PURPOSE: Locoregional recurrence remains the main pattern of failure after primary combined modality treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We compared the efficacy and toxicity of either cisplatin or cetuximab in combination with re-irradiation (ReRT) for recurrent unresectable SCCHN. Various clinicopathological factors were investigated to establish a prognostic score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2014, 66 patients with recurrent SCCHN originating in a previously irradiated area received cetuximab (n = 33) or cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 33) concomitant with ReRT. Toxicity was evaluated weekly and at every follow-up visit. Physical examination, endoscopy, CT or MRI scans were used to evaluate response and disease control. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 18.3 months, the 1-year overall survival (OS) rates for Re-RT with cetuximab and cisplatin-based chemotherapy were 44.4 and 45.5% (p = 0.352), respectively. At 1 year, local control rates (LCR) were 46.4 and 54.2% (p = 0.625), freedom from metastases (FFM) rates 73.6 and 81% (p = 0.842), respectively. Haematological toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred more often in the cisplatin group (p < 0.001), pain ≥ grade 3 was increased in the cetuximab group (p = 0.034). A physiological haemoglobin level and a longer interval between primary RT and ReRT, proved to be significant prognostic factors for OS (multivariate: p = 0.003, p = 0.002, respectively). Site of the recurrence and gross target volume (GTV) did not show a significant impact on OS in multivariate analysis (p = 0.160, p = 0.167, respectively). A prognostic-score (1-4 points) based on these four variables identified significantly different subgroups: 1-year OS for 0/1/2/3/4 prognostic points: 10, 38, 76, 80 and 100%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both cetuximab- and cisplatin-based ReRT of SCCHN recurrences are feasible and effective treatment options with comparable results in terms of tumour control and survival. Acute adverse events may differ slightly. Our prognostic score could help to identify appropriate patients for ReRT and stratify patients within future clinical trials.
PURPOSE: Locoregional recurrence remains the main pattern of failure after primary combined modality treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We compared the efficacy and toxicity of either cisplatin or cetuximab in combination with re-irradiation (ReRT) for recurrent unresectable SCCHN. Various clinicopathological factors were investigated to establish a prognostic score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2014, 66 patients with recurrent SCCHN originating in a previously irradiated area received cetuximab (n = 33) or cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 33) concomitant with ReRT. Toxicity was evaluated weekly and at every follow-up visit. Physical examination, endoscopy, CT or MRI scans were used to evaluate response and disease control. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 18.3 months, the 1-year overall survival (OS) rates for Re-RT with cetuximab and cisplatin-based chemotherapy were 44.4 and 45.5% (p = 0.352), respectively. At 1 year, local control rates (LCR) were 46.4 and 54.2% (p = 0.625), freedom from metastases (FFM) rates 73.6 and 81% (p = 0.842), respectively. Haematological toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred more often in the cisplatin group (p < 0.001), pain ≥ grade 3 was increased in the cetuximab group (p = 0.034). A physiological haemoglobin level and a longer interval between primary RT and ReRT, proved to be significant prognostic factors for OS (multivariate: p = 0.003, p = 0.002, respectively). Site of the recurrence and gross target volume (GTV) did not show a significant impact on OS in multivariate analysis (p = 0.160, p = 0.167, respectively). A prognostic-score (1-4 points) based on these four variables identified significantly different subgroups: 1-year OS for 0/1/2/3/4 prognostic points: 10, 38, 76, 80 and 100%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both cetuximab- and cisplatin-based ReRT of SCCHN recurrences are feasible and effective treatment options with comparable results in terms of tumour control and survival. Acute adverse events may differ slightly. Our prognostic score could help to identify appropriate patients for ReRT and stratify patients within future clinical trials.
Authors: Kevin S Choe; Daniel J Haraf; Abhishek Solanki; Ezra E W Cohen; Tanguy Y Seiwert; Kerstin M Stenson; Elizabeth A Blair; Louis Portugal; Victoria M Villaflor; Mary Ellyn Witt; Everett E Vokes; Joseph K Salama Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J S Cooper; T F Pajak; P Rubin; L Tupchong; L W Brady; S A Leibel; G E Laramore; V A Marcial; L W Davis; J D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Karen Lin; Snehal G Patel; Pen Yuan Chu; Jeannette M S Matsuo; Bhuvanesh Singh; Richard J Wong; Dennis H Kraus; Ashok R Shaha; Jatin P Shah; Jay O Boyle Journal: Head Neck Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Carsten Nieder; Anca L Grosu; Nicolaus H Andratschke; Michael Molls Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eric F Lartigau; Emmanuelle Tresch; Juliette Thariat; Pierre Graff; Bernard Coche-Dequeant; Karen Benezery; Luis Schiappacasse; Marian Degardin; Pierre-Yves Bondiau; Didier Peiffert; Jean-Louis Lefebvre; Thomas Lacornerie; Andrew Kramar Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: R De Crevoisier; J Bourhis; C Domenge; P Wibault; S Koscielny; A Lusinchi; G Mamelle; F Janot; M Julieron; A M Leridant; P Marandas; J P Armand; G Schwaab; B Luboinski; F Eschwege Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Bella Pajares; Jose M Trigo; Maria D Toledo; Martina Álvarez; Carlos González-Hermoso; Antonio Rueda; Jose A Medina; Vanessa de Luque; Jose M Jerez; Emilio Alba Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Thomas Kuhnt; Andreas Schreiber; Anett Pirnasch; Matthias G Hautmann; Peter Hass; Frank P Sieker; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Michael Richter; Kathrin Dellas; Jürgen Dunst Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: J Boustani; A Ruffier; A Moya-Plana; Y Tao; F Nguyen; C Even; C Berthold; O Casiraghi; S Temam; P Blanchard Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Alev Altay-Langguth; Panagiotis Balermpas; Christian Brandts; Sven Balster; Shahram Ghanaati; Ria Winkelmann; Iris Burck; Franz Rödel; Daniel Martin; Claus Rödel; Jens von der Grün Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Alexander Rühle; Tanja Sprave; Tobias Kalckreuth; Raluca Stoian; Erik Haehl; Constantinos Zamboglou; Roland Laszig; Andreas Knopf; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Markus Hecht; Dennis Hahn; Philipp Wolber; Matthias G Hautmann; Dietmar Reichert; Steffi Weniger; Claus Belka; Tobias Bergmann; Thomas Göhler; Manfred Welslau; Christina Große-Thie; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Jens von der Grün; Panagiotis Balermpas; Katrin Orlowski; Diethelm Messinger; Karsten G Stenzel; Rainer Fietkau Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.430