Is there still a role for induction chemotherapy for head and neck cancer?

Toxicity of induction chemotherapy in head and neck cancer: The central role of skeletal muscle mass

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of nutritional status on tolerance to induction chemotherapy by docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (ICT) in head and neck cancer (HNC).

METHODS

Ninety-two HNC patients were included. Toxicity was assessed according to common terminology criteria for adverse events. Nutritional status was assessed by body mass index (BMI), serum albumin, nutritional risk index (NRI), and CT scan (skeletal muscle mass index [SMI] at the first lumbar vertebral level).

RESULTS

Before treatment, average BMI was 22.7 ± 4.6 kg/m² , serum albumin 38.7 ± 5.8 g/L, NRI 97.6 ± 10.6, and SMI 36.4 ± 7.9 cm² /m² . After treatment, BMI was 23 ± 4.5, serum albumin 30.2 ± 7.1, and NRI 88.1 ± 9.2. During ICT, 52 (62%) patients developed at least one toxicity ≥ Grade 3. Pre-treatment SMI was the only predictive factor of toxicity irrespective of BMI (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Low skeletal muscle mass is a predictive factor of toxicity to ICT in HNC.

[Role of induction chemotherapy in head and neck cancer: Cons]

The treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is based on concomitant chemoradiotherapy. A sequential treatment combining induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF), followed by (chemo)radiotherapy is frequently used as part of laryngeal preservation strategies. Apart from this particular situation, the benefit in terms of survival of induction chemotherapy has been much discussed in recent years. In five recent randomized trials, chemoradiotherapy was compared with TPF induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy. Of these five trials, four concluded that these treatments were similar. A single trial reports a benefit for induction chemotherapy but its methodology is highly debatable. After TPF chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy is less well tolerated. In patients with significant lymph node invasion (N2b-c-N3), induction chemotherapy reduces the occurrence of distant metastasis. The HPV status should not influence the therapeutic decision.

Treatment of head and neck cancers: issues for clinical pharmacists

Head and neck cancers are a heterogeneous group of diseases involving the oral cavity, pharyngeal tube, and larynx. Given the drug therapy options available, clinical pharmacists can play an important role in the care of this patient population. They can recommend a regimen based on efficacy, toxicity, and patient-specific factors; ensure that the prescribed regimen has been studied and reported in the literature; verify dosages; and monitor and counsel patients about adverse effects. Chemotherapy plus radiation (chemoradiation) is often the standard treatment for patients with stage III or nonmetastatic stage IV head and neck cancer. Cisplatin-based regimens are preferred, although carboplatin may be appropriate in some circumstances. Induction therapy with a docetaxel-based regimen is recommended for some patients; however, this therapy has been associated with a high frequency of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, is the newest agent approved for treatment of head and neck cancer. Although evidence supports cetuximab combined with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone for patients with metastatic disease, the role of combination therapy is less clear in patients undergoing chemoradiation. Patients with head and neck cancer may experience swallowing difficulties or mouth pain, possibly interfering with drug administration and adherence; thus, pharmacists in all practice settings should be knowledgeable about different regimens and alternative routes of administration. Xerostomia and mucositis are common adverse effects of radiation therapy, and it is critical that good oral hygiene practices are maintained. Patients may achieve symptomatic relief from xerostomia with saliva substitutes, and clinical experience suggests that use of pilocarpine is worthwhile. Until more evidence becomes available, prevention of xerostomia and mucositis with amifostine is still controversial. Salt-water rinses, bioadherent oral gel, and honey are relatively inexpensive and nontoxic agents for managing mucositis. Because of the expense of palifermin, it is best reserved for refractory cases. Skin toxicities are common with radiation. Rash is also a common adverse effect of cetuximab. When used together, they may produce complicated skin toxicities. It is important to become familiar with the grading of these rashes so that appropriate therapy can be recommended. As pharmacotherapy for head and neck cancers continues to evolve, clinical pharmacists will continue to have an important role in optimizing treatment for patients by balancing efficacy and toxicity.

Clinical practice guidance for radiotherapy planning after induction chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE

The use of induction chemotherapy (IC) for locoregionally advanced head-and-neck cancer is increasing. The response to IC often causes significant alterations in tumor volume and location and shifts in normal anatomy. Proper determination of the radiotherapy (RT) targets after IC becomes challenging, especially with the use of conformal and precision RT techniques. Therefore, a consensus conference was convened to discuss issues related to RT planning and coordination of care for patients receiving IC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ten participants with special expertise in the various aspects of integration of IC and RT for the treatment of locoregionally advanced head-and-neck cancer, including radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and a medical physicist, participated. The individual members were assigned topics for focused, didactic presentations. Discussion was encouraged after each presentation, and recommendations were formulated.

