Voichita Bar-Ad1, Qiang Ed Zhang2, Paul M Harari3, Rita Axelrod4, David I Rosenthal5, Andy Trotti6, Christopher U Jones7, Adam S Garden5, Guobin Song8, Robert L Foote9, David Raben10, George Shenouda11, Sharon A Spencer12, Jonathan Harris2, Quynh-Thu Le13. 1. Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: voichita.bar-ad@jefferson.edu. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 6. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 7. Radiological Associates of Sacramento, Sacramento, California. 8. Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 9. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Denver, Colorado. 11. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 12. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 13. Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the severity of cetuximab-induced skin rash and its correlation with clinical outcome and late skin toxicity in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated withchemoradiation therapy and cetuximab. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Analysis included patients who received loading dose and ≥1 cetuximab dose concurrent with definitive chemoradiation therapy (70 Gy + cisplatin) or postoperative chemoradiation therapy (60-66 Gy + docetaxel or cisplatin). RESULTS:Six hundred two patients were analyzed; 383 (63.6%) developed grade 2 to 4 cetuximab rash. Patients manifesting grade 2 to 4 rash had younger age (P<.001), fewer pack-years smoking history (P<.001), were more likely to be males (P=.04), and had p16-negative (P=.04) oropharyngeal tumors (P=.003). In univariate analysis, grade 2 to 4 rash was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, P<.001) and progression-free survival (HR 0.75, P=.02), and reduced distant metastasis rate (HR 0.61, P=.03), but not local-regional failure (HR 0.79, P=.16) relative to grade 0 to 1 rash. In multivariable analysis, HRs for overall survival, progression-free survival, distant metastasis, and local-regional failure were, respectively, 0.68 (P=.008), 0.85 (P=.21), 0.64 (P=.06), and 0.89 (P=.48). Grade ≥2 rash was associated with improved survival in p16-negative patients (HR 0.28 [95% confidence interval 0.11-0.74]) but not in p16-positive patients (HR 1.10 [0.42-2.89]) (P=.05 for interaction). Twenty-five percent of patients with grade 2 to 4 acute in-field radiation dermatitis experienced grade 2 to 4 late skin fibrosis, versus 14% of patients with grade 0 to 1 acute in-field radiation dermatitis (P=.002). CONCLUSION: Grade 2 to 4 cetuximab rash was associated with better survival, possibly due to reduction of distant metastasis. This observation was noted mainly in p16-negative patients. Grade 2 to 4 acute in-field radiation dermatitis was associated with higher rate of late grade 2 to 4 skin fibrosis.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the severity of cetuximab-induced skin rash and its correlation with clinical outcome and late skin toxicity in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiation therapy and cetuximab. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Analysis included patients who received loading dose and ≥1 cetuximab dose concurrent with definitive chemoradiation therapy (70 Gy + cisplatin) or postoperative chemoradiation therapy (60-66 Gy + docetaxel or cisplatin). RESULTS: Six hundred two patients were analyzed; 383 (63.6%) developed grade 2 to 4 cetuximabrash. Patients manifesting grade 2 to 4 rash had younger age (P<.001), fewer pack-years smoking history (P<.001), were more likely to be males (P=.04), and had p16-negative (P=.04) oropharyngeal tumors (P=.003). In univariate analysis, grade 2 to 4 rash was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, P<.001) and progression-free survival (HR 0.75, P=.02), and reduced distant metastasis rate (HR 0.61, P=.03), but not local-regional failure (HR 0.79, P=.16) relative to grade 0 to 1 rash. In multivariable analysis, HRs for overall survival, progression-free survival, distant metastasis, and local-regional failure were, respectively, 0.68 (P=.008), 0.85 (P=.21), 0.64 (P=.06), and 0.89 (P=.48). Grade ≥2 rash was associated with improved survival in p16-negative patients (HR 0.28 [95% confidence interval 0.11-0.74]) but not in p16-positive patients (HR 1.10 [0.42-2.89]) (P=.05 for interaction). Twenty-five percent of patients with grade 2 to 4 acute in-field radiation dermatitis experienced grade 2 to 4 late skin fibrosis, versus 14% of patients with grade 0 to 1 acute in-field radiation dermatitis (P=.002). CONCLUSION: Grade 2 to 4 cetuximabrash was associated with better survival, possibly due to reduction of distant metastasis. This observation was noted mainly in p16-negative patients. Grade 2 to 4 acute in-field radiation dermatitis was associated with higher rate of late grade 2 to 4 skin fibrosis.
Authors: Francisco Robert; George Blumenschein; Roy S Herbst; Frank V Fossella; Jennifer Tseng; Mansoor N Saleh; Michael Needle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hendrik Andreas Wolff; Ismene Raus; Klaus Jung; Phillip Schüler; Markus Karl Herrmann; Steffen Hennies; Hilke Vorwerk; Andrea Hille; Clemens Friedrich Hess; Hans Christiansen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hendrik A Wolff; Benjamin Daldrup; Klaus Jung; Tobias Overbeck; Steffen Hennies; Christoph Matthias; Clemens F Hess; Ralph M W Roedel; Hans Christiansen Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Rosell; G Robinet; A Szczesna; R Ramlau; M Constenla; B C Mennecier; W Pfeifer; K J O'Byrne; T Welte; R Kolb; R Pirker; A Chemaissani; M Perol; M R Ranson; P A Ellis; K Pilz; M Reck Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: F Di Fiore; F Blanchard; F Charbonnier; F Le Pessot; A Lamy; M P Galais; L Bastit; A Killian; R Sesboüé; J J Tuech; A M Queuniet; B Paillot; J C Sabourin; F Michot; P Michel; T Frebourg Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: I Pajares Bernad; J Martínez Trufero; L Calera Urquizu; R A Pazo Cid; A Cebollero de Miguel; M J Agustin; M Lanzuela; A Antón Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 3.340
Authors: Thomas A Burley; Chiara Da Pieve; Carlos D Martins; Daniela M Ciobota; Louis Allott; Wim J G Oyen; Kevin J Harrington; Graham Smith; Gabriela Kramer-Marek Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sema Sezgin Göksu; Ali Murat Tatlı; Çağlayan Geredeli; Mustafa Atcı; Ali Ayberk Besen; Hüseyin Mertsoylu; Mükremin Uysal; Mustafa Özdoğan; Sabin Göktaş Aydın; Ahmet Bilici; Mustafa Karaağaç; Mehmet Artaç; Muhammet Ali Kaplan; Senar Ebinç; Hasan Şenol Coşkun Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.333