ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (gefitinib and erlotinib) have been used in the palliative treatment of head and neck cancers with limited success. In this report, we aim to quantify the symptomatic benefit, progression‑free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when erlotinib is given as second‑line treatment in Head and neck cancers. METHODS: This was a post‑hoc retrospective analysis of a randomized study comparing metronomic chemotherapy with cisplatin. A patient who progressed on chemotherapy and had a PS0‑2 were offered second‑line chemotherapy. Patients who had received erlotinib (150 mg PO OD) as second line treatment were selected for this analysis. Erlotinib was discontinued in case of either progression of disease or if the patient had intolerable side effects. Patient were monitored 1‑week after the start of erlotinib and subsequently at monthly intervals. The toxicity was recorded in accordance with CTCAE version 4.02 (NCI,USA) and the response were graded in accordance with RECIST version 1.1. All of these patients were followed‑up till death. RESULTS: Twenty‑three patients were identified. The median age of these patients at the start of the second line was 47 years (interquartile range 40.5–51.75 years). The primary site of distribution was oral cavity primary in 17 patients (77.3%) and nonoral cavity primary in 05 (22.7%) patients. The immediate last chemotherapy regimen received was cisplatin in 9 patients (40.9%) and metronomic chemotherapy in 13 patients (59.1%). Symptomatic benefits post second‑line erlotinib was seen in 18 patients (81.8%). The most common adverse events (any grade) seen were anemia in 20 patients (90.9%), rash in 10 patients (45.5%) and diarrhea in 7 patients (31.8%).The best radiological response documented were a partial response in 04 patients (19.2%). The median estimated PFS and OS were 110 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61–175 days) and 156 days (95% CI: 126–185 days) respectively. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib single agent has promising activity in the second line and needs to be explored in future studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and 5 fluorouracil drug combination is inferior to the combination of taxane with these 2 drugs. However, often in clinical practice at our center giving TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5 fluorouracil) is difficult in view of logistics and tolerance issues. In such a scenario, we prefer to use the 2 drugs combination of platinum and taxane. However, no study has addressed whether a 2 drugs combination, which includes taxane is inferior to the 3 drugs combination and which the taxane of choice is in the 2 drugs combination of taxane and platinum. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients undergoing induction chemotherapy (IC) in oral cavity cancers from 2010 to 2012. We chose for analysis those patients who had a baseline scan done within 4 weeks of starting therapy and a follow‑up scan done within 2 weeks of completion of the second cycle of IC. Response was scored in accordance with RECIST version 1.1. Chi‑square analysis was done to compare response rates (RRs) between regimens. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty‑five patients were identified. The median age was 45 years (24–70 years), 208 (84.9%) were male patients, and 154 patients (62.9%) had primary in the Buccal mucosa. The regimens received were TPF 22 (9%), docetaxel + cisplatin 97 (39.6%), paclitaxel + cisplatin 89 (36.3%), docetaxel + carboplatin 16 (6.5%) and paclitaxel + carboplatin 21 (8.6%). The overall RRs were complete response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease in 4 (1.6%), 56 (22.9%), 145 (59.2%) and 40 (16.3%). The 3 drugs regimen (TPF) had 50% RR as compared to 22% RR with 2 drugs regimen (P = 0.004). Docetaxel containing regimens had 30.3% RR as compared to 17.2% RR with paclitaxel containing regimens (P = 0.094). CONCLUSIONS: TPF has better RR than a 2 drugs taxane‑containing regimen and docetaxel leads to a better RR than paclitaxel for IC in locally advanced oral cavity cancers.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Indian febrile neutropenia (FN) data are limited, especially in adult solid tumor patients. AIMS: The aim was to study patterns of presentation, source of infection, management and outcome and to evaluate the factors which may correlate with outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospective data of FN patients at a tertiary care oncology teaching hospital in India between 2007 and 2012. A standardized form was filled for each patient. Patient management was at the discretion of the treating physician. Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score was retrospectively calculated. Failure of therapy was defined as death, organ failure, shifting from outpatient to inpatient or requirement of intensive care support. SPSS version 16 was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 388 FN episodes were included: 256 in hematolymphoid and 132 in solid tumor patients. 156 episodes were high‑risk by MASCC score. Focus of infection was clinical in 45% and radiologic in 16%. Blood cultures were positive in 18% cases, most commonly Gram‑negative organisms (72%). 93% patients were treated with an antibiotic combination of third‑generation cephalosporin/beta‑lactamase inhibitor, with aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone. Antibiotic sensitivity to ceftriaxone was low at 38% while sensitivity to cefoperazone/sulbactam and piperacillin/tazobactam ranged between 50% and 55% and for carbapenems 75%. Failure of therapy occurred in 156 episodes, most commonly due to the need for second line antibiotics. Mortality was 5.5%. On univariate analysis, MASCC score, age, type of malignancy, prophylactic growth factors, presence of focus of infection, hemoglobin and nadir platelet count correlated with FN complications. CONCLUSION: Gram‑negative bacteremia continues to be the predominant cause of FN in our setup.
ABSTRACT
Impact Factor for 2013 is 1.131 Click here to download free Android Application for this and other journals Click here to view optimized website for mobile devices Journal is indexed with MEDLINE/Index Medicus and Science Citation Index ExpandedShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on citeulikeShare on connoteaShare on googleShare on linkedinMore Sharing Services MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD NECK CANCER Year : 2013 | Volume : 50 | Issue : 1 | Page : 1-8 Induction chemotherapy in technically unresectable locally advanced oral cavity cancers: Does it make a difference? VM Patil1, V Noronha1, VK Muddu1, S Gulia1, B Bhosale1, S Arya2, S Juvekar2, P Chatturvedi3, DA Chaukar3, P Pai3, A D'cruz3, K Prabhash1 1 Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 2 Department of Radio-Diagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 3 Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Date of Web Publication 20-May-2013 Correspondence Address: K Prabhash Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra India DOI: 10.4103/0019-509X.112263 PMID: 23713035 » Abstract Background: Locally advanced and unresectable oral cavity cancers have a poor prognosis. Induction might be beneficial in this setting by reducing tumor bulk and allowing definitive surgery. Aim: To analyze the impact of induction chemotherapy on locally advanced, technically unresectable oral cavity cancers. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with locally advanced oral cavity cancers, who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) during the period between June 2009 and December 2010. Data from a prospectively filled database were analyzed for information on patient characteristics, chemotherapy received, toxicity, response rates, local treatment offered, patterns of failure, and overall survival. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 16. Results: 123 patients, with a median age of 42 years were analyzed. Buccal mucosa was the most common subsite (68.30%). Three drug regimen was utilized in 26 patients (21.10%) and the rest received two drug regimen. Resectability was achieved in 17 patients treated with 3 drug regimen (68.00%) and 36 patients receiving 2 drug regimen. Febrile neutropenia was seen in 3 patients (3.09%) receiving 2 drug regimen and in 9 patients (34.62%) receiving 3 drug regimen. The estimated median OS was not reached in patients who had clinical response and underwent surgery as opposed to 8 months in patients treated with non-surgical modality post NACT (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: Induction chemotherapy was effective in converting technically unresectable oral cavity cancers to operable disease in approximately 40% of patients and was associated with significantly improved overall survival in comparison to nonsurgical treatment.