Treatment Tolerance of Cetuximab versus Alternative Chemotherapy Agents in Non-Cisplatin Candidates with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-26 DOI:10.1159/000525481
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,&nbsp;Rohit G Ganju,&nbsp;Rishi Neeranjun,&nbsp;Gregory N Gan,&nbsp;Ying Cao,&nbsp;Prakash Neupane,&nbsp;Kiran Kakarala,&nbsp;Yelizaveta Shnayder,&nbsp;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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西妥昔单抗与替代化疗药物对同时接受化疗的癌症头颈部非西铂候选患者的治疗耐受性。
引言:头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)放射增敏的标准护理是同时放化疗(CCRT)和大剂量顺铂。对于医学上不适合顺铂的患者,最佳的放化疗方案尚不清楚。我们比较了同时使用西妥昔单抗(CTX)与其他细胞毒性非顺铂药物的经验。方法:我们回顾了2011年至2017年间53例接受CCRT治疗的HNSCC患者,这些患者不符合顺铂条件。对接受CTX和非CTX化疗(NCC)的患者进行化疗和放疗耐受性评估。在NCC方案中,大多数是卡铂/紫杉醇,并且分别以2和45-50mg/m2的曲线下面积(AUC)给药。标准放射剂量在最终设置中为70格雷(Gy),在术后设置中为60-66格雷。使用分类方法评估患者特征和治疗毒性。结果:患者总体平衡良好,包括表现状态和合并症评分之间的差异。与CTX患者相比,NCC患者经历了更多的放射治疗中断(52.4%对21.9%,p=0.022)、放射延迟>1周(33.3%对3.1%,p<0.01)和化疗剂量限制毒性(61.9%对28.1%,p=0.015)。在NCC队列中,对PEG管的营养依赖性更高(52.4%对22.6%,p=0.027)。结论:我们的结果表明,与西妥昔单抗相比,非顺铂细胞毒性化疗的治疗耐受性降低。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来阐明无法接受顺铂的患者的最佳化疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1