Long-Term Update of a Phase 3 Randomized Study Comparing Once-a-Week Versus Once-Every-3-Weeks Cisplatin Along With Radiation in Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: In the weekly-3-weekly study, cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 once-every-3-weeks led to superior locoregional control compared with cisplatin 30 mg/m2 once-a-week in combination with radical radiation for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC). We report the updated analysis of the study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this phase 3 open-label noninferiority study conducted between 2013 and 2017, 300 patients with LAHNSCC were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 once-in-every-weeks or cisplatin 30 mg/m2 once-a-week, concurrently with radiation. The primary endpoint was locoregional control. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival, and late adverse events. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 6.91 years (95% CI, 6.12-7.36). The updated 2-year and 5-year locoregional control rates for the once-a-week cisplatin arm were 58.75% (95% CI, 51.08-67.58) and 48.09% (95% CI, 40.26-57.43), whereas for the once-every-3-weeks, cisplatin arm were 73.95% (95% CI, 66.93-81.70) and 56.76% (95% CI, 48.46-66.48), respectively, hazard ratio = 1.44 (95% CI, 1.03-2.03), P = .034. The 5-year overall survival was 43.60% (95% CI, 36.29-52.37) in the once-a-week cisplatin arm and 50.55% (95% CI, 43.06-59.35) in the once-every-3-weeks cisplatin arm; P = .19. There was no difference in any grade or grade ≥3 late adverse events between the 2 arms, except for hearing dysfunction, which was significantly more common in patients who received high-dose cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up confirms that cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 administered once-every-3-weeks concurrently with radical radiation for LAHNSCC leads to superior locoregional control compared with cisplatin 30 mg/m2 once-a-week and should remain one of the standard treatment options.

Phase 3 RCT comparing docetaxel-platinum with docetaxel-platinum-5FU as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable oral cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5FU) is one of the treatment options in very locally advanced oral cancer with a survival advantage over PF (cisplatin and 5FU). TP (docetaxel and cisplatin) has shown promising results with a lower rate of adverse events but has never been compared to TPF. METHODS: In this phase 3 randomized superiority study, adult patients with borderline resectable locally advanced oral cancers were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either TP or TPF. After the administration of 2 cycles, patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic and further treatment was planned. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. RESULTS: 495 patients were randomized in this study, 248 patients in TP arm and 247 in TPF arm. The 5-year OS was 18.5% (95% CI 13.8-23.7) and 23.9% (95% CI 18.1-30.1) in TP and TPF arms, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.778; 95% CI 0.637-0.952; P = 0.015). Following NACT, 43.8% were deemed resectable, but 34.5% underwent surgery. The 5-year OS was 50.7% (95% CI 41.5-59.1) and 5% (95%CI 2.9-8.1), respectively, in the surgically resected versus unresected cohort post NACT (P < 0.0001). Grade 3 or above adverse events were seen in 97 (39.1%) and 179 (72.5%) patients in the TP and TPF arms, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: NACT with TPF has a survival benefit over TP in borderline resectable oral cancers, with an increase in toxicity which is manageable. Patients who undergo surgery achieve a relatively good, sustained survival.

Repurposing pantoprazole in combination with systemic therapy in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a phase I/II randomized study.

Pantoprazole decreases the acidity of the tumor microenvironment by inhibiting proton pumps on the cancer cell. This possibly leads to increased sensitivity to cytotoxic therapy. We conducted a phase I/II randomized controlled trial in adult patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) planned for first-line palliative chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy + / - intravenous (IV) pantoprazole. The primary endpoint in phase I was to determine the maximum safe dose of intravenous pantoprazole, whereas it was progression-free survival (PFS) in phase II. The dose of IV pantoprazole established in phase I was 240 mg. Between Nov'18 and Oct'20, we recruited 120 patients in phase II, 59 on pantoprazole and 61 on the standard arm. Median age was 51 years (IQR 43-60), 80% were men. Systemic therapy was IV cisplatin in 22% and oral-metronomic-chemotherapy (OMC) in 78%. Addition of pantoprazole did not prolong PFS, which was 2.2 months (95% CI 2.07-3.19) in the pantoprazole arm and 2.5 months (95% CI 2.04-3.81, HR, 1.14; 95% CI 0.78-1.66; P = 0.48) in the standard arm. Response rates were similar; pantoprazole arm 8.5%, standard arm 6.6%; P = 0.175. Overall survival was also similar; 5.6 months (95% CI 4.47-8.51) in the pantoprazole arm and 5.4 months (95% CI 3.48-8.54, HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72-1.57; P = 0.75) in the standard arm. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were similar. Thus, pantoprazole 240 mg IV added to systemic therapy does not improve outcomes in patients with advanced HNSCC.

Metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy evaluation in locally advanced head and neck cancers post radical chemoradiation - a randomised trial.

Background: Locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with radical chemoradiation have unsatisfactory outcomes. Oral metronomic chemotherapy improves outcomes in comparison to maximum tolerated dose chemotherapy in the palliative setting. Limited evidence suggests that it may do so in an adjuvant setting. Hence this randomized study was conducted. Methods: Patients of head and neck (HN) cancer with primary in oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx, with PS 0-2 post radical chemoradiation with documented complete response were randomized 1:1 to either observation or oral metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) for 18 months. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (15 mg/m2) and celecoxib (200 mg PO BD). The primary endpoint was OS and the overall sample size was 1038. The study had 3 planned interim analyses for efficacy and futility. Trial registration- Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI): CTRI/2016/09/007315 [Registered on: 28/09/2016] Trial Registered Prospectively. Findings: 137 patients were recruited and an interim analysis was done. The 3 year PFS was 68.7% (95% CI 55.1-79.0) versus 60.8% (95% CI 47.9-71.4) in the observation and metronomic arm respectively (P value = 0.230). The hazard ratio was 1.42 (95% CI 0.80-2.51; P value = 0.231). The 3 year OS was 79.4% (95% CI 66.3-87.9) versus 62.4% (95% CI 49.5-72.8) in the observation and metronomic arm respectively (P value = 0.047). The hazard ratio was 1.83 (95% CI 1.0-3.36; P value = 0.051). Interpretation: In this phase 3 randomized study, oral metronomic combinations of weekly methotrexate and daily celecoxib failed to improve the PFS or OS. Hence observation post-complete response post radical chemoradiation remains the standard of care. Funding: ICON funded this study.

Results of Phase III Randomized Trial for Use of Docetaxel as a Radiosensitizer in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer, Unsuitable for Cisplatin-Based Chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of published literature on systemic therapeutic options in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) undergoing chemoradiation. Docetaxel was assessed as a radiosensitizer in this situation. METHODS: This was a randomized phase II/III study. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with LAHNSCC planned for chemoradiation and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and who were cisplatin-ineligible were randomly assigned in 1:1 to either radiation alone or radiation with concurrent docetaxel 15 mg/m2 once weekly for a maximum of seven cycles. The primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The study recruited 356 patients between July 2017 and May 2021. The 2-year DFS was 30.3% (95% CI, 23.6 to 37.4) versus 42% (95% CI, 34.6 to 49.2) in the RT and Docetaxel-RT arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.673; 95% CI, 0.521 to 0.868; P value = .002). The corresponding median overall survival (OS) was 15.3 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 22.0) and 25.5 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 32.5), respectively (log-rank P value = .035). The 2-year OS was 41.7% (95% CI, 34.1 to 49.1) versus 50.8% (95% CI, 43.1 to 58.1) in the RT and Docetaxel-RT arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.747; 95% CI, 0.569 to 0.980; P value = .035). There was a higher incidence of grade 3 or above mucositis (22.2% v 49.7%; P < .001), odynophagia (33.5% v 52.5%; P < .001), and dysphagia (33% v 49.7%; P = .002) with the addition of docetaxel. CONCLUSION: The addition of docetaxel to radiation improved DFS and OS in cisplatin-ineligible patients with LAHNSCC.[Media: see text].

