Does the use of induction chemotherapy in oral cavity cancer compromise subsequent loco‑regional treatment delivery: Results from a matched pair analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is being increasingly used in patients with unresectable oral cavity cancers to make them resectable. However, its impact on locoregional treatment delivery in such setting remains poorly studied. AIMS: To evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on delivery of further locoregional treatment. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Mono institutional retrospective audit of patients with oral cavity squamous cell cancers treated with neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 14) from May 2012 to April 2014 were matched 1:2 to patients undergoing upfront surgery (n = 28) based on age (>60 or 60 and less), gender (male or female) and subsite site (tongue and floor of mouth or buccoalveolar complex). Data regarding factors related to the delivery of locoregional treatment and toxicities were compiled. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive analysis in the form of median (range) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. RESULTS: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy required more extensive resections and had greater operative time (460 vs. 415 min, P < 0.001). A greater incidence of locoregional wound complications was seen as a consequence (57.1% vs. 14.3%, P, 0.01). However, toxicities during radiotherapy were not substantially different between the two groups and compliance to radiation was also similar. Total package time of 100 days or less, was maintained in 90% of patients in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not impair the ability to deliver locoregional treatment.

Tolerance and toxicity of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin and 5 fluorouracil regimen in technically unresectable oral cancer in resource limited rural based tertiary cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) can result in R0 resection in a substantial proportion of patients with technically unresectable oral cavity cancers. However, data regarding the efficacy and safety of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5 fluorouracil (TPF) NACT in our setting is lacking. The present audit was proposed to evaluate the toxicities encountered during administration of this regimen. It was hypothesized that TPF NACT would be considered feasible for routine administration if an average relative dose intensity (ARDI) of ≥0.90 or more in at least 70% of the patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Technically unresectable oral cancers with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0-2, with biopsy proven squamous cell carcinoma underwent two cycles of NACT with TPF regimen. Toxicity and response rates were noted following the CTCAE 4.03 and RECIST criteria. Descriptive analysis of completion rates (completing 2 cycles of planned chemotherapy with ARDI of 0.85 or more), reason for delay, toxicity, and response are presented. RESULTS: The NACT was completed by all patients. The number of subjects who completed all planned cycles of chemotherapy are with the ARDI of the delivered chemotherapy been equal to or >0.85 was 11 (91.67%). All toxicity inclusive Grade 3-5 toxicity was seen in 11 patients (91.67%). The response rate of chemotherapy was 83.33%. There were three complete response, seven partial response, and two stable disease seen post NACT in this study. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel, cisplatin and 5 fluorouracil regimen can be routinely administered at our center with the supportive care methods and precautionary methods used in our study.

Weekly chemotherapy as Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer for patients ineligible for 3 weekly maximum tolerable dose chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To study the safety and efficacy of weekly chemotherapy as part of induction chemotherapy, in locally advanced head and neck cancer for patients, who are unfit for upfront radical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is a retrospective analysis of on‑use weekly chemotherapy as Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer, who are technically unresectable are unfit for upfront radical treatment. Induction chemotherapy given was a 2 drug combination of paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) and carboplatin AUC 2. The decision to give weekly induction chemotherapy was given on the basis of presence of 2 more following features: Poor performance status (ECOG PS 2‑3), presence of uncontrolled co morbidities, BMI below 18.5 kg/m2 and age more than 60 years. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS version 16.0) was used for analysis. The response rates, toxicity (accordance with CTCAE vs. 4.02), completion rate (Cp) of radical intent treatment post neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), progression‑free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are reported. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were considered for such therapy. Fourteen out of fifteen patients completed NACT. The median numbers of planned weekly cycles were 6 (3-8). Response (CR + PR) was seen in 10 patients. Overall grade 3-4 toxicity was seen in 6 patients. No toxicity related mortality was noted. The calculated completion rate (Cp) of radical intent treatment post NACT was 46.7%. The median PFS and OS were 10.36 months (95% CI 6.73-14.00 months) and 16.53 months (95% CI 4.22-28.84). CONCLUSION: Use of induction chemotherapy with weekly regimen is safe and effective selected cohort of patients with locally advanced disease who are unfit for upfront radical treatment.