Lova Sun1,2, Danielle Candelieri-Surette3, Tori Anglin-Foote3, Julie A Lynch3,4, Kara N Maxwell1,2, Christopher D'Avella1, Aditi Singh1, Erin Aakhus1,2, Roger B Cohen1, Robert M Brody2,5. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 4. Division of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
Importance: Cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are often used for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are ineligible for cisplatin. There are no prospective head-to-head data comparing cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based regimens for radiosensitization. Objective: To compare survival with cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based CRT in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included US veterans who received a diagnosis of HNSCC between January 2006 and December 2020 and were treated with systemic therapy and radiation. Data cutoff was March 1, 2022 and data analysis was conducted from April-May 2022. Exposures: Cisplatin, cetuximab, or carboplatin-based systemic therapy as captured in VA medication data and cancer registry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival by systemic therapy was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used propensity score and inverse probability weighting to achieve covariate balance between cetuximab-treated and carboplatin-treated patients and used Cox regression to estimate cause-specific hazard ratios of death associated with carboplatin vs cetuximab. We also performed subgroup analyses of patients with oropharynx vs nonoropharynx primary sites. Results: A total of 8290 patients (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; 8201 men [98.9%]; 1225 [15.8%] Black or African American and 6424 [82.6%] White individuals) with nonmetastatic HNSCC were treated with CRT with cisplatin (5566 [67%]), carboplatin (1231 [15%]), or cetuximab (1493 [18%]). Compared with cisplatin-treated patients, patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older with worse performance status scores and higher comorbidity burden. Median (IQR) overall survival was 74.4 (22.3-162.2) months in patients treated with cisplatin radiotherapy (RT), 43.4 (15.3-123.8) months in patients treated with carboplatin RT, and 31.1 (12.4-87.8) months in patients treated with cetuximab RT. After propensity score and inverse probability weighting, carboplatin was associated with improved overall survival compared with cetuximab (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .001). This difference was prominent in the oropharynx subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a US veteran population with HNSCC undergoing treatment with CRT, almost a third of patients were ineligible to receive treatment with cisplatin and received cetuximab-based or carboplatin-based radiosensitization. After propensity score matching, carboplatin-based systemic therapy was associated with 15% improvement in overall survival compared with cetuximab, suggesting that carboplatin may be the preferred radiosensitizer, particularly in oropharynx cancers.
Importance: Cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are often used for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are ineligible for cisplatin. There are no prospective head-to-head data comparing cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based regimens for radiosensitization. Objective: To compare survival with cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based CRT in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included US veterans who received a diagnosis of HNSCC between January 2006 and December 2020 and were treated with systemic therapy and radiation. Data cutoff was March 1, 2022 and data analysis was conducted from April-May 2022. Exposures: Cisplatin, cetuximab, or carboplatin-based systemic therapy as captured in VA medication data and cancer registry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival by systemic therapy was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used propensity score and inverse probability weighting to achieve covariate balance between cetuximab-treated and carboplatin-treated patients and used Cox regression to estimate cause-specific hazard ratios of death associated with carboplatin vs cetuximab. We also performed subgroup analyses of patients with oropharynx vs nonoropharynx primary sites. Results: A total of 8290 patients (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; 8201 men [98.9%]; 1225 [15.8%] Black or African American and 6424 [82.6%] White individuals) with nonmetastatic HNSCC were treated with CRT with cisplatin (5566 [67%]), carboplatin (1231 [15%]), or cetuximab (1493 [18%]). Compared with cisplatin-treated patients, patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older with worse performance status scores and higher comorbidity burden. Median (IQR) overall survival was 74.4 (22.3-162.2) months in patients treated with cisplatin radiotherapy (RT), 43.4 (15.3-123.8) months in patients treated with carboplatin RT, and 31.1 (12.4-87.8) months in patients treated with cetuximab RT. After propensity score and inverse probability weighting, carboplatin was associated with improved overall survival compared with cetuximab (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .001). This difference was prominent in the oropharynx subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a US veteran population with HNSCC undergoing treatment with CRT, almost a third of patients were ineligible to receive treatment with cisplatin and received cetuximab-based or carboplatin-based radiosensitization. After propensity score matching, carboplatin-based systemic therapy was associated with 15% improvement in overall survival compared with cetuximab, suggesting that carboplatin may be the preferred radiosensitizer, particularly in oropharynx cancers.
