skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation Versus Cetuximab and Radiation for Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To compare concurrent cisplatin (CDDP) and radiation (RT) with cetuximab (C225) and RT for locally advanced head-and-neck cancer (LAHNC). Methods and Materials: This study retrospectively compared 174 consecutive, newly diagnosed LAHNC patients definitively treated from March 1, 2006, to April 1, 2008, with single-agent CDDP/RT (n = 125) or C225/RT (n = 49). We excluded patients who received additional concurrent, induction, or adjuvant systemic therapy; weekly cisplatin; prior head-and-neck radiotherapy; or primary surgical resection. Outcomes were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox model, and competing-risks analysis tools. Results: The C225/RT patients were older and had decreased creatinine clearance. At a median follow-up of 22.5 months for living patients, the 2-year locoregional failure rate was 5.7% for CDDP/RT and 39.9% for C225/RT (p < 0.0001). The 2-year failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 87.4% vs. 44.5% (p < 0.0001) and 92.8% vs. 66.6% (p = 0.0003), respectively, in favor of CDDP/RT. When the Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis, treatment with CDDP/RT predicted for improved locoregional control (p < 0.0001), FFS (p < 0.0001), and OS (p = 0.01). Late Grade 3 or 4 toxicity or feeding tube dependence 9 months after completion ofmore » RT was observed in 21% of patients in the CDDP/RT cohort and 24% in the C225/RT cohort (p = 0.66). Conclusions: In this study of LAHNC patients, CDDP/RT achieved better locoregional control, FFS, and OS than C225/RT. Although the results were upheld on multivariate analysis, they must be interpreted cautiously because of the retrospective nature of the study and significant differences in patient selection. There was no statistically significant difference in late Grade 3 or 4 effects or feeding tube dependence.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ;  [2];  [1]; ;  [3]; ; ;  [1]; ; ;  [4];  [1];  [2];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (United States)
  2. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (United States)
  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (United States)
  4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22054356
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 81; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CREATININE; HAZARDS; HEAD; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PLATINUM COMPLEXES; RADIOTHERAPY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGERY; TOXICITY

Citation Formats

Koutcher, Lawrence, E-mail: Koutchel@mskcc.org, Sherman, Eric, Fury, Matthew, Wolden, Suzanne, Zhang Zhigang, Mo Qianxing, Stewart, Laschelle, Schupak, Karen, Gelblum, Daphna, Wong, Richard, Kraus, Dennis, Shah, Jatin, Zelefsky, Michael, Pfister, David, and Lee, Nancy. Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation Versus Cetuximab and Radiation for Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2010.07.008.
Koutcher, Lawrence, E-mail: Koutchel@mskcc.org, Sherman, Eric, Fury, Matthew, Wolden, Suzanne, Zhang Zhigang, Mo Qianxing, Stewart, Laschelle, Schupak, Karen, Gelblum, Daphna, Wong, Richard, Kraus, Dennis, Shah, Jatin, Zelefsky, Michael, Pfister, David, & Lee, Nancy. Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation Versus Cetuximab and Radiation for Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2010.07.008.
Koutcher, Lawrence, E-mail: Koutchel@mskcc.org, Sherman, Eric, Fury, Matthew, Wolden, Suzanne, Zhang Zhigang, Mo Qianxing, Stewart, Laschelle, Schupak, Karen, Gelblum, Daphna, Wong, Richard, Kraus, Dennis, Shah, Jatin, Zelefsky, Michael, Pfister, David, and Lee, Nancy. 2011. "Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation Versus Cetuximab and Radiation for Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2010.07.008.
