Induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: the future?

There is increasing interest in the use of induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. A modest but significant improvement in survival has been observed with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) induction before radiotherapy over that seen with radiotherapy alone. The addition of docetaxel to the PF regimen (TPF) appears to provide further survival benefits. The phase II part of a phase II/III trial compared three cycles of TPF induction chemotherapy before concomitant PF chemoradiotherapy with PF chemoradiotherapy alone in 101 patients with locally advanced stage III-IV head and neck cancer. The incidences of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities during concurrent chemoradiotherapy were not higher in the TPF plus chemoradiotherapy group, and the feasibility of chemoradiotherapy was not compromised. Radiologically evaluated complete response rates at 6-8 weeks from the end of chemoradiotherapy (the primary endpoint) were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11%-36%) with chemoradiotherapy alone and 50% (95% CI, 35%-65%; p = .004) with TPF plus chemoradiotherapy. A median overall survival time of 33.3 months and a 1-year survival rate of 78% were observed with chemoradiotherapy alone, whereas the median survival time was 39.6 months in the TPF plus chemoradiotherapy group, with a 1-year survival rate of 86%. To conclude, increasing evidence suggests that TPF induction chemotherapy improves clinical response and does not compromise subsequent chemoradiotherapy. The results of the ongoing phase III part of the phase II/III study should provide further information about the efficacy and safety of this approach for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil before concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck versus concomitant chemoradiotherapy: a phase II feasibility study.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CHT-RT) compared with the same CHT-RT regimen alone in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We treated 24 patients (20 men and 4 women) who had Stage III-IVM0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, nasopharynx, or hypopharynx. The median patient age was 59 years (range, 41-73 years). The stage distribution was as follows: Stage II, 1 patient; Stage III, 6 patients; and Stage IV, 17; 18 patients had a performance status of 0 and 6 had a performance status of 1. None had undergone previous CHT or RT. Group 1 underwent three cycles of CHT (carboplatin area under the curve 1.5 on Days 1-4 and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) starting on Days 1, 22, and 43 during RT (one daily fraction, 66-70 Gy within 33-35 fractions). Group 2 underwent three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) followed by the same CHT-RT regimen. RESULTS: After the first 16 patients, 8 in Group 1 and 8 in Group 2, the concomitant CHT-RT schedule was modified. The limiting toxicity observed during concomitant CHT-RT was similar in Groups 1 and 2, independent of neoadjuvant TPF administration. An excess of G3-G4 mucositis and other relevant toxicity that did not allowing completion of CHT-RT without interruption occurred in 44% of the patients. A reduction of at least one cycle of concurrent CHT was required in 31% of patients. On the basis of these data, the next 8 patients (Group 3) received three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles only of CHT (cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) on Days 1-4 and 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) (PF) during Weeks 1 and 6 of the planned 7 weeks of RT. In Group 3, 25% of the patients developed World Health Organization G3-G4 mucositis. No World Health Organization hematologic G3-G4 toxicity was seen. RT interruption was required for 2 patients (25%). In 1 patient (12%), one cycle of CHT was omitted. During neoadjuvant TPF (Groups 2 and 3), the principal toxicities were G3-G4 neutropenia (37.5%) and G2 mucositis (44%). At the end of therapy, the CR rate was 62.5% for CHT-RT alone (Group 1) and 80% for neoadjuvant TPF followed by CHT-RT (Groups 2 and 3). CONCLUSION: Three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles of PF during RT are feasible without limiting toxicity. Three cycles of TPF were well tolerated and did not compromise subsequent concomitant CHT-RT. A randomized multicenter Phase III study has been started with the aim of comparing two cycles of PF during RT as standard treatment vs. the experimental arm with three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles of PF during RT.