Accelerated fractionation radiotherapy and late intensification with 2 intra-arterial cisplatin infusions for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

The Evolving Role of Intra-arterial Chemotherapy in Adult and Pediatric Cancers: A Comprehensive Review

The development of intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) was driven by an ambition to mitigate systemic side effects, enhance the bioavailability of drugs, and optimize the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents. While the initial research on IAC primarily examined its effectiveness in treating various liver malignancies, the application of this treatment has undergone significant advancements since its introduction. The primary objective of this article is to examine the current range of utilization of IAC, both with and without radiotherapy, while also evaluating the results of relevant clinical trials. Furthermore, this article explores potential future advancements and opportunities in this field. From the scoping review of available articles, it can be concluded that IAC is an effective treatment alternative and, sometimes, a better first-line option, but there is a need for more evidence to make IAC a regular treatment option available for patients.

Is more better? An analysis of toxicity and response outcomes from dose-finding clinical trials in cancer

BACKGROUND

The overwhelming majority of dose-escalation clinical trials use methods that seek a maximum tolerable dose, including rule-based methods like the 3+3, and model-based methods like CRM and EWOC. These methods assume that the incidences of efficacy and toxicity always increase as dose is increased. This assumption is widely accepted with cytotoxic therapies. In recent decades, however, the search for novel cancer treatments has broadened, increasingly focusing on inhibitors and antibodies. The rationale that higher doses are always associated with superior efficacy is less clear for these types of therapies.

METHODS

We extracted dose-level efficacy and toxicity outcomes from 115 manuscripts reporting dose-finding clinical trials in cancer between 2008 and 2014. We analysed the outcomes from each manuscript using flexible non-linear regression models to investigate the evidence supporting the monotonic efficacy and toxicity assumptions.

RESULTS

We found that the monotonic toxicity assumption was well-supported across most treatment classes and disease areas. In contrast, we found very little evidence supporting the monotonic efficacy assumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusion is that dose-escalation trials routinely use methods whose assumptions are violated by the outcomes observed. As a consequence, dose-finding trials risk recommending unjustifiably high doses that may be harmful to patients. We recommend that trialists consider experimental designs that allow toxicity and efficacy outcomes to jointly determine the doses given to patients and recommended for further study.