| Literature DB >> 26976150 |
Chan-Young Ock1, Bhumsuk Keam1,2, Tae Min Kim1,2, Doo Hee Han3, Tae-Bin Won3, Se-Hoon Lee1,2, J Hun Hah3, Tack-Kyun Kwon3, Dong-Wan Kim1,2, Dong-Young Kim3, Chae-Seo Rhee3, Hong-Gyun Wu4, Myung-Whun Sung3, Dae Seog Heo1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The role of induction chemotherapy (IC) for eyeball preservation has not been established in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) of the paranasal sinus and nasal cavity (PNSNC). Periorbital involvement frequently leads to eyeball exenteration with a margin of safety. We evaluated the treatment outcomes, including survival and eyeball preservation, of patients who received IC for HNSCC of the PNSNC.Entities:
Keywords: Head and neck neoplasms; Induction chemotherapy; Nasal cavity; Orbit evisceration; Paranasal sinuses
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26976150 PMCID: PMC4855097 DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2015.020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Intern Med ISSN: 1226-3303 Impact factor: 2.884
Patient characteristics
| Characteristic | All (n = 21) | Induction PR (n = 13) | Induction SD/PD (n = 8) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 57 (24–75) | 56 (24–73) | 61 (50–75) | 0.282 |
| Male sex | 15 (71.4) | 8 (61.5) | 7 (87.5) | 0.201 |
| ECOG PS | ||||
| 0 | 7 (33.3) | 3 (23.1) | 4 (50.0) | |
| 1 | 12 (57.1) | 8 (61.5) | 4 (50.0) | |
| 2 | 2 (9.5) | 2 (15.4) | 0 | 0.298 |
| T-stage | ||||
| 1 | 1 (4.7) | 1 (7.7) | 0 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 3 (14.3) | 3 (23.1) | 0 | |
| 4a | 10 (47.6) | 4 (30.8) | 6 (75.0) | |
| 4b | 7 (33.3) | 5 (38.5) | 2 (25.0) | 0.190 |
| N-stage | ||||
| 0 | 14 (66.7) | 9 (69.2) | 5 (62.5) | |
| 1 | 3 (14.3) | 2 (15.4) | 1 (12.5) | |
| 2 | 4 (19.1) | 2 (15.4) | 2 (25.0) | 0.859 |
| Stage | ||||
| III | 3 (14.3) | 3 (23.1) | 0 | |
| IV | 18 (85.7) | 10 (76.9) | 8 (100.0) | 0.142 |
| Tumor location | ||||
| Paranasal sinus | 14 (66.7) | 9 (69.2) | 5 (62.5) | |
| Nasal cavity | 7 (33.3) | 4 (30.8) | 3 (37.5) | 0.751 |
| Induction chemotherapy regimen | ||||
| DFP | 11 (52.4) | 7 (53.9) | 4 (50.0) | |
| FP | 8 (38.1) | 5 (38.5) | 3 (37.5) | |
| DP | 2 (9.5) | 1 (7.7) | 1 (12.5) | 0.935 |
| Induction chemotherapy response | ||||
| CR | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| PR | 13 (61.9) | 13 (100.0) | 0 | |
| SD | 6 (28.6) | 0 | 6 (75.0) | |
| PD | 2 (9.5) | 0 | 2 (25.0) | < 0.001[ |
| T down-staging | ||||
| Yes | 15 (71.4) | 13 (100.0) | 2 (25.0) | |
| No | 6 (28.6) | 0 | 6 (75.0) | <0.001[ |
| Definitive treatment | ||||
| CCRT | 11 (52.4) | 7 (53.9) | 4 (50.0) | |
| Radiotherapy | 3 (14.3) | 1 (7.7) | 2 (25.0) | |
| Operation[ | 6 (28.5) | 4 (30.8) | 2 (25.0) | |
| No treatment | 1 (4.8) | 1 (7.7) | 0 | 0.631 |
| Salvage operation[ | ||||
| Yes | 10 (47.6) | 5 (38.5) | 5 (62.5) | |
| No | 11 (52.4) | 8 (61.5) | 3 (37.5) | 0.284 |
| Eyeball preservation | ||||
| Yes | 18 (85.7) | 13 (100.0) | 5 (62.5) | |
| No | 3 (14.3) | 0 | 3 (37.5) | 0.017[ |
Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).
PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; DFP, docetaxel plus fluorouracil plus cisplatin; FP, fluorouracil plus cisplatin; DP, docetaxel plus cisplatin; CR, complete response; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Values indicate statistically significant correlations with p values less than 0.05.
Patients assigned to surgical removal of tumor immediately after induction chemotherapy.
Patients assigned to surgery immediately after induction chemotherapy or who needed salvage operation after definitive treatment with CCRT or radiotherapy.
Toxicity profile of induction chemotherapy
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nausea and vomiting | 2 (9.5) | 5 (23.8) | 3 (14.3) | 0 |
| Diarrhea | 0 | 3 (14.3) | 0 | 0 |
| Neuropathy | 3 (14.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Neutropenia | 0 | 2 (9.5) | 2 (9.5) | 0 |
| Anemia | 0 | 4 (19.0) | 0 | 0 |
| Thromcytopenia | 1 (4.8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Others | 3 (14.3) | 1 (4.8) | 0 | 0 |
Values are presented as number (%). Grade of toxicity was referred from Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3.0.
Figure 1.Flow diagram of patients included in the study. Of 17 patients with stage T4 disease, only three patients lost an eyeball during the follow-up period. CCRT, concurrent chemo radiotherapy; op, operation; ObE, orbital exenteration; RT, radiotherapy.
Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier curves of patients according to response to induction chemotherapy (A) and T down-staging after induction chemotherapy (B). Numbers in the graph indicate the probability of survival at 3 years and at 5 years. HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ICT, induction chemotherapy; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; T down, T down-staging.