects, informing real-time adjustments to treatment. QOL metrics highlight the impact of toxicities such as xerostomia and dysphagia, with approximately 50% of long-term survivors experiencing moderate to severe dysphagia that significantly reduces functioning scores across physical, social, and emotional domains by 16-27 points on standardized scales.^26-28 Shared decision-making, in which patients’ priorities shape treatment plans, is particularly relevant for HPV-positive patients with cancer, who often expect long-term survivorship.

Conclusion
Optimizing radiation therapy for HNC requires a multifaceted approach: precision techniques including IMRT and proton therapy, tailored dose schedules, organ-sparing strategies, robust supportive care, and multidisciplinary collaboration and coordination. Emerging technologies including AI and immunotherapy promise further improvements in toxicity reduction and tumor control. By prioritizing patient-centered outcomes and leveraging evidence-based innovations, clinicians can minimize adverse effects, enhancing both survival and QOL for patients with HNC. Lessons from continued research and clinical trials will help to further refine these strategies, ensuring personalized, effective, and tolerable treatments.

About the Author
Amin Mirhadi, MD, is an assistant professor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, where he is the radiation oncology director for the Thoracic Oncology Disease Group, and staff physician at Cedars-Sinai Cancer Institute. Mirhadi is also a senior medical director of surgical oncology for Evolent.

References
1. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: Cancer J Physicians. Published online January 17,2024. doi:10.3322/caac.21820
2. Ringash J, Bernstein LJ, Cella D, et al. Outcomes toolbox for head and neck cancer research. Head Neck. 2015;37(3):425-439. doi:10.1002/hed.23561
3. Eraj SA, Jomaa MK, Rock CB, et al, for the MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Long-term patient reported outcomes following radiation therapy for oropharyngeal cancer: cross-sectional assessment of a prospective symptom survey in patients ≥65 years old. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:150. doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0878-9
4. Trotti A, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, et al. Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review. Radiother Oncol. 2003;66(3):253-262
5. Anderson C, Saunders D. Oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2025;35(2):271-277. doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2025.02.011
6. Maria OM, Eliopoulos N, Muanza T. Radiation-induced oral mucositis. Front Oncol. 2017;7:89. doi:10.3389/fonc.2017.00089
7. Lee YH, Goo-Yoshino S, Lew HL, et al. Social participation in head and neck cancer survivors with swallowing disorder: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 study. Head Neck. 2020;42(5):905-912 doi:10.1002/hed.26062
8. Dirix P, Nuyts S, Van den Bogaert W. Radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer: a literature review. Cancer. 2006;107(11):2525-2534. doi:10.1002/cncr.22302
9. Leeder J, Modabber A, Holzle F, Eble MJ, Mohammed AA. Predictive modelling of mandibular osteoradionecrosis in head and neck cancer. Clin Oral Investig. 2025;29(6):313. doi:10.1007/s00784-025-06385-3
10. Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ, for the PARSPORT trial management group. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Feb;12(2):127-36. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4.
11. Felice FDE, Pranno N, Papi P, Brugnoletti O, Tombolini V, Polimeni A. Xerostomia and clinical outcomes in definitive intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) vs three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. In Vivo. 2020;34(2):623-629. doi:10.21873/invivo.11816
12. Frank SJ, Busse PM, Lee JJ, et al. Proton versus photon radiotherapy for patients with oropharyngeal cancer in the USA: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2025;407(10524):174-184. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01962-2
13. Peterson DE, Koyfman SA, Yaron N, et al. Prevention and Management of Osteoradionecrosis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy: ISOO-MASCC-ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(16):1975-1996. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.02750

14. Thompson D, Price J, Tyler M, et al. Primary results for the phase 3 trial of toxicity reduction using proton beam therapy for oropharyngeal cancer (TORPEdO; CRUK/18/010). Presented at: ASTRO 2025, September 27-October 1, 2025; San Francisco, CA. Abstract LBA 2
15. Kearney M, Coffey M, Leong M. A review of image guided radiation therapy in head and neck cancer from 2009–2019 – best practice recommendations for RTTs in the clinic. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2020;14:43-50. doi:10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.02.002
16. Lee Tae Hoon (TH). Lee JH, Kwon SK, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy for early stage glottic cancer: efficacy of 3.5 Gy per fraction. Radiat Oncol J. 2022;40(2):120–126. doi:10.3857/roj.2021.01025.
17. Nutting C, Finneran L, Roe J. Dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer (DARS): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(8):868-880. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00265-6
18. Lacas B, Bourhis J, Overgaard J, Zhang Q, et al, for the MARCH Collaborative Group. Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1221-1237. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30458-8. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30211-0
19. van den Bosch S, Doornaert PAH, Hoebers FJP, et al for the Dutch Head and Neck Society. Clinical benefit and safety of reduced elective dose in definitive radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: The UPGRADE-RT Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(23):2583-2594. doi:10.1200/JCO-24-0219
20. Ferrer-Montiel A. Benzydamine hydrochloride: an overview on a well-established drug with news in mechanisms of action. F1000Res. 2025;13:350. doi:10.12688/f1000research.144067.2
21. Ajmani GS, Nocon CC, Brockstein BE, et al. Association of a proactive swallowing rehabilitation program with feeding tube placement in patients treated for pharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(6):483-488. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0278
22. Shrateh ON, Habib A, Ur Rehman Shamsi H, et al. Treatment options for radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025:S0266-4356(25)00584-4. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2025.10.003
23. Ferreira Bouza M, Martínez Guillamón MR, Méndez García T, Monfort Lázaro M, Pueyo Val O, Robles Pellitero S. Telemedicina y entornos rurales [Telemedicine and rural areas]. Aten Primaria. 2025;57(9):103256. Spanish. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2025.103256
24. Ding Y, Feng H, Bues M, et al. AI in proton therapy treatment planning: a review. ArXiv [Preprint]. 2025:arXiv:2510.19213v1
25. Imamura Y, Kanno M, Fujieda S. Comparative review of KEYNOTE-689 and NIVOPOSTOP trials and their impact on perioperative immunotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2025;140:103018. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103018
26. Rosenthal DI, Mendoza TR, Chambers MS, et al. Measuring head and neck cancer symptom burden: the development and validation of the MD Anderson symptom inventory, head and neck module. Head Neck. 2007;29(10):923-931. doi:10.1002/hed.20602
27. Ramaekers BLT, Joore MA, Grutters JPC, et al. The impact of late treatment-toxicity on generic health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy. Oral Oncol. 2011;47(8):768-774. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.05.012
28. Gulati S, Patel N, Kidane J. Prevalence of Long-term dysphagia in head and neck cancer survivors not receiving dysphagia treatment. Laryngoscope. Published online September 3, 2025. doi:10.1002/lary.70085