Reducing radiation treatment dose could improve the quality of life (QOL) of patients with good-risk human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Whether ...reduced-dose radiation produces disease control and QOL equivalent to standard chemoradiation is not proven.
In this randomized, phase II trial, patients with p16-positive, T1-T2 N1-N2b M0, or T3 N0-N2b M0 OPSCC (7th edition staging) with ≤ 10 pack-years of smoking received 60 Gy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over 6 weeks with concurrent weekly cisplatin (C) or 60 Gy IMRT over 5 weeks. To be considered for a phase III study, an arm had to achieve a 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate superior to a historical control rate of 85% and a 1-year mean composite score ≥ 60 on the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI).
Three hundred six patients were randomly assigned and eligible. Two-year PFS for IMRT + C was 90.5% rejecting the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS ≤ 85% (
= .04). For IMRT, 2-year PFS was 87.6% (
= .23). One-year MDADI mean scores were 85.30 and 81.76 for IMRT + C and IMRT, respectively. Two-year overall survival rates were 96.7% for IMRT + C and 97.3% for IMRT. Acute adverse events (AEs) were defined as those occurring within 180 days from the end of treatment. There were more grade 3-4 acute AEs for IMRT + C (79.6%
52.4%;
< .001). Rates of grade 3-4 late AEs were 21.3% and 18.1% (
= .56).
The IMRT + C arm met both prespecified end points justifying advancement to a phase III study. Higher rates of grade ≥ 3 acute AEs were reported in the IMRT + C arm.
To test whether altered radiation fractionation schemes (hyperfractionation HFX, accelerated fractionation, continuous AFX-C, and accelerated fractionation with split AFX-S) improved local-regional ...control (LRC) rates for patients with squamous cell cancers (SCC) of the head and neck when compared with standard fractionation (SFX) of 70 Gy.
Patients with stage III or IV (or stage II base of tongue) SCC (n=1076) were randomized to 4 treatment arms: (1) SFX, 70 Gy/35 daily fractions/7 weeks; (2) HFX, 81.6 Gy/68 twice-daily fractions/7 weeks; (3) AFX-S, 67.2 Gy/42 fractions/6 weeks with a 2-week rest after 38.4 Gy; and (4) AFX-C, 72 Gy/42 fractions/6 weeks. The 3 experimental arms were to be compared with SFX.
With patients censored for LRC at 5 years, only the comparison of HFX with SFX was significantly different: HFX, hazard ratio (HR) 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.62-1.00), P=.05; AFX-C, 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.65-1.05), P=.11. With patients censored at 5 years, HFX improved overall survival (HR 0.81, P=.05). Prevalence of any grade 3, 4, or 5 toxicity at 5 years; any feeding tube use after 180 days; or feeding tube use at 1 year did not differ significantly when the experimental arms were compared with SFX. When 7-week treatments were compared with 6-week treatments, accelerated fractionation appeared to increase grade 3, 4 or 5 toxicity at 5 years (P=.06). When the worst toxicity per patient was considered by treatment only, the AFX-C arm seemed to trend worse than the SFX arm when grade 0-2 was compared with grade 3-5 toxicity (P=.09).
At 5 years, only HFX improved LRC and overall survival for patients with locally advanced SCC without increasing late toxicity.
To assess the results of a multi-institutional study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for early oropharyngeal cancer.
Patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma Stage T1-2, N0-1, M0 ...requiring treatment of the bilateral neck were eligible. Chemotherapy was not permitted. Prescribed planning target volumes (PTVs) doses to primary tumor and involved nodes was 66 Gy at 2.2 Gy/fraction over 6 weeks. Subclinical PTVs received simultaneously 54-60 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction. Participating institutions were preapproved for IMRT, and quality assurance review was performed by the Image-Guided Therapy Center.
69 patients were accrued from 14 institutions. At median follow-up for surviving patients (2.8 years), the 2-year estimated local-regional failure (LRF) rate was 9%. 2/4 patients (50%) with major underdose deviations had LRF compared with 3/49 (6%) without such deviations (p = 0.04). All cases of LRF, metastasis, or second primary cancer occurred among patients who were current/former smokers, and none among patients who never smoked. Maximal late toxicities Grade >or=2 were skin 12%, mucosa 24%, salivary 67%, esophagus 19%, osteoradionecrosis 6%. Longer follow-up revealed reduced late toxicity in all categories. Xerostomia Grade >or=2 was observed in 55% of patients at 6 months but reduced to 25% and 16% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. In contrast, salivary output did not recover over time.