@article{osti_22054356,
title = {Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation Versus Cetuximab and Radiation for Locally Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer},
author = {Koutcher, Lawrence, E-mail: Koutchel@mskcc.org and Sherman, Eric and Fury, Matthew and Wolden, Suzanne and Zhang Zhigang and Mo Qianxing and Stewart, Laschelle and Schupak, Karen and Gelblum, Daphna and Wong, Richard and Kraus, Dennis and Shah, Jatin and Zelefsky, Michael and Pfister, David and Lee, Nancy},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare concurrent cisplatin (CDDP) and radiation (RT) with cetuximab (C225) and RT for locally advanced head-and-neck cancer (LAHNC). Methods and Materials: This study retrospectively compared 174 consecutive, newly diagnosed LAHNC patients definitively treated from March 1, 2006, to April 1, 2008, with single-agent CDDP/RT (n = 125) or C225/RT (n = 49). We excluded patients who received additional concurrent, induction, or adjuvant systemic therapy; weekly cisplatin; prior head-and-neck radiotherapy; or primary surgical resection. Outcomes were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox model, and competing-risks analysis tools. Results: The C225/RT patients were older and had decreased creatinine clearance. At a median follow-up of 22.5 months for living patients, the 2-year locoregional failure rate was 5.7% for CDDP/RT and 39.9% for C225/RT (p < 0.0001). The 2-year failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 87.4% vs. 44.5% (p < 0.0001) and 92.8% vs. 66.6% (p = 0.0003), respectively, in favor of CDDP/RT. When the Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis, treatment with CDDP/RT predicted for improved locoregional control (p < 0.0001), FFS (p < 0.0001), and OS (p = 0.01). Late Grade 3 or 4 toxicity or feeding tube dependence 9 months after completion of RT was observed in 21% of patients in the CDDP/RT cohort and 24% in the C225/RT cohort (p = 0.66). Conclusions: In this study of LAHNC patients, CDDP/RT achieved better locoregional control, FFS, and OS than C225/RT. Although the results were upheld on multivariate analysis, they must be interpreted cautiously because of the retrospective nature of the study and significant differences in patient selection. There was no statistically significant difference in late Grade 3 or 4 effects or feeding tube dependence.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2010.07.008},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 4,
volume = 81,
place = {United States},
year = 2011,
month =
}
  • Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) combined with cisplatin or cetuximab is the standard of care for patients with locally advanced head/neck cancer (LA-HNC). The feasibility of radiochemotherapy with cisplatin and cetuximab, supported with amifostine, was herein investigated. Methods and Materials: Forty-three patients with LA-HNC were recruited. Conformal hypofractionated/accelerated RT with amifostine cytoprotection (2.7 Gy/fraction, 21 fractions in 4 weeks) was combined with cisplatin (30 mg/m{sup 2}/week) and cetuximab (standard weekly regimen) therapy. The dose of amifostine was individualized according to tolerance. Results: A high daily amifostine dose (750-1,000 mg) was tolerated by 41.8% of patients, and a standard dose (500 mg) wasmore » tolerated by 34.9% of patients. A high amifostine dose was linked to reduced RT delays (p = 0.0003). Grade 3 to 4 (3-4) mucositis occurred in 7/43 (16.2%) patients, and fungal infections occurred in 18/43 (41.8%) patients. Radiation dermatitis was not aggravated. Interruption of cetuximab due to acneiform rash was necessary in 23.3% of patients, while amifostine-related fever and rash were not observed. Severe late radiation sequelae consisted of laryngeal edema (9% laryngeal cases) and cervical strictures (33% of hypopharyngeal cases). Good salivary function was preserved in 6/11 (54.5%) nasopharyngeal cancer patients. The complete response rate was 68.5%, reaching 77.2% in patients with minor radiotherapy delays. The 24-month local control and survival rates were 72.3% and 91%, respectively (median follow-up was 13 months.). Conclusions: In this feasibility study, weekly administration of cisplatin and cetuximab was safely combined with accelerated RT, supported with amifostine, at the cost of a high incidence of acneiform rash but a reduced incidence of amifostine-related fever/rash. A high daily dose of amifostine allows completion of therapy with minor delays.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of moderately accelerated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) along with weekly cisplatin, after induction chemotherapy, in patients with locally advanced unresectable head and neck cancer (HNC). Methods and Materials: Patients with Stage III or IV locally advanced HNC, without progressive disease after three courses of induction chemotherapy, received concurrent chemo-IMRT (weekly cisplatin 30 mg/m{sup 2} plus simultaneous integrated boost IMRT). A total of 67.5 Gy in 30 fractions were delivered to primary tumor and involved nodes, 60 Gy in 30 fractions to high-risk nodal areas, and 55.5 Gy in 30 fractions to low-risk nodalmore » areas. Results: In all, 36 patients (median age, 56 years) with International Union Against Cancer (UICC) Stage III (n = 5) and IV (n = 31) were included. Of the 36 patients, 17 had received CF (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF) and 19 had received docetaxel cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF). During concurrent chemoradiation, 11 of 36 patients (30.5%) experienced Grade III mucositis (CF, 47%; DCF, 15%; p < 0.04). Grade III pharyngeal-esophageal toxicity was observed in 5 of 19 patients (26.3%; CF, 0.0%; DCF, 26.3%; p = 0.02). Two patients died of complications (5.5%). After chemoradiation, the complete response rate was 63.8%. Two-year local control was 88.7%. Two-year progression free survival and overall survival were 74.5% and 60.9%, respectively. Conclusions: In our experience, a moderately accelerated chemo-IMRT was feasible after induction chemotherapy. However, a noteworthy early death rate of 5.5% was observed. Intensive supportive care strategies should be defined to better manage radiation-induced toxic effects. Longer follow-up is required to determine the incidence of late radiation toxicities and tumor control rates.« less
