No abstract

No abstract

Background Though concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with cisplatin remains a standard of care for patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA‐NPC), carboplatin has alternatively been used without sufficient supportive evidences. Thus, we evaluated an efficacy and tolerability of carboplatin CCRT compared with cisplatin in LA‐NPC patients. Methods Patients with LA‐NPC treated with CCRT were identified through the Thai multicenter head and neck cancer database. Patient tolerability and survival were analyzed and compared between regimens. Survivals were calculated by using the Kaplan–Meier method, and compared by the log‐rank test. A p‐value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 135 of 980 patients (13.8%) were treated with carboplatin. Patients treated with carboplatin were significantly associated with older age (p < 0.001), smoking (p = 0.003), more comorbidity (p = 0.014), kidney disease (p = 0.016), and lower baseline creatinine clearance (p < 0.001). Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy was used significantly more in the cisplatin group than carboplatin group (p < 0.001). Patients who received carboplatin were associated with delay (p = 0.049) and hospitalization (p = 0.006), whereas cisplatin CCRT had more dose reduction (p = 0.001). Patients treated with cisplatin had CCRT interruption from grade 3–4 mucositis (p = 0.019) more than carboplatin, whereas carboplatin had more grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (p < 0.001). The 5‐year overall survival (OS) of patients treated with cisplatin and carboplatin was 59% and 49%, respectively (p = 0.128). Cisplatin or carboplatin CCRT was not a significant predictor for OS and locoregional recurrence‐free survival in multivariate analysis. Conclusions Carboplatin CCRT provided acceptable efficacy and tolerability profiles in real‐world practice. Carboplatin should be considered as an alternative regimen, particularly in cisplatin‐ineligible patients with LA‐NPC treated with CCRT.

Background Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with high cumulative doses (CDs) of cisplatin has been considered the standard of care for non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, given most patients’ inability to tolerate high CDs due to cisplatin-related toxicities, the optimal CD of cisplatin during CRT remains undetermined. Methods Patients with non-metastatic NPC who received CRT with cisplatin between 2007 and 2017 were identified through the Thai head and neck cancer multicenter database and then categorized according to cisplatin CD (mg/m2) received. All complications and cisplatin-related toxicities during CRT were recorded. Results We identified 779 non-metastatic NPC patients receiving low (≤150; n = 97), intermediate (151–250; n = 411), and high (> 250; n = 271) CDs of cisplatin. Low CD patients had significantly lower mean actual radiation dose (p < 0.001) and more radiotherapy delay (p = 0.010), while intermediate CD patients had the least hospitalization (p < 0.001). Overall, 39.3% of the patients experienced cisplatin-related toxicity, which was associated with poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.001). Acute kidney injury was observed in 7% in all patients, which was highest among low CD patients (15.5%; p = 0.002). Intermediate CD patients had significantly longer median OS than the low and high groups (64 vs. 49.8 vs. 53.2, respectively; p = 0.015). Univariate, but not multivariate, analysis showed that CD of cisplatin was significantly associated with OS. Conclusion CD of cisplatin during CRT was not an independent prognostic factor for OS. An intermediate CD induced minimal toxicity without compromising survival and should be considered the optimal CD. Nonetheless, a randomized phase 3 study evaluating the optimal CD of cisplatin is warranted.