RMAC study: A randomized study for evaluation of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgical resection in those who are ineligible for re-irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant re-chemoradiation after salvage surgery improves disease-free survival in recurrent head and neck cancer. However, most patients are ineligible for re-irradiation and are kept on observation. We investigated the efficacy of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) in this group of patients compared to observation. METHODS: This was a randomized integrated phase II/III clinical trial. Adults with recurrent head and neck cancer, who had undergone salvage surgery, but were ineligible for adjuvant re-irradiation were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MAC arm or observation. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (at a dose of 15 mg per square meter of body surface area) and celecoxib (at a dose of 200 mg orally twice daily) for 6 months. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was disease-free survival (DFS) while that of phase 3 was overall survival (OS). For phase 2, to detect an improvement in the hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 with MAC, with a type 1 error of 10% (1-sided), type 2 error of 30%, 105 patients were required. While for phase 3, with a target HR of 0.77, with a type 1 error of 5%, type 2 error of 20%, 318 patients were required. Here we report the results of phase 2 part of the study. RESULTS: At a median follow up of 30.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 25.3 to 35.1) the 1 year and 2-year DFS were 57.4% (95% CI, 42.8-69.5) and 37.6% (95% CI, 24.1-51) in MAC arm whereas the corresponding numbers were 62.3% (95% CI, 47.8 to 73.8) and 54.2%(95% CI, 39.8 to 66.5) in observation arm, respectively (hazard ratio for progression, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.47; P = 0.15). In the MAC arm, the 1 and 2 year OS was 78.7% (95% CI, 64.9 to 87.6) and 48% (95% CI, 34.1 to 62).The corresponding figures in the observation arm were 79.2% (95% CI, 65.7 to 87.9) and 65.5% (95% CI, 50.9 to 76.7) (hazard ratio for death, 1.7, 95% CI, 0.94 to 3.08; P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The adjuvant 6-month metronomic schedule was ineffective in improving outcomes in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgery who are ineligible for re-radiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI)- CTRI/2016/04/006872 [Registered on 26/4/2016].

Quality of life in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma undergoing concurrent chemoradiation with once-a-week versus once-every-3-weeks cisplatin.

INTRODUCTION: This trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of low dose once-a-week cisplatin and once-every-3-weeks cisplatin with radiation in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC). The current analysis focuses on the quality of life (QoL) of patients in this trial. METHODS: In this phase III randomized trial, patients with nonmetastatic LAHNSCC were randomized to receive cisplatin 30 mg/m2 once-a-week or 100 mg/m2 once every- 3-weeks concurrently with radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was locoregional control. QoL was a key secondary endpoint. QoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35. QoL data were assessed at baseline, days 22 and 43 during treatment; and at 6, 12, 24 months. The linear mixed-effects model was used for longitudinal analysis of QoL to determine the impact of treatment (arm) and time on QoL. RESULTS: Three hundred patients were enrolled, data of 150 patients with available baseline QoL were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the global health status/QoL of the two treatment arms (p = 0.8664). There was no significant difference in the longitudinal QoL scores between the two treatment arms in all scales except constipation (p = 0.0096), less sexuality (p = 0.0002,), and financial difficulty (p = 0.0219). There was a worsening of the QoL scores in all scales in both arms during treatment, which improved after treatment completion in most scales. CONCLUSION: The use of once-every-3-weeks cisplatin did not adversely impact QoL as compared to once-a-week cisplatin in combination with radiotherapy in LAHNSCC.

Audit of screen failure in 15 randomised studies from a low and middle-income country.

Background: Growth and development in patient management occurs via randomised studies. Screen failure is a significant hurdle while conducting randomised studies. There is limited data available from low and middle-income countries about factors resulting in screen failure. Hence, this audit was performed to identify the proportion of patients who screen failed and to elucidate reasons for the same. Methods: This was an audit of 15 randomised studies performed by medical oncology solid tumour unit II of Tata Memorial Centre. The screening logs of these studies were acquired. From the screening logs, data regarding the number of patients who had screen failed & reason for the same were obtained. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: A total of 7,481 patients were screened for 15 randomised clinical studies. Out of these, 3,666 (49.0%) patients were enrolled into trials and 3,815 (51.0%) screen failed. The most common reason for screen failure was 'not meeting inclusion criteria' (54.9%) followed by declining to take treatment (22.2%). Other factors that affect enrolment were 'not willing to stay in the locality of the trial site' (6.2%), being recruited in other studies (3.7%), poor performance status (PS) (3.4%), non-compliance (2.2%), meeting exclusion criteria (0.9%) and 'other' (6.5%). Conclusion: The commonest causes of screen failure in lower and middle-income countries are non-meeting of inclusion criteria followed by declining to take treatment, not willing to stay in locality of trial site, recruited into other studies, poor PS, non-compliance, meeting exclusion criteria & 'other'. This information would help analysing and hence planning of newer strategies to decrease the rate of screen failure.

