Randomized double-blind trial of amifostine versus placebo for radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The role of the radioprotector amifostine in ameliorating radiotherapy side effects in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is controversial. This trial aimed to determine whether pretreatment with amifostine reduced the incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade ≥2 acute and late xerostomia in patients receiving definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy for HNSCC, without reducing tumour control or survival. METHODS: Between 14 September 2001 and 8 November 2004, 44 Royal Adelaide Hospital patients were randomized double-blind to receive amifostine (200 mg/m2 IV) or placebo (normal saline IV) 5 days/week, prior to standard radiotherapy (60-70 Gy), each having ≥75% of the parotids treated to ≥40 Gy. Side effects were assessed weekly during treatment, at 3 and 5 months after radiotherapy, then every 6 months until disease progression or death. RESULTS: The accrual target was 200 patients over 4-5 years, but the trial closed prematurely when only 44 patients had been randomized after 3 years. Of 41 evaluable patients, 80% (16/20) in the amifostine arm had grade ≥2 acute radiation salivary toxicity versus 76% (16/21) in the placebo arm (P = 1.00). The rate of grade ≥2 late radiation salivary toxicity at 12 months was 66% in the amifostine arm and 82% in the placebo arm (estimated hazard ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 0.74-3.49, P = 0.22). Other toxicities tended to be worse in the amifostine arm: acute grade 3-4 skin 35% vs 5% and mucous membrane 40% vs 5%; grade ≥2 vomiting 35% vs 5%, hypocalcaemia 25% vs 5% and fatigue 85% vs 33%, with only the latter retaining statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons. There were no significant differences in failure-free (P = 0.70) or overall survival (P = 0.86), with estimated 4-year rates of 48% vs 54% and 49% vs 59% for the amifostine vs placebo arms respectively. CONCLUSION: There was no clear evidence that pretreatment with amifostine made any difference to the incidence of grade ≥2 acute or late xerostomia. Other toxicity tended to be more severe with amifostine. There was no effect on failure-free or overall survival. Acknowledging the low statistical power, these results do not support the use of IV amifostine pre-radiotherapy in HNSCC.

Parotid gland as an initial site of metastasis.

The parotid gland is an uncommon site of metastasis from carcinomas arising outside the head and neck region. Involvement of the parotid gland as an initial site of metastasis or presentation is rare. The present case report is the first, to our knowledge, to describe the management and outcome of an elderly man whose first presentation of an asymptomatic squamous cell carcinoma of the lung was that of a rapidly growing fungating left parotid mass.

Evidence for efficacy without increased toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: early results of a Phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized trial to compare the GI and urogenital toxicity of radiotherapy (RT) for localized (confined to the organ), early-stage (T1-T2N0M0, TNM classification) carcinoma of the prostate, using a conventional (64 Gy in 32 fractions within 6.5 weeks) vs. a hypofractionated (55 Gy in 20 fractions within 4 weeks) schedule and to determine the efficacy of the respective treatment schedules. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This report is based on an interim analysis of the first 120 consecutive patients in this Phase III trial after a median follow-up of 43.5 months (range 23-62). RT planning was based on two-dimensional CT data, and the treatment was delivered using a three- or four-field 6-23-MV photon technique. GI and urogenital toxicity (symptom questionnaires incorporating the subjective elements of the late effects of normal tissues-subjective, objective, management, analytic classification of late effects and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer sexual function questionnaire) were evaluated before RT and 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years after RT completion. The efficacy of RT was assessed clinically (digital rectal examination and radiologic imaging) and biochemically (prostate-specific antigen assay) at baseline, and every 3 months for 2 years after RT and every 6 months subsequently. RESULTS: RT, whether conventional or hypofractionated, resulted in an increase in all six symptom categories used to characterize GI toxicity and in four of five symptom categories used to document urinary morbidity 1 month after therapy completion. Sexual dysfunction (based on limited data), which existed in more than one-third of patients before RT, also increased to just more than one-half of patients 1 month after RT. The increase in urinary toxicity after RT was not sustained (diurnal urinary frequency had decreased significantly at 2 years). In contrast, all six symptom categories of GI toxicity remained increased 1 year after RT. Four of the six GI symptom categories (rectal pain, mucous discharge, urgency of defecation, and rectal bleeding) were still increased at 2 years compared with baseline. Except for a slightly greater percentage of patients experiencing mild rectal bleeding at 2 years among those who received hypofractionated RT, no differences were noted in toxicity between the conventional and hypofractionated RT schedule. The mean prostate-specific antigen level was 14.0 +/- 1.0 ng/mL at baseline and declined to a nadir of 1.3 +/- 0.2 ng/mL at a median of 16.8 months (range 0.8-28.3) after RT completion. However, it then rose in 17 patients (8 in the hypofractionated and 9 in the conventional treatment group). Only 8 of these 17 patients were found to have signs of clinical relapse (5 local, 1 regional lymph node, and 2 systemic [bony metastases]) after histopathologic and radiologic reassessment). The remaining 9 patients had biochemical relapse only (defined as three consecutive rises in prostate-specific antigen after nadir). The 4-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 85.8% for all patients and did not differ significantly between the two radiation dose schedules (86.2% for the hypofractionated and 85.5% for the conventional fractionation group). CONCLUSION: RT for prostate carcinoma, using a three- or four-field 6-23-MV photon technique without posterior shielding of the lateral fields, is an underestimated cause of persistent GI morbidity. The incidence of clinically significant GI and urogenital toxicity after conventional and hypofractionated RT appears to be similar. Hypofractionated RT for carcinoma of the prostate seems just as effective as conventional RT after a median follow-up approaching 4 years.