RESULTS

Recommendations and guidelines emerged that emphasize up-front evaluation by all members of the head-and-neck management team, high-quality baseline and postinduction planning scans with the patient in the treatment position, the use of preinduction target volumes, and the use of full-dose RT, even in the face of a complete response.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach is strongly encouraged. Although these recommendations were provided primarily for patients treated with IC, many of these same principles apply to concurrent chemoradiotherapy without IC. A rapid response during RT is quite common, requiring the development of two or more plans in a sizeable fraction of patients, and suggesting the need for similar guidance in the rapidly evolving area of adaptive RT.

Feasibility and efficacy of percutaneous transcatheter intraarterial chemotherapy with paclitaxel in albumin nanoparticles for advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, and hypopharynx

PURPOSE

In view of the promising results of a phase I trial, this phase II trial was conducted to study the efficacy and safety of intraarterial induction chemotherapy with a novel nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel formulation in advanced head and neck cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty previously untreated patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or hypopharynx in stage T3/4 and any nodal stage received two to four cycles of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel by infusion into the external carotid artery or one of its branches, without premedication, at an initial dose of 230 mg/m2 and subsequently a reduced dose of 150 mg/m2. Response was evaluated by physical examination and multidetector computed tomography in all patients, and also by positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in 38 patients. Definitive treatment was surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or chemoradiation therapy.

RESULTS

Intraarterial chemotherapy had a low incidence of complications and produced complete or partial responses in 45 of 60 treated patients (75%). Seven patients (11.67%) had stable disease and eight (13.33%) had disease progression. High-grade bone marrow depression was rare. An unexpected toxicity was reversible facial nerve palsy on the side of infusion, which occurred in six patients at initial dosage. Reduction of the dose eliminated this specific toxicity without any loss of efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The promising response rates and tolerability of intraarterial chemotherapy with nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel justify further investigation of this formulation, alone or in combination with other agents, in advanced SCC of the head and neck.

T3 and T4 true vocal cord squamous carcinomas treated with external beam irradiation: a single institution's 35-year experience

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report the outcomes after external-beam radiotherapy (RT) for selected T3 and T4 vocal cord squamous cell carcinomas.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred nine patients with previously untreated T3 and T4 squamous cell carcinomas of the glottic larynx were treated with curative intent in this Institutional Review Board-approved outcome study using continuous-course RT alone (106 patients) or followed by a planned neck dissection (3 patients) between September 1966 and June 2002. Patients selected for such treatment had relatively low-volume, unilateral disease. Patients were staged according to the recommendations of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) as follows: T3N0, 68 patients (62%); T3N1, 14 patients (13%); T3N2B, 5 patients (5%); T4N0, 17 patients (16%); T4N1, 4 patients (4%); and T4N2B, 1 patient.

RESULTS

The 5-year outcomes after treatment were: local control for stage T3 and T4, 78% and 81%; locoregional control for AJCC stage III and IVa, 62% and 78%; distant metastasis-free survival for AJCC stage III and IVa, 97% and 100%; cause-specific survival for AJCC stage III and IVa, 84% and 87%; and overall survival for AJCC stage III and IVa, 52% and 67%, respectively. Severe complications occurred in 13 patients (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this retrospective study compare favorably with those published elsewhere in the literature for T3 and T4 vocal cord carcinomas. Local control and ultimate cure probabilities will hopefully improve further with the addition of concomitant chemotherapy to RT for larger tumors.

A multidisciplinary approach to squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: what is new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this article is to review progress in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (in the light of the most recent literature). Due to the complexity of the disease the multidisciplinary approach needs also a multidisciplinary knowledge which this review tries to summarize.

RECENT FINDINGS

The multidisciplinary treatment approach to the disease includes predictive and prognostic value of biomolecular and clinical factors, the role of induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemo-radiotherapy, new advances in postoperative treatment, treatment-related side-effects and their impact on patients' quality of life, new targeted therapies and treatment choice for incurable patients. Advances in other disciplines, such as radiation therapy and new imaging techniques, will be considered elsewhere in this journal.

