Cetuximab and Radiotherapy Versus Cisplatin and Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: No randomized trials have been conducted to directly compare radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant cisplatin (CDDP) versus concomitant cetuximab (CTX) as first-line treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In this randomized trial, we compared these two treatment regimens in terms of compliance, toxicity, and efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CDDP 40 mg/m(2) once per week or CTX 400 mg/m(2) as loading dose followed by CTX 250 mg/m(2) once per week concomitant to radical RT. For primary end points, compliance to treatment was defined as number of days of treatment discontinuation and drug dosage reduction. The acute toxicity rate was defined according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria. Efficacy end points were local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: The study was discontinued early because of slow accrual after the enrollment of 70 patients. RT discontinuation for more than 10 days occurred in 13% of patients given CTX and 0% given CDDP (P = .05). Drug dosage reduction occurred in 34% given CTX and 53% given CDDP (difference not significant). Toxicity profiles differed between the two arms, with hematologic, renal, and GI toxicities more frequent in the CDDP arm, and cutaneous toxicity and the need for nutritional support more frequent in the CTX arm. Serious adverse events related to treatment, including four versus one toxic deaths, were higher in the CTX arm (19% v 3%, P = .044). Locoregional control, patterns of failure, and survivals were similar between the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: CTX concomitant to RT lowered compliance and increased acute toxicity rates. Efficacy outcomes were similar in both arms. These results raise the issue of appropriately selecting patients with head and neck cancer who can benefit from CTX in combination with RT.

No benefit of adjuvant Fluorouracil Leucovorin chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cancer of the rectum (LARC): Long term results of a randomized trial (I-CNR-RT).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACT-RT). The study was funded by the Italian National Research Council (CNR). METHODS: From September 1992 to January 2001, 655 patients with LARC (clinically T3-4, any N) treated with NACT-RT and surgery, were randomized in two arms: follow-up (Arm A) or 6 cycles of ACT with 5 fluorouracil (5FU)-Folinic Acid (Arm B). NACT-RT consisted of 45Gy/28/ff concurrent with 5FU (350mg/sqm) and Folinic Acid (20mg/sqm) on days 1-5 and 29-33; surgery was performed after 4-6weeks. Median follow up was 63·7months. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 634/655 patients were evaluable (Arm A 310, Arm B 324); 92·5% of Arm A and 91% of Arm B patients received the preoperative treatment as in the protocol; 294 patients of Arm A (94·8%) and 296 of Arm B (91·3%) underwent a radical resection; complete pathologic response and overall downstaging rates did not show any significant difference in the two arms. 83/297 (28%) patients in Arm B, never started ACT. Five year OS and DFS did not show any significant difference in the two treatment arms. Distant metastases occurred in 62 patients (21%) in Arm A and in 58 (19·6%) in Arm B. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LARC treated with NACT-RT, the addition of ACT did not improve 5year OS and DFS and had no impact on the distant metastasis rate.

Radiotherapy resources for the care of head and neck patients in Italy. A survey by the head and neck group of the Italian Association for Radiation Oncology (AIRO).

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: In 2006 a survey was performed to define the resources available in Italy for the provision of radiotherapy services to head and neck cancer patients. This was the first initiative of the newly founded Head and Neck Group of the Italian Association for Radiation Oncology. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 138 radiotherapy centers active in the country. Items investigated included total numbers of head and neck cancer patients treated per year, waiting time before the start of treatment, general technical issues, and integration with surgery and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Sixty-nine questionnaires were returned (50% response rate). The total number of patients treated was 4,670, averaging 68 cases per center. The larynx was the primary site most frequently involved. Average waiting time was 30 days and 47 days for nonresected and postoperative cases, respectively. The combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy was delivered to nonresected and resected patients in 96% and 54% of centers, respectively. Survey response rates, waiting time, and the use of organ preservation protocols were the issues showing more variations across the country. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides important data on radiotherapy resources available for head and neck cancer patients in Italy. The evidence of significant differences across the country concerning several relevant issues and the potential for cooperative clinical efforts in this relatively rare group of diseases urge the Group to plan further initiatives.

Integrated treatments for non-small cell lung cancer.

