Chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: 10-year follow-up of the UK Head and Neck (UKHAN1) trial.

BACKGROUND: Between 1990 and 2000, we examined the effect of timing of non-platinum chemotherapy when combined with radiotherapy. We aimed to determine whether giving chemotherapy concurrently with radiotherapy or as maintenance therapy, or both, affected clinical outcome. Here we report survival and recurrence after 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: Between Jan 15, 1990, and June 20, 2000, 966 patients were recruited from 34 centres in the UK and two centres from Malta and Turkey. Patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, and who had not previously undergone surgery, were randomly assigned to one of four groups in a 3:2:2:2 ratio, stratified by centre and chemotherapy regimen: radical radiotherapy alone (n=233); radiotherapy with two courses of chemotherapy given simultaneously on days 1 and 14 of radiotherapy (SIM alone; n=166); or 14 and 28 days after completing radiotherapy (SUB alone, n=160); or both (SIM+SUB; n=154). Chemotherapy was either methotrexate alone, or vincristine, bleomycin, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. Patients who had previously undergone radical surgery to remove their tumour were only randomised to radiotherapy alone (n=135) or SIM alone (n=118), in a 3:2 ratio. The primary endpoints were overall survival (from randomisation), and event-free survival (EFS; recurrence, new tumour, or death; whichever occurred first) among patients who were disease-free 6 months after randomisation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at www.Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00002476. FINDINGS: All 966 patients were included in the analyses. Among patients who did not undergo surgery, the median overall survival was 2.6 years (99% CI 1.9-4.2) in the radiotherapy alone group, 4.7 (2.6-7.8) years in the SIM alone group, 2.3 (1.6-3.5) years in the SUB alone group, and 2.7 (1.6-4.7) years in the SIM+SUB group (p=0.10). The corresponding median EFS were 1.0 (0.7-1.4), 2.2 (1.1-6.0), 1.0 (0.6-1.5), and 1.0 (0.6-2.0) years (p=0.005), respectively. For every 100 patients given SIM alone, there are 11 fewer EFS events (99% CI 1-21), compared with 100 given radiotherapy, 10 years after treatment. Among the patients who had previously undergone surgery, median overall survival was 5.0 (99% CI 1.8-8.0) and 4.6 (2.2-7.6) years in the radiotherapy alone and SIM alone groups (p=0.70), respectively, with corresponding median EFS of 3.7 (99% CI 1.1-5.9) and 3.0 (1.2-5.6) years (p=0.85), respectively. The percentage of patients who had a significant toxicity during treatment were: 11% (radiotherapy alone, n=25), 28% (SIM alone, n=47), 12% (SUB alone, n=19), and 36% (SIM+SUB, n=55) among patients without previous surgery; and 9% (radiotherapy alone, n=12) and 20% (SIM alone, n=24) among those who had undergone previous surgery. The most common toxicity during treatment was mucositis. The percentage of patients who had a significant toxicity at least 6 months after randomisation were: 6% (radiotherapy alone, n=13), 6% (SIM alone, n=10), 4% (SUB alone, n=7), and 6% (SIM+SUB, n=9) among patients who had no previous surgery; and 7% (radiotherapy alone, n=10) and 11% (SIM alone, n=13) among those who had undergone previous surgery. The most common toxicity 6 months after treatment was xerostomia, but this occurred in 3% or less of patients in each group. INTERPRETATION: Concurrent non-platinum chemoradiotherapy reduces recurrences, new tumours, and deaths in patients who have not undergone previous surgery, even 10 years after starting treatment. Chemotherapy given after radiotherapy (with or without concurrent chemotherapy) is ineffective. Patients who have undergone previous surgery for head and neck cancer do not benefit from non-platinum chemotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, with support from University College London and University College London Hospital Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre.

Randomized comparison of dry dressings versus hydrogel in management of radiation-induced moist desquamation.

PURPOSE: We present the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial that evaluated the effect of a hydrogel or dry dressing on the time to healing of moist desquamation after radiotherapy to the head-and-neck, breast, or anorectal areas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 357 patients were randomized before radiotherapy to receive simple dry dressings (Tricotex) or a hydrogel (Intrasite), with Tricotex as a secondary dressing. Patients were instructed to use their dressings from the onset of moist desquamation, if it occurred. RESULTS: Of the 357 patients, 100 (28%) developed moist desquamation. The time to healing was significantly prolonged (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.99), in patients assigned to gel dressings. No evidence was found that gel dressings had a significant impact on subjectively reported skin symptoms. CONCLUSION: The results of this study have not supported the routine use of hydrogels in the care of patients with moist desquamation and suggests that the healing times are prolonged, without any improvement in patient comfort.

Does aqueous or sucralfate cream affect the severity of erythematous radiation skin reactions? A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence on which to base decisions about the management of radiation skin reactions is lacking. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether sucralfate or aqueous cream reduced acute skin toxicity during radiotherapy to the head and neck, breast or anorectal area (phase A), and to evaluate the effect of hydrogels and dry dressings on moist desquamation (phase B). This paper presents the results of phase A. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and fifty seven patients were randomised to apply aqueous cream, sucralfate cream or no cream to the irradiated area from day one of radical radiotherapy treatment. All patients were instructed to wash using unperfumed soap. Acute skin toxicity was measured using a modified radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) score, reflectance spectrophotometry, patient diary card and dermatology life quality index (DLQI). A cost minimisation approach was used to compare the costs of each skin care approach. RESULTS: No consistent differences were found in the severity of skin reactions or levels of discomfort suffered by patients in each of the randomised groups. Patients with a higher body mass index, who smoked, received concomitant chemotherapy, boost or bolus during treatment were more likely to develop skin reactions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the prophylactic application of either of the creams tested for the prevention of radiation skin reactions. Our results show that it is possible to predict which patients are at greatest risk of skin reactions. We suggest that known risk factors should be incorporated into future study protocols.