PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Journal of Clinical Oncology· 2014Q1

Randomized Phase III Trial of Concurrent Accelerated Radiation Plus Cisplatin With or Without Cetuximab for Stage III to IV Head and Neck Carcinoma: RTOG 0522

K. Kian Ang, Qiang Zhang, David I. Rosenthal, Phuc Félix Nguyen‐Tan et al.

Short summary

Adding cetuximab to standard radiation and cisplatin therapy for stage III-IV head and neck cancer did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in a phase III trial of 891 patients.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Adding cetuximab to radiation and cisplatin for stage III-IV head and neck cancer did not improve 3-year PFS or OS.
  • The cetuximab arm experienced higher rates of acute toxicities, including grade 3-4 mucositis and rash.
  • PFS and OS were significantly better in patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma compared to p16-negative.
  • EGFR expression did not predict treatment outcomes.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Combining cisplatin or cetuximab with radiation improves overall survival (OS) of patients with stage III or IV head and neck carcinoma (HNC). Cetuximab plus platinum regimens also increase OS in metastatic HNC. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group launched a phase III trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to the radiation-cisplatin platform improves progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with stage III or IV HNC were randomly assigned to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Acute and late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features and markers. RESULTS: Of 891 analyzed patients, 630 were alive at analysis (median follow-up, 3.8 years). Cetuximab plus cisplatin-radiation, versus cisplatin-radiation alone, resulted in more frequent interruptions in radiation therapy (26.9% v. 15.1%, respectively); similar cisplatin delivery (mean, 185.7 mg/m2 v. 191.1 mg/m2, respectively); and more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (43.2% v. 33.3%, respectively), rash, fatigue, anorexia, and hypokalemia, but not more late toxicity. No differences were found between arms A and B in 30-day mortality (1.8% v. 2.0%, respectively; P = .81), 3-year PFS (61.2% v. 58.9%, respectively; P = .76), 3-year OS (72.9% v. 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v. 25.9%, respectively; P = .97), or distant metastasis (13.0% v. 9.7%, respectively; P = .08). Patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), compared with patients with p16-negative OPC, had better 3-year probability of PFS (72.8% v. 49.2%, respectively; P < .001) and OS (85.6% v. 60.1%, respectively; P < .001), but tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression did not distinguish outcome. CONCLUSION: Adding cetuximab to radiation-cisplatin did not improve outcome and hence should not be prescribed routinely. PFS and OS were higher in patients with p16-positive OPC, but outcomes did not differ by EGFR expression.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2014 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Otorhinolaryngology

OtorhinolaryngologyMedicine