Cost analysis of cetuximab (Erbitux) plus radiotherapy (ERT) versus concomitant cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CRT) within an NHS oncology unit (single institution): a pilot study

Inhaled delivery of cetuximab-conjugated immunoliposomes loaded with afatinib: A promising strategy for enhanced non-small cell lung cancer treatment

Afatinib (AT), an FDA-approved aniline-quinazoline derivative, is a first-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Combining it with cetuximab (CX), a chimeric human-murine derivative immunoglobulin-G1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the extracellular domain of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has shown significant improvements in median progression-free survival. Previously, we developed cetuximab-conjugated immunoliposomes loaded with afatinib (AT-MLP) and demonstrated their efficacy against NSCLC cells (A549 and H1975). In this study, we aimed to explore the potential of pulmonary delivery to mitigate adverse effects associated with oral administration and intravenous injection. We formulated AT-MLP dry powders (AT-MLP-DPI) via freeze drying using tert-butanol and mannitol as cryoprotectants in the hydration medium. The physicochemical and aerodynamic properties of dry powders were well analyzed firstly. In vitro cellular uptake and cytotoxicity study revealed concentration- and time-dependent cellular uptake behavior and antitumor efficacy of AT-MLP-DPI, while Transwell assay demonstrated the superior inhibitory effects on NSCLC cell invasion and migration. Furthermore, in vivo pharmacokinetic study showed that pulmonary delivery of AT-MLP-DPI significantly increased bioavailability, prolonged blood circulation time, and exhibited higher lung concentrations compared to alternative administration routes and formulations. The in vivo antitumor efficacy study carried on tumor-bearing nude mice indicated that inhaled AT-MLP-DPI effectively suppressed lung tumor growth.

The Inconsistent Assessment of Quality of Life in Patients Treated for Head and Neck Cancer with Anti-EGFR Inhibitors: A Systematic Scoping Review

In patients receiving treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC), there is a correlation between quality of life (QoL) scores and treatment outcomes. Higher QoL scores have been associated with improved survival. Despite this, the assessment of QoL in clinical trials varies considerably. Three databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Cinahl) were queried for articles published in English between 2006 and 2022. Two reviewers (SRS and ANT) performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The authors identified 21 articles that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 5961 patients were evaluated. QoL was reported as average scores for specific variables across five different surveys in 12 included articles. Supplemental QoL data were available in 10 included studies. Critical appraisal of studies indicated a high risk of bias due to the inclusion of trials. There is no standard method for reporting QoL data in clinical trials for HNC patients undergoing treatment with anti-EGFR inhibitors. Future clinical trials should standardize their method for assessing and reporting quality-of-life data to increase patient-centered care and refine treatment choices to optimize survival.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

Concurrent cisplatin or cetuximab with radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Concurrent cisplatin with radiotherapy (CRT) or concurrent cetuximab with radiotherapy (BRT) improves outcomes in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) compared with radiotherapy alone. Nevertheless, a detailed comparison between CRT and BRT in locally advanced HNSCC is required due to inconclusive results.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and EMBASE. Studies that evaluated CRT vs BRT in locally advanced HNSCC were included. The primary outcome that was overall survival (OS), whereas the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate prognosis. All the analyses were performed using Stata Statistical Software 12.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, with a total of 8701 patients, were considered eligible and included in this meta-analysis. Our results revealed that patients treated with CRT had longer OS (HR = 0.51, 95%CI, 0.41-0.64, P < .001), PFS (HR = 0.37, 95%CI, 0.23-0.60, P < .001), LRC (HR = 0.46, 95%CI, 0.37-0.57, P < .001), and DMFS (HR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.40-0.77, P < .001) than those treated with BRT. Furthermore, the results of the subgroup analyses were consistent with the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT has a better OS, PFS, LRC, and DMFS than BRT in locally advanced HNSCC, and should be the preferred treatment for patients with the disease.

Assessing Care Value for Older Patients Receiving Radiotherapy With or Without Cisplatin or Cetuximab for Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

Clinicians frequently use radiotherapy with cetuximab over radiotherapy only or radiotherapy with cisplatin because of a perceived survival and tolerability advantage, but scant data are available to support this perception.

Objective

To measure the 3 aspects of value (quality, outcomes, and cost) in older patients receiving radiotherapy only, radiotherapy with cisplatin, or radiotherapy with cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cohort study, patient records were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare outcomes and claims database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. Participants were 65 years or older; received a diagnosis between 2006 and 2013 of stages III to IVB head and neck cancer; had only 1 cancer on record; and did not undergo surgical intervention. Data analysis was conducted from February 5, 2018, to March 27, 2019.

Exposures

Patients were divided into exposure arms on the basis of their first-line therapy or identified chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy regimen.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival was analyzed by propensity score matching Cox proportional hazards regression models, quality by measuring 90-day emergency department (ED) visit and inpatient admission rates, and costs by assessing 90-day total Medicare spending.

Results

The overall cohort included 1091 patients, of whom 815 (74.7%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 73.9 (6.6) years. Patients receiving radiotherapy with cisplatin had higher overall survival compared with those receiving radiotherapy only (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). This finding was not seen in patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab (adjusted HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20), compared with the radiotherapy only group, and it persisted after stratifying patients by age. The ED visit (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.30-2.30) and inpatient admission (adjusted IRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98) rates in the 90 days after treatment start were higher in patients receiving radiotherapy with cisplatin compared with those treated with radiotherapy only. Patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab had a higher rate of ED visits (adjusted IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82) compared with those in the radiotherapy only group. The 90-day after-treatment spending for patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab was $48 620 (95% CI, $46 466-$50 775) compared with $33 009 (95% CI, $31 499-$34 519) for radiotherapy with cisplatin and $27 622 (95% CI, $25 118-$30 126) for radiotherapy only.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, no survival difference, a higher rate of ED visits but not of inpatient admissions, and higher spending were observed in patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab compared with patients receiving radiotherapy only. The findings suggest that radiotherapy alone should be maintained as a treatment arm in evaluation of novel therapeutics for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer in older and sicker patients.