Concurrent use of cisplatin or cetuximab with definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Strahlentherapie in Kombination mit platinbasierter Chemotherapie oder Cetuximab zur Behandlung von lokal fortgeschrittenen Plattenepithelkarzinomen im Kopf-Hals-Bereich.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_CAACDC1DE8DE
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Concurrent use of cisplatin or cetuximab with definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Strahlentherapie in Kombination mit platinbasierter Chemotherapie oder Cetuximab zur Behandlung von lokal fortgeschrittenen Plattenepithelkarzinomen im Kopf-Hals-Bereich.
Journal
Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie
ISSN
1439-099X (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0179-7158
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2014
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
190
Number
9
Pages
823-831
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: JOURNAL ARTICLE Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
AIM: The goal of the present work was to compare outcomes of definitive concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2012, 265 patients with locally advanced HNSCC were treated at our institution with CRT (n = 194; 73 %) with three cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks) or BRT (n = 71; 27 %) with weekly cetuximab. Patients receiving BRT had more pre-existing conditions (Charlson index ≥ 2) than the CRT group (p = 0.005).
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months. In all, 56 % of patients treated with CRT received the planned three cycles (92 % at least two cycles) and 79 % patients treated with BRT received six cycles or more. The 2-year actuarial overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 72 % and 61 %, respectively. In the multivariate analysis (MVA), T4 stage, N2-3 stage, smoking status (current smoker as compared with never smoker), and non-oropharyngeal locations predicted for OS, whereas BRT association with OS was of borderline significance (p = 0.054). The 2-year actuarial locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) rates were 73 and 79 %, respectively. CRT was independently associated with an improved LRC (2-year LRC: 76 % for CRT vs. 61 % for BRT) and DC (2-year LRC: 81 % for CRT vs. 68 % for BRT) in comparison with BRT (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01 in the MVA). Subgroup analyses showed that T4 patients benefited significantly from CRT (vs. BRT) in LRC, while T1-3 did not. BRT patients had more G3-4 skin complications (p < 0.001) and CRT patients had higher rates of feeding tube placement (p = 0.006) and G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicities (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis showed a better LRC in locally advanced HNSCC treated by cisplatin-based CRT than cetuximab-based BRT, and a nonsignificant trend towards an improved OS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2012, 265 patients with locally advanced HNSCC were treated at our institution with CRT (n = 194; 73 %) with three cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks) or BRT (n = 71; 27 %) with weekly cetuximab. Patients receiving BRT had more pre-existing conditions (Charlson index ≥ 2) than the CRT group (p = 0.005).
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months. In all, 56 % of patients treated with CRT received the planned three cycles (92 % at least two cycles) and 79 % patients treated with BRT received six cycles or more. The 2-year actuarial overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 72 % and 61 %, respectively. In the multivariate analysis (MVA), T4 stage, N2-3 stage, smoking status (current smoker as compared with never smoker), and non-oropharyngeal locations predicted for OS, whereas BRT association with OS was of borderline significance (p = 0.054). The 2-year actuarial locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) rates were 73 and 79 %, respectively. CRT was independently associated with an improved LRC (2-year LRC: 76 % for CRT vs. 61 % for BRT) and DC (2-year LRC: 81 % for CRT vs. 68 % for BRT) in comparison with BRT (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01 in the MVA). Subgroup analyses showed that T4 patients benefited significantly from CRT (vs. BRT) in LRC, while T1-3 did not. BRT patients had more G3-4 skin complications (p < 0.001) and CRT patients had higher rates of feeding tube placement (p = 0.006) and G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicities (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis showed a better LRC in locally advanced HNSCC treated by cisplatin-based CRT than cetuximab-based BRT, and a nonsignificant trend towards an improved OS.
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
25/09/2014 16:54
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:45