Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Cetuximab Radiotherapy Is Not Superior to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Head and Neck Carcinomas: Results of the GORTEC 2007-02 Phase III Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Both concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) and cetuximab radiotherapy (cetux-RT) have been established as the standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. It was not known whether the addition of induction chemotherapy before cetux-RT could improve outcomes compared with standard of care CT-RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The current trial was restricted to patients with nonmetastatic N2b, N2c, or N3 squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and fit for taxotere, cisplatin, fluorouracil (TPF). Patients were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of TPF followed by cetux-RT versus concurrent carboplatin fluorouracil and RT as recommended in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The trial was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 in favor of TPF plus cetux-RT for progression-free survival at 2 years. The inclusion of 180 patients per arm was needed to achieve 80% power at a two-sided significance level of .05. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2013, 370 patients were included. All patients and tumors characteristics were well balanced between arms. There were more cases of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia in the induction arm, and the induction TPF was associated with 6.6% treatment-related deaths. With a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 2-year progression-free survival was not different between both arms (CT-RT, 0.38 v TPF + cetux-RT, 0.36; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.20]; P = .58). HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.3; P = .90) for locoregional control and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.46; P = .39) for overall survival. These effects were observed regardless of p16 status. The rate of distant metastases was lower in the TPF arm (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99]; P = .05). CONCLUSION: Induction TPF followed by cetux-RT did not improve outcomes compared with CT-RT in a population of patients with advanced cervical lymphadenopathy.

Induction chemotherapy followed by either chemoradiotherapy or bioradiotherapy for larynx preservation: the TREMPLIN randomized phase II study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT) for larynx preservation (LP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with stage III to IV larynx/hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma received three cycles of ICT-docetaxel and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) each on day 1 and fluorouracil 750 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 through 5. Poor responders (< 50% response) underwent salvage surgery. Responders (≥ 50% response) were randomly assigned to conventional radiotherapy (RT; 70 Gy) with concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) per day on days 1, 22, and 43 of RT (arm A) or concurrent cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) loading dose and 250 mg/m(2) per week during RT (arm B). Primary end point was LP at 3 months. Secondary end points were larynx function preservation (LFP) and overall survival (OS) at 18 months. RESULTS: Of the 153 enrolled patients, 116 were randomly assigned after ICT (60, arm A; 56, arm B). Overall toxicity of both CRT and BRT was substantial following ICT. However, treatment compliance was higher in the BRT arm. In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in LP at 3 months between arms A and B (95% and 93%, respectively), LFP (87% and 82%, respectively), and OS at 18 months (92% and 89%, respectively). There were fewer local treatment failures in arm A than in arm B; salvage surgery was feasible in arm B only. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that one treatment was superior to the other or could improve the outcome reported with ICT followed by RT alone (French Groupe Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête et Cou [GORTEC] 2000-01 trial [Induction CT by Cisplatin, 5FU With or Without Docetaxel in Patients With T3 and T4 Larynx and Hypopharynx Carcinoma]). The protocol that can best compare with RT alone after ICT is still to be determined.

Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant chemoradiotherapy and accelerated radiotherapy independently improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of these approaches. METHODS: In our open-label phase 3 randomised trial, we enrolled patients with locally advanced, stage III and IV (non-metastatic) HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly allocated patients centrally with a computer program (with centre, T stage, N stage, and localisation as minimisation factors) in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy (70 Gy in 7 weeks plus three cycles of 4 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (70 Gy in 6 weeks plus two cycles of 5 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), or very accelerated radiotherapy alone (64·8 Gy [1·8 Gy twice daily] in 3·5 weeks). The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is completed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828386. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2000, and May 9, 2007, we randomly allocated 279 patients to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy, 280 to accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 281 to very accelerated radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-6·2); rates of chemotherapy and radiotherapy compliance were good in all groups. Accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy offered no PFS benefit compared with conventional chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·84-1·23; p=0·88) or very accelerated radiotherapy (0·83, 0·69-1·01; p=0·060); conventional chemoradiotherapy improved PFS compared with very accelerated radiotherapy (0·82, 0·67-0·99; p=0·041). 3-year PFS was 37·6% (95% CI 32·1-43·4) after conventional chemoradiotherapy, 34·1% (28·7-39·8) after accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 32·2% (27·0-37·9) after very accelerated radiotherapy. More patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group had RTOG grade 3-4 acute mucosal toxicity (226 [84%] of 268 patients) compared with accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (205 [76%] of 271 patients) or conventional chemoradiotherapy (180 [69%] of 262; p=0·0001). 158 (60%) of 265 patients in the conventional chemoradiotherapy group, 176 (64%) of 276 patients in the accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy group, and 190 (70%) of 272 patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group were intubated with feeding tubes during treatment (p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy has a substantial treatment effect given concomitantly with radiotherapy and acceleration of radiotherapy cannot compensate for the absence of chemotherapy. We noted the most favourable outcomes for conventional chemoradiotherapy, suggesting that acceleration of radiotherapy is probably not beneficial in concomitant chemoradiotherapy schedules. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Subcutaneous compared with intravenous administration of amifostine in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy: final results of the GORTEC2000-02 phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare compliance with and efficacy of intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) amifostine for the treatment of patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, who were eligible for radiotherapy and who were not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive either IV amifostine (200 mg/m(2) daily for 3 minutes, 15 to 30 minutes before irradiation) or SC amifostine (500 mg; two sites; 20 to 60 minutes before irradiation). The primary end point was late xerostomia at 1 year as indicated by unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow rates, a patient benefit questionnaire score, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) late toxicity grade. RESULTS: Results for IV (n = 143) versus SC (n = 148) administration were as follows. There was no significant difference in compliance (69% for IV v 71% for SC) in patients receiving a full dose of amifostine. Reasons for dose reduction were acute toxicity (25% for IV v 27% for SC; P = .51) and logistics (18% for IV v 9% for SC administration; P = .09). Acute toxicity differed significantly in terms of grade 1 to 2 hypotension (19% for IV v 8% for SC; P = .01), grade 1 to 2 skin rash (9% for IV v 21% for SC; P = .01), and local pain (0% for IV v 8% for SC; P = .003). The incidence of grade 2 or greater xerostomia was significantly higher for patients who received amifostine via SC administration (37% for IV v 62% for SC; P = .005) in the 127 patients (n = 67, IV; n = 60, SC) evaluable at 1 year but not at 2 or 3 years (36% for IV v 51% for SC administration; P = .19; 32% for IV v 41% for SC; P = .63). A generalized linear mixed-model analysis of all data revealed no significant difference in patient self-assessment of salivary function (P = .25), unstimulated or stimulated salivary flow rates (P = .054 and .82, respectively), or grade 2 or greater xerostomia (P = .23). CONCLUSION: SC amifostine administration was not significantly superior to IV amifostine administration in terms of patient compliance or efficacy.

Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without docetaxel for larynx preservation.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy with cisplatin (P) and 5-fluorouracil (F) followed by radiotherapy in patients who respond to chemotherapy is an alternative to total laryngectomy for patients with locally advanced larynx and hypopharynx cancer. Data suggest that docetaxel (T) may add to the efficacy of PF. The objective of this trial was to determine whether adding T to PF could increase the larynx preservation rate. METHODS: Patients who had larynx and hypopharynx cancer that required total laryngectomy were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of TPF or PF. Patients who responded to chemotherapy received radiotherapy with or without additional chemotherapy. Patients who did not respond to chemotherapy underwent total laryngectomy followed by radiotherapy with or without additional chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was 3-year larynx preservation rate. Secondary endpoints included acute toxicities and overall response. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Baseline patient and tumor characteristics were well balanced between the TPF (n = 110) and PF (n = 103) groups. With a median follow-up of 36 months, the 3-year actuarial larynx preservation rate was 70.3% with TPF vs 57.5% with PF (difference = 12.8%; P = .03). Patients in the TPF group had more grade 2 alopecia, grade 4 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia, whereas patients in the PF group had more grade 3 and 4 stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, and grade 4 creatinine elevation. The overall response was 80.0% in the TPF group vs 59.2% in the PF group (difference = 20.8%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced larynx and hypopharynx carcinomas, TPF induction chemotherapy was superior to the PF regimen in terms of overall response rate. These results suggest that larynx preservation could be achieved for a higher proportion of patients.

[Bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia following radiotherapy]. / Bronchiolite oblitérante d'organisation pneumonique après radiothérapie.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary complications of radiotherapy are rare, but bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP) is observed in 2.5% of cases. It can develop after radiation treatment of breast cancer as well as, more rarely, lung cancer, sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease or malignant thymoma. CASE: Ten months after radiotherapy for breast cancer, a 52 year-old woman developed migratory alveolar opacities outside the radiation field. Their improvement with corticosteroid treatment led to the diagnosis of BOOP. DISCUSSION: BOOP, which resembles infectious pneumonia, can develop 2-7 months after the end of radiotherapy and is seen especially in women aged 50-60 years with fever and coughs resistant to antibiotics. Dyspnea is far rarer. Imaging reveals patchy infiltrates with widespread bilateral, mobile lesions extended over and above the radiation field. Biopsy is required to confirm diagnosis; sections, which may or may not come from the radiation field, reveal the nonspecific granulomatous alveolar infiltrates typical of BOOP. Other causes should be eliminated (toxic, immune, iatrogenic or even idiopathic infection and recurrent early neoplastic relapse). Association with hormone therapy does not influence the course of BOOP. Outcome with corticosteroid treatment is excellent.

Preliminary data of the GORTEC 2000-02 phase III trial comparing intravenous and subcutaneous administration of amifostine for head and neck tumors treated by external radiotherapy.

A prospective randomized study is comparing intravenous (IV; arm A) versus subcutaneous (SC; arm B) administration of amifostine in patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Main eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed squamous cell head and neck cancer, inclusion of at least 75% of both parotid glands within radiation fields that would receive at least 40 Gy, and no evidence of distant metastasis. Prophylactic use of pilocarpine and concomitant chemotherapy were prohibited. Intravenous administration of amifostine is 200 mg/m2/d in a short 3-minute infusion 15 to 30 minutes before each fraction of radiotherapy. Subcutaneous administration is 500 mg/d in two, slow 1.25-mL injections at two different sites 20 to 60 minutes before each radiotherapy fraction. Antiemetic treatment and blood pressure monitoring are required in both arms. As of April 25, 2002, 111 of the 292 required patients were included. Data are available for the first 54 patients. Acute toxicity included nausea/vomiting (12% for arm A; 13% for arm B), hypotension (6% in arm A; 0% in arm B), skin rash (15% in arm A; 16% in arm B), and asthenia (4% in arm A; 0% in arm B). Compliance with amifostine administration was 70% in arm A (IV) and 80% in arm B (SC). The rate of acute xerostomia (> or = grade 2) was 23% in arm A and 19% in arm B. These preliminary results indicate that tolerance is better with SC than IV administration, particularly because of the absence of hypotension. The absence of hypotension with SC administration facilitates patient monitoring and management in radiotherapy departments. More patients and data are required to assess the long-term efficacy of SC administration on acute and late xerostomia.