Efficacy of Varunadi Ghritha (polyherbal compound) in treated head and neck cancer cases as a biological response modifier.

BACKGROUND: Persistent immune suppression is reported in Head and Neck Cancers (HNC) even after treatment and a higher recurrence rate was observed in patients with poor CD3 count. Loco regional recurrences and second primary tumours are the common forms of failure in head and neck cancers. Several agents have been tried to overcome this problem without much benefit. In Ayurveda, several plant based products have been reported to have anti-tumour and immunomodulatory properties. AIM: To test the role of Varunadi Ghritha, as an immunomodulator in apparently healthy, treated and controlled HNC patients and to evaluate its effectiveness in preventing locoregional relapses and development of second primary tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total 78 patients of treated head and neck cancers were randomly selected for intervention and control group. Patients in the intervention group (n = 38) received Varunadi Ghritha, 5gms twice daily for one year and followed up to two years. Patients in the control group (n = 40) were followed up at regular intervals. Immune parameters were assessed in the peripheral blood at base line and at the end of administration of the study compound. RESULTS: In the intervention group, mean percentage increase in CD3, CD19 and CD16 positive cells were significantly higher after the administration of the study compound compared to the control group indicating an immunomodulatory effect of the study compound. A non-significant improvement in disease control was observed in patients with advanced stage of disease in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Administration of Varunadi Ghritha resulted in an increase in T cell counts in patients with treated HNC.

Gefitinib plus cisplatin and radiotherapy in previously untreated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of gefitinib given concomitantly and/or as maintenance therapy to standard cisplatin/radiotherapy for previously untreated, unresected, stage III/IV non-metastatic SCCHN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this phase II, double-blind, study, 226 patients were randomized to gefitinib 250mg/day, 500mg/day or placebo in two phases: a concomitant phase (gefitinib or placebo with chemoradiotherapy), followed by a maintenance phase (gefitinib or placebo alone). Primary endpoint was local disease control rate (LDCR) at 2years; secondary endpoints were LDCR at 1year, objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Gefitinib (250 and 500mg/day) did not improve 2-year LDCR compared with placebo either when given concomitantly with chemoradiotherapy (32.7% vs. 33.6%, respectively; OR 0.921, 95% CI 0.508, 1.670 [1-sided p=0.607]) or as maintenance therapy (28.8% vs. 37.4%, respectively; OR 0.684, 95% CI 0.377, 1.241 [1-sided p=0.894]). Secondary efficacy outcomes were broadly consistent with the 2-year LDCR results. In both doses, gefitinib was well-tolerated and did not adversely affect the safety and tolerability of concomitant chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib was well-tolerated, but did not improve efficacy compared with placebo when given concomitantly with chemoradiotherapy, or as maintenance therapy alone.