Weight loss and its impact on outcome in head and cancer patients during chemo-radiation.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss during chemotherapy and its impact on the cancer outcomes have been invariably reported in the literature. We also did a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase III trial to see the same. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The database of a recently published randomized study comparing cisplatin-radiation with nimotuzumab cisplatin-radiation was used for this analysis. Week-wise weight loss during the course of treatment was noted. The impact of severe weight loss (grade 2-3) on progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) was studied using the Kaplan Meier method. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to see the effect of various factors. RESULTS: Out of a total of 536 patients, weight loss was captured in 524. Out of these 524 patients, any degree of weight loss was seen in 293 (55.91%) patients. Grade 1 weight loss was noted in 192 (36.6%) patients, grade 2 in 96 (18.3%) and grade 3 in 5 (1%) patients. The 2-year PFS was 53% and 57.1% in severe and non-severe weight loss groups respectively (p-value = 0.36). The 2-year LRC was 60% in patients with severe weight loss, while it was 63.5% in those with non-severe weight loss (p-value = 0.47). The 2-year OS was 59.3% versus 62.2% in severe and non-severe weight loss cohorts respectively (p-value = 0.21). None of the factors was found to be associated with severe weight loss. CONCLUSION: Severe weight loss was uncommon in our patients. Weight loss during treatment was not associated with poor survival outcomes.

Quality of life in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin and nimotuzumab versus cisplatin alone - Additional data from a phase 3 trial.

INTRODUCTION: The addition of Nimotuzumab to radical chemoradiation (CRT) improved outcomes in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) undergoing radical CRT in a phase 3 randomized trial. The current study focuses on the quality of life (QoL) of patients in this trial. METHODS: In this phase III randomized trial, patients with newly diagnosed, nonmetastatic, stage III/IV LAHNSCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx were randomized to receive cisplatin 30 mg/m2 or cisplatin 30 mg/m2 with nimotuzumab once a week with curative radiotherapy. The primary end point of the trial was PFS. The aim of the current study was to compare the QoL between the two arms. QoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (v3.0) and HN-35 (v1.0). The linear mixed-effects model was used for longitudinal analysis of QoL. RESULTS: 536 patients were randomized in this trial (268 in each arm) and 423 patients were included for QoL analysis. There was a significant change in the global health status QoL scores over time (p = 0.0016) with no difference between the two arms (p = 0.396). On longitudinal analysis there was a significant difference in the QoL scores in most of the function & symptom scales over time, but there was no significant difference in these scores between the two arms. QoL scores for most symptom scales worsened during treatment and improved thereafter in both arms. CONCLUSION: The addition of nimotuzumab to cisplatin based chemoradiation in LAHNSCC improved PFS, LRC and DFS without negatively impacting QoL.

Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin versus nimotuzumab-cisplatin, focusing on acute oral mucositis.

BACKGROUND: Acute oral mucositis has been infrequently studied in the patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) receiving once-weekly cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Hence, this analysis was conducted to explore the various aspects of the same. RESULTS: The overall incidence of mucositis was 96.9% (n = 508) and of grade 3-5 mucositis was 61.3% (n = 321). The overall incidence of oral mucositis was similar in both the arms (CCRT and NCRT) (p value = 0.58) while grade 3-5 mucositis was more common in the NCRT arm (p value = 0.01). Out of all factors listed, the presence of nimotuzumab was the only significant risk factor for the development of grade 3 or more oral mucositis (p value = 0.01); (OR = 1.64, 95%CI 1.15-2.32). Delays in the treatment delivery were similar in both the arms. CONCLUSION: Acute oral mucositis is a common occurrence in locally advanced-HNSCC patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. Nimotuzumab is a significant factor for development of grade 3 and above oral mucositis.

Lymphopenia during chemoradiation-foe or friend.

