Maureen Bernadach1,2,3, Michel Lapeyre4, Anne-Françoise Dillies1, Jessica Miroir4, Melanie Casile2,3,5, Juliette Moreau4, Ioana Molnar2,3,5, Angeline Ginzac2,3,5, Nathalie Pham-Dang6, Nicolas Saroul7, Xavier Durando1,2,3,5, Julian Biau8,9. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Jean PERRIN Center, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 2. Clinical Research Division, Delegation for Clinical Research and Innovation, Jean PERRIN Center, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 3. Clinical Investigation Center, UMR501, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 4. Radiotherapy department, Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer Jean PERRIN, 58 Rue Montalembert, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 5. Clermont Auvergne University, INSERM, U1240, Molecular Imaging and Theranostic Strategies, Jean PERRIN Center, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 6. Department of Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, Estaing University Hospital Center Clermont-Ferrand, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 7. Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Gabriel Montpied University Hospital Center, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 8. Radiotherapy department, Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer Jean PERRIN, 58 Rue Montalembert, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Julian.biau@clermont.unicancer.fr. 9. Clermont Auvergne University, INSERM, U1240, Molecular Imaging and Theranostic Strategies, Jean PERRIN Center, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Julian.biau@clermont.unicancer.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of toxic deaths related to induction chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancers is unacceptable and calls into question this therapeutic strategy, which is however highly effective in terms of rate and speed of response. The purpose of the study was to investigate predictive factors of toxicity of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) in locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC). METHODS: Between June 2009 and December 2017, 113 patients treated consecutively with TPF were included retrospectively. Patients were receiving induction chemotherapy for either an inoperable cancer or laryngeal preservation. For inoperable cancer, induction chemotherapy was proposed to patients presenting either a large tumor with strong symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia, pain) or a tumor with rapid progression. Risk factors were chosen among the initial patient and tumour characteristics and chemotherapy modalities. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (79%) were male; the median age was 58 years [32-71]. Sixty-nine (61%) patients were treated for inoperable cancer and 44 (39%) for laryngeal preservation. 45% had stage IVa cancer, 28% stage III and 25% stage IVb. Sixty percent of patients had a partial response after TPF, 22% had a complete response, 12% were stable, 5% were progressing, and 1% had a discordant response. Thirty-four patients (30%) received enteral feeding during induction chemotherapy with TPF. The possibility of oral feeding without a tube was predictive of a better response (p = 0.003). Seven (6%) patients died during TPF. There was an increased risk of death with preexisting liver dysfunction (liver dysmorphia on imaging or decrease prothrombin rate) (p = 0.032). There was an increased risk of grade ≥ 3 infection if an enteral feeding occurred during the period of induction chemotherapy (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: TPF induction chemotherapy had an 82% objective response rate with 6% toxic deaths. Nutritional status and the presence of hepatic dysfunction are significant risk factors to be taken into account in therapeutic decisions.
BACKGROUND: The rate of toxic deaths related to induction chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancers is unacceptable and calls into question this therapeutic strategy, which is however highly effective in terms of rate and speed of response. The purpose of the study was to investigate predictive factors of toxicity of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) in locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC). METHODS: Between June 2009 and December 2017, 113 patients treated consecutively with TPF were included retrospectively. Patients were receiving induction chemotherapy for either an inoperable cancer or laryngeal preservation. For inoperable cancer, induction chemotherapy was proposed to patients presenting either a large tumor with strong symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia, pain) or a tumor with rapid progression. Risk factors were chosen among the initial patient and tumour characteristics and chemotherapy modalities. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (79%) were male; the median age was 58 years [32-71]. Sixty-nine (61%) patients were treated for inoperable cancer and 44 (39%) for laryngeal preservation. 45% had stage IVa cancer, 28% stage III and 25% stage IVb. Sixty percent of patients had a partial response after TPF, 22% had a complete response, 12% were stable, 5% were progressing, and 1% had a discordant response. Thirty-four patients (30%) received enteral feeding during induction chemotherapy with TPF. The possibility of oral feeding without a tube was predictive of a better response (p = 0.003). Seven (6%) patientsdied during TPF. There was an increased risk of death with preexisting liver dysfunction (liver dysmorphia on imaging or decrease prothrombin rate) (p = 0.032). There was an increased risk of grade ≥ 3 infection if an enteral feeding occurred during the period of induction chemotherapy (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:TPF induction chemotherapy had an 82% objective response rate with 6% toxic deaths. Nutritional status and the presence of hepatic dysfunction are significant risk factors to be taken into account in therapeutic decisions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck cancer; Hepatic dysfunction; Induction chemotherapy; Nutritional status; TPF; Toxicity
Authors: Arlene A Forastiere; Helmuth Goepfert; Moshe Maor; Thomas F Pajak; Randal Weber; William Morrison; Bonnie Glisson; Andy Trotti; John A Ridge; Clifford Chao; Glen Peters; Ding-Jen Lee; Andrea Leaf; John Ensley; Jay Cooper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J M Richard; H Sancho-Garnier; J J Pessey; B Luboinski; J L Lefebvre; D Dehesdin; M Stromboni-Luboinski; C Hill Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: J-L Lefebvre; G Andry; D Chevalier; B Luboinski; L Collette; L Traissac; D de Raucourt; J A Langendijk Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jan B Vermorken; Eva Remenar; Carla van Herpen; Thierry Gorlia; Ricard Mesia; Marian Degardin; John S Stewart; Svetislav Jelic; Jan Betka; Joachim H Preiss; Danielle van den Weyngaert; Ahmad Awada; Didier Cupissol; Heinz R Kienzer; Augustin Rey; Isabelle Desaunois; Jacques Bernier; Jean-Louis Lefebvre Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marshall R Posner; Diane M Hershock; Cesar R Blajman; Elizabeth Mickiewicz; Eric Winquist; Vera Gorbounova; Sergei Tjulandin; Dong M Shin; Kevin Cullen; Thomas J Ervin; Barbara A Murphy; Luis E Raez; Roger B Cohen; Monica Spaulding; Roy B Tishler; Berta Roth; Rosana del Carmen Viroglio; Varagur Venkatesan; Ilya Romanov; Sanjiv Agarwala; K William Harter; Matthew Dugan; Anthony Cmelak; Arnold M Markoe; Paul W Read; Lynn Steinbrenner; A Dimitrios Colevas; Charles M Norris; Robert I Haddad Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James A Bonner; Paul M Harari; Jordi Giralt; Nozar Azarnia; Dong M Shin; Roger B Cohen; Christopher U Jones; Ranjan Sur; David Raben; Jacek Jassem; Roger Ove; Merrill S Kies; Jose Baselga; Hagop Youssoufian; Nadia Amellal; Eric K Rowinsky; K Kian Ang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-02-09 Impact factor: 91.245