SUMMARY

Major advances derived from the strategic use of different treatment and diagnostic modalities. The importance of a multidisciplinary team and knowledge in the approach of this disease should be stressed. Today, a multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment philosophy is the tool to guarantee the best treatment plan definition, to prevent and relieve treatment adverse effects with the ultimate goal to improve survival.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to preoperative chemoradiation or radiation in rectal cancer: should we be more cautious?

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a term originally used to describe the administration of chemotherapy preoperatively before surgery. The original rationale for administering NACT or so-called induction chemotherapy to shrink or downstage a locally advanced tumour, and thereby facilitate more effective local treatment with surgery or radiotherapy, has been extended with the introduction of more effective combinations of chemotherapy to include reducing the risks of metastatic disease. It seems logical that survival could be lengthened, or organ preservation rates increased in resectable tumours by NACT. In rectal cancer NACT is being increasingly used in locally advanced and nonmetastatic unresectable tumours. Randomised studies in advanced colorectal cancer show high response rates to combination cytotoxic therapy. This evidence of efficacy coupled with the introduction of novel molecular targeted therapies (such as Bevacizumab and Cetuximab), and long waiting times for radiotherapy have rekindled an interest in delivering NACT in locally advanced rectal cancer. In contrast, this enthusiasm is currently waning in other sites such as head and neck and nasopharynx cancer where traditionally NACT has been used. So, is NACT in rectal cancer a real advance or just history repeating itself? In this review, we aimed to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the separate approaches of neoadjuvant, concurrent and consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer, drawing on theoretical principles, preclinical studies and clinical experience both in rectal cancer and other disease sites. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may improve outcome in terms of disease-free or overall survival in selected groups in some disease sites, but this strategy has not been shown to be associated with better outcomes than postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. In particular, there is insufficient data in rectal cancer. The evidence for benefit is strongest when NACT is administered before surgical resection. In contrast, the data in favour of NACT before radiation or chemoradiation (CRT) is inconclusive, despite the suggestion that response to induction chemotherapy can predict response to subsequent radiotherapy. The observation that spectacular responses to chemotherapy before radical radiotherapy did not result in improved survival, was noted 25 years ago. However, multiple trials in head and neck cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, small-cell lung cancer and cervical cancer do not support the routine use of NACT either as an alternative, or as additional benefit to CRT. The addition of NACT does not appear to enhance local control over concurrent CRT or radiotherapy alone. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before CRT or radiation should be used with caution, and only in the context of clinical trials. The evidence base suggests that concurrent CRT with early positioning of radiotherapy appears the best option for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and in all disease sites where radiation is the primary local therapy.

French multicenter phase III randomized study testing concurrent twice-a-day radiotherapy and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil chemotherapy (BiRCF) in unresectable pharyngeal carcinoma: Results at 2 years (FNCLCC-GORTEC)

BACKGROUND

Unresectable carcinomas of the oropharynx and hypopharynx still have a poor long-term prognosis. Following a previous phase II study, this phase III multicenter trial was conducted between November 1997 and March 2002.

METHODS

Nontreated, strictly unresectable cases were eligible. Twice-daily radiation: two fractions of 1.2 Gy/day, 5 days per week, with no split (D1-->D46). Total tumor doses: 80.4 Gy/46 day (oropharynx), 75.6 Gy/44 day (hypopharynx). Chemotherapy (arm B): Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (D1, D22, D43); 5FU, continuous infusion (D1-->D5), 750 mg/m2/day cycle 1; 430 mg/m2/day cycles 2 and 3.

RESULTS

A total of 163 evaluable patients. Grade 3-4 acute mucositis 82.6% arm B/69.5% arm A (NS); Grade 3-4 neutropenia 33.3% arm B/2.4% arm A (p < 0.05). Enteral nutrition through gastrostomy tube was more frequent in arm B before treatment and at 6 months (p < 0.01). At 24 months, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and specific survival (SS) were significantly better in arm B. OS: 37.8% arm B vs. 20.1% arm A (p = 0.038); DFS: 48.2% vs. 25.2% (p = 0.002); SS: 44.5% vs. 30.2% (p = 0.021). No significant difference between the two arms in the amount of side effects at 1 and 2 years.

CONCLUSION

For these unresectable cases, chemoradiation provides better outcome than radiation alone, even with an "aggressive" dose-intensity radiotherapy schedule.