BACKGROUND: Severe lymphopenia during treatment is considered to be a poor prognostic factor. The current literature lacks information regarding its impact on various outcomes in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer patients in a prospective setting. METHODS: We recently published a randomised study comparing cisplatin-radiation with nimotuzumab cisplatin-radiation. The database of this study was used for the present analysis. The impact of severe lymphopenia (grade 4 lymphopenia) on progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) was studied using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. The binary logistic regression analysis was used to see the effect of various factors on the development of severe lymphopenia. RESULTS: We had a total of 536 patients, of which 521 patients (97.7%) developed lymphopenia. Grade 1 lymphopenia was noted in 10 (1.9%) patients, grade 2 in 100 (18.8%), grade 3 in 338 (63.1%) and grade 4 in 73 (13.7%) patients. The median PFS was 20.53 and 60.33 months in severe and non-severe lymphopenia, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.797; p-value = 0.208). The median duration of LRC was 56.3 months in severe lymphopenia, whereas it was not reached in non-severe lymphopenia (hazard ratio, 0.81; p-value = 0.337). The median OS was 28.46 versus 47.13 months in severe and non-severe lymphopenia, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; p-value = 0.11). Of various risk factors, gender was significantly associated with severe lymphopenia. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of severe lymphopenia was not significantly associated with the outcomes. Gender is the only risk factor significantly linked to severe lymphopenia.

A randomized phase 3 trial comparing nimotuzumab plus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy versus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Because the addition of nimotuzumab to chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer improved outcomes in a phase 2 study, the authors conducted a phase 3 study to confirm these findings. METHODS: This open-label, investigator-initiated, phase 3, randomized trial was conducted from 2012 to 2018. Adult patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who were fit for radical chemoradiation were randomized 1:1 to receive either radical radiotherapy (66-70 grays) with concurrent weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2 ) (CRT) or the same schedule of CRT with weekly nimotuzumab (200 mg) (NCRT).The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), duration of locoregional control (LRC), and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis also was performed. RESULTS: In total, 536 patients were allocated equally to both treatment arms. The median follow-up was 39.13 months. The addition of nimotuzumab improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89; P = .004), LRC (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.89; P = .006), and DFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = .008) and had a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08; P = .163). Grade 3 through 5 adverse events were similar between the 2 arms, except for a higher incidence of mucositis in the NCRT arm (66.7% vs 55.8%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nimotuzumab to concurrent weekly CRT improves PFS, LRC, and DFS. This combination provides a novel alternative therapeutic option to a 3-weekly schedule of 100 mg/m2 cisplatin in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are treated with radical-intent CRT.

Once-a-Week Versus Once-Every-3-Weeks Cisplatin Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

Purpose Chemoradiation with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 given once every 3 weeks is the standard of care in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (LAHNSCC). Increasingly, low-dose once-a-week cisplatin is substituted because of perceived lower toxicity and convenience. However, there is no level 1 evidence of comparable efficacy to cisplatin once every 3 weeks. Patients and Methods In this phase III randomized trial, we assessed the noninferiority of cisplatin 30 mg/m2 given once a week compared with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 given once every 3 weeks, both administered concurrently with curative intent radiotherapy in patients with LAHNSCC. The primary end point was locoregional control (LRC); secondary end points included toxicity, compliance, response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results Between 2013 and 2017, we randomly assigned 300 patients, 150 to each arm. Two hundred seventy-nine patients (93%) received chemoradiotherapy in the adjuvant setting. At a median follow-up of 22 months, the estimated cumulative 2-year LRC rate was 58.5% in the once-a-week arm and 73.1% in the once-every-3-weeks arm, leading to an absolute difference of 14.6% (95% CI, 5.7% to 23.5%); P = .014; hazard ratio (HR), 1.76 (95% CI, 1.11 to 2.79). Acute toxicities of grade 3 or higher occurred in 71.6% of patients in the once-a-week arm and in 84.6% of patients in the once-every-3-weeks arm ( P = .006). Estimated median progression-free survival in the once-a-week arm was 17.7 months (95% CI, 0.42 to 35.05 months) and in the once-every-3-weeks arm, 28.6 months (95% CI, 15.90 to 41.30 months); HR, 1.24 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.73); P = .21. Estimated median overall survival in the once-a-week arm was 39.5 months and was not reached in the once-every-3-weeks arm (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.65]; P = .48). Conclusion Once-every-3-weeks cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 resulted in superior LRC, albeit with more toxicity, than did once-a-week cisplatin at 30 mg/m2, and should remain the preferred chemoradiotherapy regimen for LAHNSCC in the adjuvant setting.