[Chemosensitivity of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas using subrenal capsule assay--comparative assay of 5-FU, FT, UFT, and HCFU and immunohistochemical study]

A phase II study of combined oral uracil and ftorafur with leucovorin for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BACKGROUND

The objective of this Phase II study was to define the response rate, safety profile, and toxicity of oral uracil and ftorafur (UFT) with leucovorin (UFT/LV) as a palliative treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

METHODS

Patients with metastatic or recurrent SCCHN with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < 2 and adequate organ function were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved trial. Prior induction or adjuvant chemotherapy was permitted provided 6 months had elapsed since the last chemotherapy. Patients were treated with UFT 300 mg/m(2) per day and leucovorin 90 mg per day administered in three doses daily for 28 days followed by a 7-day break for a 35-day cycle. Planned intrapatient dose modifications were based on individual toxicity. Patients were removed from the study for progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

One hundred six cycles of UFT/LV had been administered to 42 patients as of January 1, 2000. The most common toxicities, in descending order of incidence, were anemia, pain, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, mucositis, and anorexia. Clinically significant toxicities attributable to UFT/ LV were primarily gastrointestinal. On an intent-to-treat basis, three patients (7%) achieved a complete response, and six patients (14%) achieved a partial response. The overall response rate was 21% (95% confidence interval, 10--37%).

CONCLUSIONS

UFT/LV therapy is feasible in this patient population and is generally well tolerated. Response rates are similar to the rates expected with continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil. UFT/LV should be studied further both alone and in combination therapy for patients with SCCHN.

Factors in the pathogenesis of tumors of the sphenoid and maxillary sinuses: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To explain the processes that lead to the development of tumors in the maxillary and sphenoid sinuses.

STUDY DESIGN

A 32-year review of the world's literature on neoplasms of these two sinuses and a randomized case-controlled study comparing the normal mucosal architecture of the maxillary to the sphenoid sinus.

METHODS

Analysis of a 32-year world literature review reporting series of cases of maxillary and sphenoid sinus tumors. Tumors were classified by histological type and separated into subgroups if an individual incidence rate was reported. Histomorphometry of normal maxillary and sphenoid sinus mucosa was performed in 14 randomly selected patients (10 sphenoid and 4 maxillary specimens). Specimens were fixed in 10% formalin, embedded in paraffin, and stained with periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) and hematoxylin. Histomorphometric analysis was performed with a Zeiss Axioscope light microscope (Carl Zeiss Inc., Thornwood, NY) mounted with a Hamamatsu (Hamamatsu Photonics, Tokyo, Japan) color-chilled 3 charge coupled device digital camera. The images were captured on a 17-inch Sony (Sony Corp., Tokyo, Japan) multiscan monitor and analyzed with a Samba 4000 Image Analysis Program (Samba Corp., Los Angeles, CA). Five random areas were selected from strips of epithelium removed from each sinus, and goblet and basal cell measurements were made at magnifications x 100 and x 400.

RESULTS

The literature review revealed that the number and variety of tumors in the maxillary sinus are much greater than those in the sphenoid. The incidence of metastatic lesions to each sinus is approximately equal. No recognized pattern of spread from any particular organ system could be determined. On histomorphometric study there were no statistically significant differences between the sinuses in the concentration of goblet cells, basal cells, or seromucinous glands.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors involved in the pathogenesis of tumors of the maxillary and sphenoid sinuses include differences in nasal physiology, embryology, morphology, and topography. There are no significant histological differences in the epithelium and submucous glands between the two sinuses to explain the dissimilar formation of neoplasms.