No abstract

PURPOSE We performed an open-label randomized controlled phase III study comparing treatment outcome and toxicity between radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant cisplatin versus concomitant cetuximab in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; stage III-IV according to the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification, 7th edition). MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m2 1 week before start of RT followed by 250 mg/m2/wk, or weekly intravenous cisplatin 40 mg/m2, during RT. RT was conventionally fractionated. Patients with T3-T4 tumors underwent a second random assignment 1:1 between standard RT dose 68.0 Gy to the primary tumor or dose escalation to 73.1 Gy. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) evaluated using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Secondary end points were locoregional control, local control with dose-escalated RT, pattern of failure, and adverse effects. RESULTS Study inclusion was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. At 3 years, OS was 88% (95% CI, 83% to 94%) and 78% (95% CI, 71% to 85%) in the cisplatin and cetuximab groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.86; P = .086). The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was 23% (95% CI, 16% to 31%) compared with 9% (95% CI, 4% to 14%) in the cetuximab versus the cisplatin group (Gray’s test P = .0036). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups. Dose escalation in T3-T4 tumors did not increase local control. CONCLUSION Cetuximab is inferior to cisplatin regarding locoregional control for concomitant treatment with RT in patients with locoregionally advanced HNSCC. Additional studies are needed to identify possible subgroups that still may benefit from concomitant cetuximab treatment.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to prospectively and longitudinally compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes between head and neck (HN) cancer patients treated with parotid-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and patients treated with 3-dimensional conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT).Methods and materialsBefore and up to 12 months after treatment, HRQOL was recorded in patients with HN cancer who were referred to the Department of Oncology at Sahlgrenska University Hospital for curative IMRT. The study group's HRQOL was compared with a matched group of patients from previous descriptive HRQOL studies treated with 3D-CRT. Both groups' HRQOL was measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer QLQ-C30 and European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer QLQ-HN35 at 6 time points in the first year after diagnosis.ResultsTwo hundred and seven patients were included, 111 treated with IMRT and 96 matched controls treated with 3D-CRT. Both groups' HRQOL deteriorated during and after treatment. Just after treatment, worse HRQOL scores were observed in the IMRT group regarding insomnia (38 vs 27; P = .032), appetite loss (64 vs 50; P = .019), senses (54 vs 41; P = .017), and coughing (39 vs 26, P = .009). At 12 months, however, significantly better HRQOL scores were observed in the IMRT group regarding problems with dry mouth (72 vs 62; P = .018), pain (28 vs 20; P = .018), sexuality (37 vs 23; P = .016), social contacts (10 vs 6; P = .026), cognitive functioning (79 vs 87; P = .0057), and financial difficulties (12 vs 20; P = .0019).ConclusionsThis study further supports the hypothesis that the introduction of IMRT has improved the long-term quality of life of HN cancer patients who have been treated with radiation therapy, but might cause more acute side effects. Longer follow-up is needed to study late complications.