Even a small percent increase in survival rates after treatment for lung cancer can produce a large benefit in terms of absolute numbers of lives saved, due to the very high incidence of the disease. Clinical results after surgery alone or radiotherapy alone are far from being satisfactory. Therefore, the integration of surgery with radiotherapy (both in the preoperative and in the postoperative setting) has been increasingly tested in the clinic. Radio-chemotherapeutic approaches progressively more effective have been developed for patients with inoperable disease, but also in combination with surgery. This review focuses on the current practice and on the ongoing clinical research in this field. The important issue of the short- and long-term toxicity of combined modality treatments in these patients is also emphasized, along with the research efforts for minimizing toxicity, especially as far as radiotherapy is concerned.

Localized prostate cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The development and use of new radiotherapy techniques, especially 3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy, has allowed the safe application of high doses of external beam radiotherapy without increasing toxicity. The aim of this analysis was to describe the acute and when possible late toxicity and the feasibility on using intensity-modulated radiotherapy into our routine work. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2003 to December 2004, 60 patients with prostate cancer underwent high dose (80 Gy) radiotherapy treatment with intensity-modulated radiotherapy at the University of Florence. In the current analysis, we included patients without clinical or radiographic evidence of distant disease at the time of the first evaluation in the radiotherapy unit. RESULTS: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatments were delivered successfully without any interruption or technical problem. High-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy was well tolerated acutely. Four patients (10%) developed grade 1 late rectal toxicity after completion of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 8 patients (20%) developed grade 1 late urinary symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is the approach of choice for high-dose radiotherapy delivery. No patient had severe toxicity (grade 3) despite the high dose delivered. From a cost-benefit point of view, our experience shows that delivery of intensity-modulated radiotherapy requires only minor corrections to the ordinary activity schedule.

Long-term results of conventional radiotherapy versus accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced carcinoma of the oropharynx.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To compare conventional fractionation (CF) radiation therapy (RT), arm A, versus a split-course accelerated hyperfractionated schedule (S-AHF), arm B, versus CFRT plus concomitant chemotherapy (CT), arm C, in terms of five-year survival and toxicity for squamous cell tumors of the oropharynx. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Between January 1993 and June 1998, 192 previously untreated patients with stage III and IV oropharyngeal carcinoma (excluding T1N1 and T2N1) were enrolled in a multicenter randomized phase III trial (ORO 93-01). In arms A and C, 66 to 70 Gy in 33 to 35 fractions was administered five days a week for six and a half to seven weeks. In arm B, the dose delivered was 64 to 67.2 Gy in two fractions of 1.6 Gy every day, five days a week, with a planned two-week split at 38.4 Gy. In arm C the CT regimen consisted of three cycles of carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CBDCA 75 mg/m2 on days 1 to 4 and 5-FU 1000 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 4 every 28 days). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in five-year overall survival (P = 0.39): 21% for arm A, 21% for arm B, and 40% for arm C. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of five-year relapse-free survival: 15% for arm A, 17% for arm B, and 36% for arm C. There was a slight trend towards better five-year locoregional control (P = 0.07) for the combined arm: patients without locoregional relapse were 48% in arm C, 21% in arm A and 18% in arm B. Locoregional control was significantly better when arm C was compared with arms A and B combined (P = 0.02; arm A+B 20%; arm C 48%). Distant metastases were fairly balanced in the three arms (A: 14; B: 9; C: 11), with a tendency towards more frequent isolated distant metastasis development in arm C (8 of 11 [72%] versus 7 of 23 [30%] in arms A+B). Five-year second-tumor-free survival was 85%. The 13 second tumors were equally distributed and were mainly correlated with tobacco and alcohol consumption (five lung, two esophagus, two oral cavity, one larynx, one pancreas, one hepatocarcinoma, one myeloma). Arm C showed slightly more G3+ late side effects involving subcutaneous tissues and mucosa, although significant late sequelae were relatively uncommon and the mucosal side effects were mostly transient. The occurrence of persistent G3 xerostomia was comparable in the three treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained with the combination of CT and RT compared with RT alone did not reach statistical significance, but combined treatment almost doubled the five-year overall survival, relapse-free survival and locoregional control rate. Patients with advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the oropharynx who are medically suitable for the combined approach should be treated with a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The occurrence of second tumors is relatively common in these patients and may contribute substantially to the causes of death.