  • Purpose: To report the mature data of a prospective Phase II trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab (CTX) added to the concurrent therapy of weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC) and daily radiation therapy (RT). Methods and Materials: From 2005 to 2009, a total of 43 patients were enrolled in the study. The median follow-up was 31 months (range, 9-59 months). All patients had Stage III/IV disease at presentation, and 67% had oropharyngeal primaries. The weekly IV dose schedules were CTX 250 mg/m{sup 2} (400 mg/m{sup 2} IV loading dose 1 week before RT), paclitaxelmore » 40 mg/m{sup 2}, and carboplatin AUC 2. RT was given at 1.8 Gy per day to 70.2 Gy. Intensity-modulated RTwas used in 70% of cases. Results: All patients completed the planned RT dose, 74% without any treatment breaks. The planned CTX and PC cycles were completed in 70% (91% with at least seven of planned nine cycles) and 56% (93% with at least seven of planned eight cycles) of patients, respectively. Toxicity included Grade 3 mucositis (79%), rash (9%), leucopenia (19%), neutropenia (19%), and RT dermatitis (16%). The complete response (CR) rate at the completion of therapy was 84%. The estimated 3-year local regional control rate was 72%. Six patients with an initial CR subsequently experienced a local recurrence, 10 patients experienced distant progression. The median overall survival and disease-free survivals have not been reached. The 3-year actuarial overall survival and disease-free survival were 59% and 58%, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of CTX to weekly PC and daily RT was well tolerated and resulted in encouraging local control and survival rates.« less
  • Background: Recursive partitioning analysis has shown that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) ≥2, male sex, and age ≥70 years are prognostic of poor outcome in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) patients. Concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) improves survival, but toxicity is a concern in this frail patient cohort. We therefore opened this trial of concurrent definitive thoracic radiation therapy (XRT) and cetuximab, followed by consolidation docetaxel plus cetuximab. Methods and Materials: Eligible patients had pathologically proven, unresectable LA-NSCLC (stage IIA-“dry” IIIB). They had ECOG PS 2 or weight loss ≥5% in 3 months or were aged ≥70 years. Themore » primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). Results: From May 2008 to November 2010, a total of 32 patients were evaluated in our single-institution, institutional review board–approved prospective clinical trial. Three patients were screen failures and 2 more withdrew consent before treatment, leaving 27 evaluable patients. One was removed because of poor therapy compliance, and 2 were taken off trial because of grade 3 cetuximab-related toxicities but were followed up under intent-to-treat analysis. The median follow-up and OS were 10.5 months. The median PFS was 7.5 months. The ORR was 59.3%. Eight early/sudden deaths were reported. Upon review, 6 patients developed severe pulmonary complications. Conclusions: Patients enrolled in this trial had improved OS compared with poor-PS historical controls (10.5 vs 6.4 months) and comparable OS to good-PS historical controls (10.5 vs 11.9 months) treated with XRT alone. However, pulmonary toxicity is a concern. Consolidative cetuximab/docetaxel, in conjunction with high-dose radiation therapy, is a putative cause.« less
  • Purpose: In a Phase I/II trial, we investigated concurrent weekly docetaxel and concomitant boost radiation in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) after induction chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Patients presented with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage III/IV and were treated initially with induction chemotherapy using cisplatinum/5-fluorouracil (PF), carboplatinum-5-FU, or docetaxel-PF. Patients then received docetaxel four times weekly with concomitant boost (CB) radiation (1.8 Gy once-daily X20, 1.8/1.5 Gy twice a day). Fifteen patients each received 20 mg/M{sup 2} and 25 mg/M{sup 2}. Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled and 30 were evaluable formore » response and toxicity. Median follow-up was 42 months (range, 27-63 months). Primary sites were: oropharynx 19, oral cavity 2, larynx/hypopharynx 5, and unknown primary 4. Eighty-seven percent of patients had N2/N3 disease; 60% had T3/T4 disease. Twenty percent of patients had a complete response (CR) to induction chemotherapy. After chemoradiotherapy, 21 of 30 patients had a CR, 2 had progressive disease, and 7 had partial response (PR). Nineteen of 26 patients presenting with neck disease had neck dissections, and 7 of 19 were positive. Ninety-three percent of all patients were rendered disease-free after all planned therapy. Treatment failed in 8 patients, and 7 have died of disease. An additional patient died with no evidence of disease. Twenty-one patients (70%) are currently alive with no evidence of disease. No acute dose-limiting toxicity was observed at either dose level. Conclusions: This intensive treatment regimen of concurrent docetaxel/concomitant boost radiation and surgery after induction chemotherapy in poor prognosis patients yields good local regional control and survival. Docetaxel/CB chemoradiotherapy represents an aggressive alternative regimen to platinum-based chemoradiotherapy or surgery in patients who have a poor response to induction chemotherapy.« less