Authors: Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; Qiang Zhang; K Kian Ang; Randal S Weber; David I Rosenthal; Denis Soulieres; Harold Kim; Craig Silverman; Adam Raben; Thomas J Galloway; André Fortin; Elizabeth Gore; William H Westra; Christine H Chung; Richard C Jordan; Maura L Gillison; Marcie List; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Kian Ang; Jonathan Harris; Richard Wheeler; Randal Weber; David I Rosenthal; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tân; William H Westra; Christine H Chung; Richard C Jordan; Charles Lu; Harold Kim; Rita Axelrod; C Craig Silverman; Kevin P Redmond; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean Bourhis; Christian Sire; Pierre Graff; Vincent Grégoire; Philippe Maingon; Gilles Calais; Bernard Gery; Laurent Martin; Marc Alfonsi; Patrick Desprez; Thierry Pignon; Etienne Bardet; Michel Rives; Lionel Geoffrois; Nicolas Daly-Schveitzer; Sok Sen; Claude Tuchais; Olivier Dupuis; Stéphane Guerif; Michel Lapeyre; Véronique Favrel; Marc Hamoir; Antoine Lusinchi; Stéphane Temam; Antonella Pinna; Yun Gan Tao; Pierre Blanchard; Anne Aupérin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tobin J Strom; Andy M Trotti; Julie Kish; Jeffery S Russell; Nikhil G Rao; Judith McCaffrey; Tapan A Padhya; Kristen J Otto; Jimmy J Caudell Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Maura L Gillison; Andy M Trotti; Jonathan Harris; Avraham Eisbruch; Paul M Harari; David J Adelstein; Richard C K Jordan; Weiqiang Zhao; Erich M Sturgis; Barbara Burtness; John A Ridge; Jolie Ringash; James Galvin; Min Yao; Shlomo A Koyfman; Dukagjin M Blakaj; Mohammed A Razaq; A Dimitrios Colevas; Jonathan J Beitler; Christopher U Jones; Neal E Dunlap; Samantha A Seaward; Sharon Spencer; Thomas J Galloway; Jack Phan; James J Dignam; Quynh Thu Le Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Eric A Engels; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Brenda Y Hernandez; Weihong Xiao; Esther Kim; Bo Jiang; Marc T Goodman; Maria Sibug-Saber; Wendy Cozen; Lihua Liu; Charles F Lynch; Nicolas Wentzensen; Richard C Jordan; Sean Altekruse; William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michaela K Keck; Zhixiang Zuo; Arun Khattri; Thomas P Stricker; Christopher D Brown; Matin Imanguli; Damian Rieke; Katharina Endhardt; Petra Fang; Johannes Brägelmann; Rebecca DeBoer; Mohamed El-Dinali; Serdal Aktolga; Zhengdeng Lei; Patrick Tan; Steve G Rozen; Ravi Salgia; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Mark W Lingen; Michael D Story; K Kian Ang; Ezra E W Cohen; Kevin P White; Everett E Vokes; Tanguy Y Seiwert Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert Haddad; Stephen Sonis; Marshall Posner; Lori Wirth; Rosemary Costello; Patricia Braschayko; Aaron Allen; Anand Mahadevan; Jayme Flynn; Elaine Burke; Yi Li; Roy B Tishler Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Danny Rischin; Madeleine King; Lizbeth Kenny; Sandro Porceddu; Christopher Wratten; Andrew Macann; James E Jackson; Mathias Bressel; Alan Herschtal; Richard Fisher; Tsien Fua; Charles Lin; Chen Liu; Brett G M Hughes; Margaret McGrath; Lachlan McDowell; June Corry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038