RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Use of any treatment modality in cancer depends not only on the effectiveness of the modality, but also on other factors such as local expertise, tolerance of the modality, cost and prevalence of the disease. Oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer are the major subsites in which majority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) literature in the head and neck cancers is available. However, oral cancers form a major subsite in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an analysis of a prospectively maintained data on NACT in the head and neck cancers from 2008 to 2012. All these patients were referred for NACT for various indications from a multidisciplinary clinic. Descriptive analysis of indications for NACT in this data base is presented. RESULTS: A total of 862 patients received NACT within the stipulated time period. The sites where oral cavity 721 patients (83.6%), maxilla 41 patients (4.8%), larynx 33 patients (3.8%), laryngopharynx 8 patients (0.9%) and hypopharynx 59 patients (8.2%). Out of oral cancers, the major indication for NACT was to make the cancer resectable in all (100%) patients. The indication in carcinoma of maxilla was to make the disease resectable in 29 patients (70.7% of maxillary cancers) and in 12 patients (29.3% of maxillary cancers) it was given as an attempt to preserve the eyeball. The indication for NACT in laryngeal cancers was organ preservation in 14 patients (42.4% of larnyngeal cancer) and to achieve resectability in 19 patients (57.6% of larnyngeal cancer). The group with laryngopharynx is a cohort of eight patients in whom NACT was given to prevent tracheostomy, these patients had presented with early stridor (common terminology criteria for adverse events Version 4.02). The reason for NACT in hypopharyngeal cancers was for organ preservation in 24 patients (40.7% of hypopharyngeal cancer) and for achievement of resectability in 35 patients (59.3% of hypopharyngeal cancer). CONCLUSION: The major indication for NACT is to make disease resectable at our center while cases for organ preservation are few.