Short-course versus split-course radiotherapy in metastatic spinal cord compression: results of a phase III, randomized, multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) is often used in the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). This randomized trial was planned to assess the clinical outcome and toxicity of two different hypofractionated RT regimens in MSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients with MSCC were randomly assigned to a short-course RT (8 Gy x 2 days) or to a split-course RT (5 Gy x 3; 3 Gy x 5). Only patients with a short life expectancy entered the protocol. Median follow-up was 33 months (range, 4 to 61 months). RESULTS: A total of 276 (92%) patients were assessable; 142 (51%) treated with the short-course and 134 (49%) treated with the split-course RT regimen. There was no significant difference in response, duration of response, survival, or toxicity found between the two arms. When short- versus split-course regimens were compared, after RT 56% and 59% patients had back pain relief, 68% and 71% were able to walk, and 90% and 89% had good bladder function, respectively. Median survival was 4 months and median duration of improvement was 3.5 months for both arms. Toxicity was equally distributed between the two arms: grade 3 esophagitis or pharyngitis was registered in four patients (1.5%), grade 3 diarrhea occurred in four patients (1.5%), and grade 3 vomiting or nausea occurred in 10 patients (6%). Late toxicity was never recorded. CONCLUSION: Both hypofractionated RT schedules adopted were effective and had acceptable toxicity. However, considering the advantages of the short-course regimen in terms of patient convenience and machine time, it could become the RT regimen of choice in the clinical practice for MSCC patients.

Locoregionally advanced carcinoma of the oropharynx: conventional radiotherapy vs. accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy vs. concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy--a multicenter randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare conventional fractionation radiation therapy (RT), Arm A, vs. split-course accelerated hyperfractionated RT (S-AHF), Arm B, vs. conventional fractionation RT plus concomitant chemotherapy (CT), Arm C, in terms of survival and toxicity for advanced, unresectable epidermoid tumors of oropharynx. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 1993 and June 1998, 192 previously untreated patients affected with Stage III and IV oropharyngeal carcinoma (excluding T1N1 and T2N1) were accrued in a multicenter, randomized Phase III trial (ORO 93-01). For Arms A and C, 66-70 Gy in 33-35 fractions, 5 days a week, were administered in 6.5-7 weeks to tumor and positive nodes. In Arm B, the dose delivered to tumor and involved nodes was 64-67.2 Gy, giving 2 fractions of 1.6 Gy every day with an interfraction interval of at least 4 h and preferably 6 h, 5 days a week. At 38.4 Gy, a 2-week split was planned; after the split, RT was resumed with the same modality. In Arm C, CT regimen consisted of carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CBDCA 75 mg/m(2), Days 1-4; 5-FU 1,000 mg/m(2) i.v. over 96 h, Days 1-4, recycling every 28 days (at 1st, 5th, and 9th week). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was detected in overall survival (p = 0.129): 40% Arm A vs. 37% Arm B vs. 51% Arm C were alive at 24 months. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of event-free survival (p = 0.196): 20% for Arm A, 19% for Arm B, and 37% for Arm C were event free at 24 months. On the contrary, the 2-year disease-free survival was significantly different among the three arms (p = 0.022), with a superiority for Arm C. At 24 months, the proportion of patients without relapse was 42% for Arm C vs. 23% for Arm A and 20% for Arm B. Patients in Arm A less frequently developed G3+ acute mucositis than their counterparts in Arm B or C (14.7% vs. 40.3% vs. 44%). Regarding the CT-related acute toxicity, apart from 1 case of fatal nephrotoxicity, only hematologic G3+ (Grade 3 or higher) acute sequelae were observed (World Health Organization scale), most commonly leukopenia (22.7%). Arm C showed slightly more G3+ skin, s.c. tissue, and mucosal late side effects (RTOG scale), although significant sequelae were relatively uncommon, and mucosal sequelae were most commonly transient. The occurrence of persistent G3 xerostomia was comparable in all three treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of simultaneous CT and RT with the regimen of this trial is better than RT alone in advanced oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinomas, by increasing disease-free survival. This improvement, however, did not translate into an overall survival improvement, and was associated with a higher incidence of acute morbidity.