Moderately accelerated hypofractionatd IMRT without chemotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer is feasible, achieving high tumor control rates and reduced salivary toxicity compared with similar patients in previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group studies. Major target underdose deviations were associated with higher LRF rate.
A course of androgen-deprivation therapy before and during radiotherapy prolonged 10-year survival by about 7% among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The risk of erectile dysfunction from ...the addition of hormone therapy was also about 7% higher.
In the 1980s, advances in both surgery and radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer led to their acceptance as successful treatments, with considerable reductions in harmful side effects as compared with earlier treatments.
1
In the 1990s, reversible androgen suppression with the use of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone analogues and oral antiandrogen agents was shown to induce apoptotic regression in androgen-responsive cancers,
2
potentially improving the prospects of local control and the duration of survival free of metastatic disease. Among patients with locally advanced disease, phase 3 clinical trials
3
,
4
showed that when added to radiotherapy, long-term treatment with these agents (≥2 years) . . .
Summary Background Previous results from our phase 3 randomised trial showed that adding cetuximab to primary radiotherapy increased overall survival in patients with locoregionally advanced ...squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN) at 3 years. Here we report the 5-year survival data, and investigate the relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Methods Patients with LASCCHN of the oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx with measurable disease were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either comprehensive head and neck radiotherapy alone for 6–7 weeks or radiotherapy plus weekly doses of cetuximab: 400 mg/m2 initial dose, followed by seven weekly doses at 250 mg/m2 . Randomisation was done with an adaptive minimisation technique to balance assignments across stratification factors of Karnofsky performance score, T stage, N stage, and radiation fractionation. The trial was un-blinded. The primary endpoint was locoregional control, with a secondary endpoint of survival. Following discussions with the US Food and Drug Administration, the dataset was locked, except for queries to the sites about overall survival, before our previous report in 2006, so that an independent review could be done. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Following completion of treatment, patients underwent physical examination and radiographic imaging every 4 months for 2 years, and then every 6 months thereafter. The trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00004227. Findings Patients were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy with (n=211) or without (n=213) cetuximab, and all patients were followed for survival. Updated median overall survival for patients treated with cetuximab and radiotherapy was 49·0 months (95% CI 32·8–69·5) versus 29·3 months (20·6–41·4) in the radiotherapy-alone group (hazard ratio HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·56–0·95; p=0·018). 5-year overall survival was 45·6% in the cetuximab-plus-radiotherapy group and 36·4% in the radiotherapy-alone group. Additionally, for the patients treated with cetuximab, overall survival was significantly improved in those who experienced an acneiform rash of at least grade 2 severity compared with patients with no rash or grade 1 rash (HR 0·49, 0·34–0·72; p=0·002). Interpretation For patients with LASCCHN, cetuximab plus radiotherapy significantly improves overall survival at 5 years compared with radiotherapy alone, confirming cetuximab plus radiotherapy as an important treatment option in this group of patients. Cetuximab-treated patients with prominent cetuximab-induced rash (grade 2 or above) have better survival than patients with no or grade 1 rash. Funding ImClone Systems, Merck KGaA, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with ...cetuximab—an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor—can preserve high survival and reduce treatment toxicity is unknown. We investigated whether cetuximab would maintain a high proportion of patient survival and reduce acute and late toxicity.
RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA and Canada. Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma; American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition clinical categories T1–T2, N2a–N3 M0 or T3–T4, N0–N3 M0; Zubrod performance status 0 or 1; age at least 18 years; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either radiotherapy plus cetuximab or radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks, and patients were stratified by T category (T1–T2 vs T3–T4), N category (N0–N2a vs N2b–N3), Zubrod performance status (0 vs 1), and tobacco smoking history (≤10 pack-years vs >10 pack-years). Patients were assigned to receive either intravenous cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 5–7 days before radiotherapy initiation, followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly for seven doses (total 2150 mg/m2), or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy (total 200 mg/m2). All patients received accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered at 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks at six fractions per week (with two fractions given on one day, at least 6 h apart). The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1·45. Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby all patients meeting eligibility criteria are included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302834.
