AIM: The goal of the present work was to compare outcomes of definitive concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2012, 265 patients with locally advanced HNSCC were treated at our institution with CRT (n = 194; 73%) with three cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks) or BRT (n = 71; 27%) with weekly cetuximab. Patients receiving BRT had more pre-existing conditions (Charlson index ≥ 2) than the CRT group (p = 0.005). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months. In all, 56% of patients treated with CRT received the planned three cycles (92% at least two cycles) and 79% patients treated with BRT received six cycles or more. The 2-year actuarial overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 72% and 61%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis (MVA), T4 stage, N2-3 stage, smoking status (current smoker as compared with never smoker), and non-oropharyngeal locations predicted for OS, whereas BRT association with OS was of borderline significance (p = 0.054). The 2-year actuarial locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) rates were 73 and 79%, respectively. CRT was independently associated with an improved LRC (2-year LRC: 76% for CRT vs. 61% for BRT) and DC (2-year LRC: 81% for CRT vs. 68% for BRT) in comparison with BRT (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01 in the MVA). Subgroup analyses showed that T4 patients benefited significantly from CRT (vs. BRT) in LRC, while T1-3 did not. BRT patients had more G3-4 skin complications (p < 0.001) and CRT patients had higher rates of feeding tube placement (p = 0.006) and G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicities (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis showed a better LRC in locally advanced HNSCC treated by cisplatin-based CRT than cetuximab-based BRT, and a nonsignificant trend towards an improved OS.
AIM: The goal of the present work was to compare outcomes of definitive concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2012, 265 patients with locally advanced HNSCC were treated at our institution with CRT (n = 194; 73%) with three cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks) or BRT (n = 71; 27%) with weekly cetuximab. Patients receiving BRT had more pre-existing conditions (Charlson index ≥ 2) than the CRT group (p = 0.005). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months. In all, 56% of patients treated with CRT received the planned three cycles (92% at least two cycles) and 79% patients treated with BRT received six cycles or more. The 2-year actuarial overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 72% and 61%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis (MVA), T4 stage, N2-3 stage, smoking status (current smoker as compared with never smoker), and non-oropharyngeal locations predicted for OS, whereas BRT association with OS was of borderline significance (p = 0.054). The 2-year actuarial locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) rates were 73 and 79%, respectively. CRT was independently associated with an improved LRC (2-year LRC: 76% for CRT vs. 61% for BRT) and DC (2-year LRC: 81% for CRT vs. 68% for BRT) in comparison with BRT (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01 in the MVA). Subgroup analyses showed that T4 patients benefited significantly from CRT (vs. BRT) in LRC, while T1-3 did not. BRT patients had more G3-4 skin complications (p < 0.001) and CRT patients had higher rates of feeding tube placement (p = 0.006) and G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicities (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis showed a better LRC in locally advanced HNSCC treated by cisplatin-based CRT than cetuximab-based BRT, and a nonsignificant trend towards an improved OS.
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; Shao Hui Huang; Lillian L Siu; John Waldron; Helen Zhao; Bayardo Perez-Ordonez; Ilan Weinreb; John Kim; Jolie Ringash; Andrew Bayley; Laura A Dawson; Andrew Hope; John Cho; Jonathan Irish; Ralph Gilbert; Patrick Gullane; Angela Hui; Fei-Fei Liu; Eric Chen; Wei Xu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lorraine Walsh; Charles Gillham; Mary Dunne; Ian Fraser; Donal Hollywood; John Armstrong; Pierre Thirion Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Arlene A Forastiere; Qiang Zhang; Randal S Weber; Moshe H Maor; Helmuth Goepfert; Thomas F Pajak; William Morrison; Bonnie Glisson; Andy Trotti; John A Ridge; Wade Thorstad; Henry Wagner; John F Ensley; Jay S Cooper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shilpa Bhatia; Jaspreet Sharma; Sanjana Bukkapatnam; Ayman Oweida; Shelby Lennon; Andy Phan; Dallin Milner; Nomin Uyanga; Antonio Jimeno; David Raben; Hilary Somerset; Lynn Heasley; Sana D Karam Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: William A Stokes; Whitney A Sumner; Kiersten L Breggren; John T Rathbun; David Raben; Jessica D McDermott; Gregory Gan; Sana D Karam Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2017-08-02
Authors: J Doescher; S Jeske; S E Weissinger; C Brunner; S Laban; E Bölke; T K Hoffmann; T L Whiteside; P J Schuler Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Eva-Leonne Göttgens; Christian Ostheimer; Paul N Span; Jan Bussink; Ester M Hammond Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Dan Ou; Julien Adam; Ingrid Garberis; Pierre Blanchard; France Nguyen; Antonin Levy; Odile Casiraghi; Philippe Gorphe; Ingrid Breuskin; François Janot; Stephane Temam; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Eric Deutsch; Yungan Tao Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Arya Amini; Megan Eguchi; Bernard L Jones; William A Stokes; Abhinav Gupta; Jessica D McDermott; Erminia Massarelli; Cathy J Bradley; Sana D Karam Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 6.860