Data on preoperative chemotherapy in resectable oral cavity cancer are conflicting. We present the long-term results of a randomized trial of induction chemotherapy in resectable oral cavity cancer.
...A randomized, parallel, multicentre trial evaluated the impact of three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 (120-h infusion administered every 21 days) in stage T2–T4, N0–N2, previously untreated patients with advanced disease. Control group received upfront surgery. Postoperative radiation was offered to both arms when pathologic risk features were identified. The co-primary end points were the occurrence of locoregional or distant tumour relapse, and death.
Among the 198 enrolled patients, with a median follow-up of 11.5 years, there was no difference in the incidence of locoregional relapse between chemotherapy and control group (P = 0.6337), nor in distant metastasis development (P = 0.1527). There was also no difference between groups in overall survival (P = 0.3402). Patients with a pathological complete response (pCR) had higher probability of survival than those without (10-year OS: 76.2% versus 41.3%, P = 0.0004). Late toxicities in patients with a minimum follow-up of 60 months (42 in each group) were similar between arms, except from fibrosis (cumulative incidence 40% versus 22% in chemotherapy arm) and grade 2 dysphagia (14% versus 5%).
Long-term follow-up of this randomized trial confirmed the absence of survival benefit with preoperative chemotherapy in oral cavity cancer. Late toxicity was similar in the two arms except for fibrosis and dysphagia, which were less in the chemotherapy arm. The survival benefit for patients achieving a pCR was maintained.
Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck ...cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other.
We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer MACH-NC) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck MARCH). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies).
115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0–9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 95% CI 0·51–0·77 compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRTP) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66–1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRTP (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (ICTaxPF-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and ICTaxPF followed by CLRT (80%).
The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or ICTaxPF-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.
French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.
•3 MOSkins were assembled over a common rectal probe to perform in vivo dosimetry.•Mean discrepancy between measured and calculated doses was 2.2±6.9%.•89.2% of the measurements resulted in dose ...discrepancies within ±10%.•Discrepancy between planned and measured doses increases with planning time.
Three MOSkins dosimeters were assembled over a rectal probe and used to perform in vivo dosimetry during HDR brachytherapy treatments of vaginal cancer. The purpose of this study was to verify the applicability of the developed tool to evaluate discrepancies between planned and measured doses to the rectal wall.
MOSkin dosimeters from the Centre for Medical Radiation Physics are particularly suitable for brachytherapy procedures for their ability to be easily incorporated into treatment instrumentation. In this study, 26 treatment sessions of HDR vaginal brachytherapy were monitored using three MOSkin mounted on a rectal probe. A total of 78 measurements were collected and compared to doses determined by the treatment planning system.
Mean dose discrepancy was determined as 2.2±6.9%, with 44.6% of the measurements within ±5%, 89.2% within ±10% and 10.8% higher than ±10%. When dose discrepancies were grouped according to the time elapsed between imaging and treatment (i.e., group 1: ≤90min; group 2: >90min), mean discrepancies resulted in 4.7±3.6% and 7.1±5.0% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Furthermore, the position of the dosimeter on the rectal catheter was found to affect uncertainty, where highest uncertainties were observed for the dosimeter furthest inside the rectum.
This study has verified MOSkin applicability to in-patient dose monitoring in gynecological brachytherapy procedures, demonstrating the dosimetric rectal probe setup as an accurate and convenient IVD instrument for rectal wall dose verification. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the delivered dose discrepancy may be affected by the duration of treatment planning.
To date, no treatment modality has been identified as more effective for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and no predictive factors are known to guide treatment decision for this disease. This ...retrospective study evaluates the differential effects of diverse treatment options for OPC according to patient risk profiles.
We considered two series of locally advanced squamous cell OPC patients treated with either surgery followed by radiotherapy (surgical series) or chemoradiation (CRT) with/without induction docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) chemotherapy (CRT series). Smoking habits, tumor p16 expression/human papillomavirus (HPV) status and T and N stage were analyzed to stratify the patients according to Ang's risk profile (low, intermediate and high risk). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method.
Globally, 171 patients were considered, 56 in surgical and 115 in CRT series. Patients were stratified in low- (20% of surgical and CRT groups), intermediate- (23% and 41%) and high-risk (57% and 39%) groups. In the surgical series, 5-year OS was 54.5%, 46.9% and 40.0% in low, intermediate and high Ang's risk profiles, respectively, whereas in the CRT series those were 100%, 78.9% and 46.7%, respectively. In the multivariable analyses, adjusting for inhomogeneity between the treatment group, the CRT effect was significantly higher in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (P-value for the interaction treatment risk group = 0.034 in the OS analysis).
In this retrospective analysis, low- and intermediate-risk OPC patients had a better survival when treated with CRT compared with open surgery followed by radiation therapy. These data suggest that different treatment approaches might be essential in determining outcome results.
PDF
