Primož Strojan1,2, Branko Zakotnik3, Barbara Žumer4, Katarina Karner4, Marta Dremelj4, Boris Jančar4, Simona Jereb5, Cvetka Grašič-Kuhar3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia pstrojan@onko-i.si. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 5. Department of Radiology, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: It can be hypothesized that in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer and prominent cetuximab (CMb)-induced skin rash, immunoradiotherapy would result in a survival advantage over chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin (CP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a loading dose of CMb, one weekly cycle of CMb and CP concurrently with RT, patients who developed a grade ≥2 rash proceeded with immunoradiotherapy, and those with a grade 0-1 rash had chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: A grade 3-4 allergic reaction to CMb developed in 11/39 (28.2%) patients and further recruitment was stopped. These patients proceeded treatment with CP. In early assessment of skin rash 10/28 patients qualified for chemoradiotherapy and 18/28 patients for immunoradiotherapy. There was no difference in survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Rate of serious CMb-induced hypersensitivity reactions was unacceptably high. Even though immunoradiotherapy was administered only to the prognostically most favorable group of patients, it resulted in no advantage over chemoradiotherapy. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: It can be hypothesized that in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer and prominent cetuximab (CMb)-induced skin rash, immunoradiotherapy would result in a survival advantage over chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin (CP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a loading dose of CMb, one weekly cycle of CMb and CP concurrently with RT, patients who developed a grade ≥2 rash proceeded with immunoradiotherapy, and those with a grade 0-1 rash had chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: A grade 3-4 allergic reaction to CMb developed in 11/39 (28.2%) patients and further recruitment was stopped. These patients proceeded treatment with CP. In early assessment of skin rash 10/28 patients qualified for chemoradiotherapy and 18/28 patients for immunoradiotherapy. There was no difference in survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Rate of serious CMb-induced hypersensitivity reactions was unacceptably high. Even though immunoradiotherapy was administered only to the prognostically most favorable group of patients, it resulted in no advantage over chemoradiotherapy. Copyright