Treatment Tolerance of Cetuximab versus Alternative Chemotherapy Agents in Non-Cisplatin Candidates with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.
Ryan Morse, Rohit G Ganju, Rishi Neeranjun, Gregory N Gan, Ying Cao, Prakash Neupane, Kiran Kakarala, Yelizaveta Shnayder, Christopher E Lominska
{"title":"Treatment Tolerance of Cetuximab versus Alternative Chemotherapy Agents in Non-Cisplatin Candidates with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.","authors":"Ryan Morse, Rohit G Ganju, Rishi Neeranjun, Gregory N Gan, Ying Cao, Prakash Neupane, Kiran Kakarala, Yelizaveta Shnayder, Christopher E Lominska","doi":"10.1159/000525481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standard of care for radiosensitization in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with high-dose cisplatin. The optimal chemoradiation regimen for patients medically unfit for cisplatin is unclear. We compared our experience with concurrent cetuximab (CTX) versus other cytotoxic non-cisplatin agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed 53 patients between 2011 and 2017 with HNSCC treated with CCRT ineligible for cisplatin. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment tolerance was evaluated in those receiving CTX versus non-CTX chemotherapy (NCC). Of the NCC regimens, the majority were carboplatin/paclitaxel and were dosed at an area under the curve (AUC) of 2 and 45-50 mg/m2, respectively. Standard radiation dosing was 70 Gray (Gy) in the definitive setting and 60-66 Gy in the postoperative setting. Patient characteristics and treatment toxicities were evaluated using categorical methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients were well balanced overall including differences between performance status and the comorbidity score. NCC patients experienced more radiation treatment breaks (52.4% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.022), radiation delays >1 week (33.3% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.01), and chemotherapy dose-limiting toxicity (61.9% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.015) compared to CTX patients. Nutritional dependence on a PEG tube was more likely in the NCC cohort (52.4% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.027).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest decreased treatment tolerance in non-cisplatin cytotoxic chemotherapy compared to cetuximab. Further prospective study is needed to clarify optimal chemotherapy in patients unable to receive cisplatin.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000525481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Standard of care for radiosensitization in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with high-dose cisplatin. The optimal chemoradiation regimen for patients medically unfit for cisplatin is unclear. We compared our experience with concurrent cetuximab (CTX) versus other cytotoxic non-cisplatin agents.
Methods: We reviewed 53 patients between 2011 and 2017 with HNSCC treated with CCRT ineligible for cisplatin. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment tolerance was evaluated in those receiving CTX versus non-CTX chemotherapy (NCC). Of the NCC regimens, the majority were carboplatin/paclitaxel and were dosed at an area under the curve (AUC) of 2 and 45-50 mg/m2, respectively. Standard radiation dosing was 70 Gray (Gy) in the definitive setting and 60-66 Gy in the postoperative setting. Patient characteristics and treatment toxicities were evaluated using categorical methods.
Results: Patients were well balanced overall including differences between performance status and the comorbidity score. NCC patients experienced more radiation treatment breaks (52.4% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.022), radiation delays >1 week (33.3% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.01), and chemotherapy dose-limiting toxicity (61.9% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.015) compared to CTX patients. Nutritional dependence on a PEG tube was more likely in the NCC cohort (52.4% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.027).
Conclusion: Our results suggest decreased treatment tolerance in non-cisplatin cytotoxic chemotherapy compared to cetuximab. Further prospective study is needed to clarify optimal chemotherapy in patients unable to receive cisplatin.