Between June 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 987 patients were enrolled, of whom 849 were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy plus cetuximab (n=425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (n=424). 399 patients assigned to receive cetuximab and 406 patients assigned to receive cisplatin were subsequently eligible. After median follow-up duration of 4·5 years, radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio HR 1·45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1·94; p=0·5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0·0163). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·4–82·5) in the cetuximab group versus 84·6% (80·6–88·6) in the cisplatin group. Progression-free survival was significantly lower in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 1·72, 95% CI 1·29–2·29; p=0·0002; 5-year progression-free survival 67·3%, 95% CI 62·4–72·2 vs 78·4%, 73·8–83·0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 2·05, 95% CI 1·35–3·10; 5-year proportions 17·3%, 95% CI 13·7–21·4 vs 9·9%, 6·9–13·6). Proportions of acute moderate to severe toxicity (77·4%, 95% CI 73·0–81·5 vs 81·7%, 77·5–85·3; p=0·1586) and late moderate to severe toxicity (16·5%, 95% CI 12·9–20·7 vs 20·4%, 16·4–24·8; p=0·1904) were similar between the cetuximab and cisplatin groups.
For patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin is the standard of care for eligible patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma.
National Cancer Institute USA, Eli Lilly, and The Oral Cancer Foundation.
Treatment of advanced locoregional head and neck cancer with high-dose radiotherapy plus cetuximab was superior to radiotherapy alone in improving local control and overall survival.
Treatment of ...advanced locoregional head and neck cancer with high-dose radiotherapy plus cetuximab was superior to radiotherapy alone in improving local control and overall survival.
The treatment of locoregionally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (hereafter called head and neck cancer) has evolved gradually from surgery as the mainstay of treatment to radiotherapy as the principal treatment.
1
–
6
More recently, additional benefit has been obtained with altered-fractionation radiotherapy (i.e., accelerated fractionation or hyperfractionated radiotherapy) and with radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy (chemoradiotherapy).
5
–
11
The value of chemoradiotherapy is, however, counterbalanced by increased and often prohibitive toxicity, particularly among patients with coexisting medical conditions and decreased performance status.
6
,
12
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a member of the ErbB family of receptor tyrosine kinases, . . .
An ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership after publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional ...clinical opinion addresses the role of treatment deintensification in the management of p16+ oropharyngeal cancer (OPC).
For patients with p16+ OPC, current treatment approaches are well established. In the good-prognosis subset of nonsmoking p16+ patients with early-stage disease, these treatments have been highly successful, albeit with significant associated acute and late toxicity. Deintensification of surgical, radiation, and medical treatment in an effort to reduce toxicity while preserving high survival rates is an appropriate therapeutic objective currently being explored in patients who are experiencing the best treatment results. However, careful delineation of this good-risk subset is essential. While the current eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system is prognostically robust, it should not be interpreted as reason to alter therapeutic decisions or justify treatment deintensification. The development of transoral surgical techniques and the adoption of intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning have been transformative in disease management and suggest potentially beneficial approaches. Recent advances in systemic treatments have been notable. The optimal integration and modification of these modalities to ameliorate toxicity has not been defined and remains an important focus of current investigation.
The hypothesis that de-escalation of treatment intensity for patients with p16+ OPC can reduce long-term toxicity without compromising survival is compelling and necessitates careful study and the analysis of well-designed clinical trials before changing current treatment standards. Treatment deintensification for these patients should only be undertaken in a clinical trial. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines .
The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk ...localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment.
The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial.
Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07–13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18–17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3–33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7–28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9–24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0–35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group.
In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT.
National Cancer Institute.
To evaluate candidate fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging biomarkers for head-and-neck chemoradiotherapy outcomes in the cooperative group trial ...setting.
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 0522 patients consenting to a secondary FDG-PET/CT substudy were serially imaged at baseline and 8 weeks after radiation. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SUV peak (mean SUV within a 1-cm sphere centered on SUVmax), and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) using 40% of SUVmax as threshold were obtained from primary tumor and involved nodes.
Of 940 patients entered onto RTOG 0522, 74 were analyzable for this substudy. Neither high baseline SUVmax nor SUVpeak from primary or nodal disease were associated with poor treatment outcomes. However, primary tumor MTV above the cohort median was associated with worse local-regional control (hazard ratio 4.01, 95% confidence interval 1.28-12.52, P=.02) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio 2.34, 95% confidence interval 1.02-5.37, P=.05). Although MTV and T stage seemed to correlate (mean MTV 6.4, 13.2, and 26.8 for T2, T3, and T4 tumors, respectively), MTV remained a strong independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival in bivariate analysis that included T stage. Primary MTV remained prognostic in p16-associated oropharyngeal cancer cases, although sample size was limited.
High baseline primary tumor MTV was associated with worse treatment outcomes in this limited patient subset of RTOG 0522. Additional confirmatory work will be required to validate primary tumor MTV as a prognostic imaging biomarker for patient stratification in future trials.
PDF
