William A Stokes1, Whitney A Sumner1, Kiersten L Breggren2, John T Rathbun2, David Raben1, Jessica D McDermott3, Gregory Gan2, Sana D Karam1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Radiation Oncology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To present our experience comparing cisplatin- and cetuximab-based radiotherapy for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) continues to be explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes of LAHNSCC patients treated with CRT (125) or BRT (34) at two institutions were compared retrospectively, with attention to overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant control (DC). Univariate analysis (UVA) using Cox regression was performed to explore the association of intervention with survival and disease control, and multivariate (MVA) Cox regression was then performed to assess the association of intervention with survival. RESULTS: There were significant baseline differences between the CRT and BRT groups with respect to age, race, performance status, N-classification, tobacco history, and human papillomavirus status. UVA demonstrated inferiority of BRT versus CRT with respect to both OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.03-4.63, p = 0.04) and CSS (HR 3.33, 95%CI 1.42-7.78, p < 0.01), but non-significantly different outcomes in LRC (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.37-2.61, p = 0.98) and DC (HR 2.01, 95%CI 0.78-5.37, p = 0.14). On MVA, there was no significant OS difference between interventions (HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.42-3.35, p = 0.74); there were too few events for the other outcomes to draw meaningful conclusions with MVA. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective analysis, patients undergoing CRT experienced improved OS and CSS over those receiving BRT; however, disease control did not significantly differ. These findings may inform management of LAHNSCC patients.
AIM: To present our experience comparing cisplatin- and cetuximab-based radiotherapy for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) continues to be explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes of LAHNSCC patients treated with CRT (125) or BRT (34) at two institutions were compared retrospectively, with attention to overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant control (DC). Univariate analysis (UVA) using Cox regression was performed to explore the association of intervention with survival and disease control, and multivariate (MVA) Cox regression was then performed to assess the association of intervention with survival. RESULTS: There were significant baseline differences between the CRT and BRT groups with respect to age, race, performance status, N-classification, tobacco history, and human papillomavirus status. UVA demonstrated inferiority of BRT versus CRT with respect to both OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.03-4.63, p = 0.04) and CSS (HR 3.33, 95%CI 1.42-7.78, p < 0.01), but non-significantly different outcomes in LRC (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.37-2.61, p = 0.98) and DC (HR 2.01, 95%CI 0.78-5.37, p = 0.14). On MVA, there was no significant OS difference between interventions (HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.42-3.35, p = 0.74); there were too few events for the other outcomes to draw meaningful conclusions with MVA. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective analysis, patients undergoing CRT experienced improved OS and CSS over those receiving BRT; however, disease control did not significantly differ. These findings may inform management of LAHNSCC patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cetuximab; Chemoradiotherapy; Cisplatin; Head and neck cancer; Radiosensitization
Authors: A G Robertson; C Robertson; C Perone; K Clarke; J Dewar; M H Elia; D Hurman; R H MacDougall; H M Yosef Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David I Rosenthal; Li Liu; Jason H Lee; Neha Vapiwala; Ara A Chalian; Gregory S Weinstein; Irina Chilian; Randal S Weber; Mitchell Machtay Journal: Head Neck Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Chad Tang; Cato Chan; Wen Jiang; James D Murphy; Rie von Eyben; A Dimitrios Colevas; Harlan Pinto; Nancy Lee-Enriquez; Christina Kong; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Hsin-Hua Nien; Erich M Sturgis; Merrill S Kies; Adel K El-Naggar; William H Morrison; Beth M Beadle; Faye M Johnson; Gary B Gunn; Clifton D Fuller; Jack Phan; Kathryn A Gold; Steven J Frank; Heath Skinner; David I Rosenthal; Adam S Garden Journal: Head Neck Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Dan Ou; Antonin Levy; Pierre Blanchard; France Nguyen; Ingrid Garberis; Odile Casiraghi; Jean-Yves Scoazec; François Janot; Stephane Temam; Eric Deutsch; Yungan Tao Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Carly I Misztal; Carlos Green; Christine Mei; Rita Bhatia; Jaylou M Velez Torres; Brandon Kamrava; Seo Moon; Elizabeth Nicolli; Donald Weed; Zoukaa Sargi; Christine T Dinh Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 6.639