2016
DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.63.1671
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cetuximab and Radiotherapy Versus Cisplatin and Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial

Abstract: CTX concomitant to RT lowered compliance and increased acute toxicity rates. Efficacy outcomes were similar in both arms. These results raise the issue of appropriately selecting patients with head and neck cancer who can benefit from CTX in combination with RT.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
145
1
8

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 200 publications
(158 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
4
145
1
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Pryor et al24 reported higher rate of mucosal toxicity in LAHNC patients treated with concurrent cetuximab compared to Bonner trial, and Walsh et al25 reported significantly higher toxicity including OM in concurrent cetuximab arm compared to concurrent cisplatin arm. A recent randomized phase II trial26 also has shown different toxicity profiles between concurrent cisplatin arm vs. concurrent cetuximab arm – hematologic, renal and GI toxicities were more frequent in the cisplatin arm while cutaneous toxicity and need for nutritional support were more frequent in the cetuximab arm – without significant difference in the rate of OM. The results of the large Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1016 trial with prospective quality of life data collection will hopefully resolve this controversy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pryor et al24 reported higher rate of mucosal toxicity in LAHNC patients treated with concurrent cetuximab compared to Bonner trial, and Walsh et al25 reported significantly higher toxicity including OM in concurrent cetuximab arm compared to concurrent cisplatin arm. A recent randomized phase II trial26 also has shown different toxicity profiles between concurrent cisplatin arm vs. concurrent cetuximab arm – hematologic, renal and GI toxicities were more frequent in the cisplatin arm while cutaneous toxicity and need for nutritional support were more frequent in the cetuximab arm – without significant difference in the rate of OM. The results of the large Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1016 trial with prospective quality of life data collection will hopefully resolve this controversy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Badania kliniczne III fazy wskazują na możliwość zastosowania w niedrobnokomórkowym raku płuca także innych przeciwciał blokujących receptor EGF -matuzumab, panitumumab oraz necitumumab [4,46]. Dowiedziono także skuteczności stosowania cetuksymabu w skojarzeniu z radioterapią w nowotworach głowy i szyi (badania II fazy) [50] oraz z terapią neoadjuwantową i radioterapią raka krtani [51]. Panitumumab jest ludzkim, ukierunkowanym wprost przeciwko EGFR, monoklonalnym przeciwciałem klasy IgG 2 , które wykazuje swoje działanie poprzez niekowalencyjne wiązanie z podjednostką wiążącą ligand białka EGFR.…”
Section: Przeciwciała Stosowane W Innych Typach Nowotworów Złośliwychunclassified
“…The risk of disease progression was also reduced by 30% (hr: 0.70; 95% ci: 0.54 to 0.90; p = 0.006), and the median duration of locoregional control was significantly longer in the cetuximab group (hr: 0.68; 95% ci: 0.52 to 0.89; p = 0.005) with no difference between the groups in the incidence of grades 3 and 4 toxic effects or quality-of-life scores 18,19 . Those significant survival benefits were not observed in another study that compared the addition of cetuximab or of platin-based chemotherapy to concurrent hyperfractionated radiation therapy 20 .…”
Section: Key Evidence and Qualifying Statementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also unclear whether cetuximab is noninferior to ccrt. Cetuximab avoided chemotherapy toxicities but was associated with a high rate of severe mucositis 19 . Compared with standard therapy, other epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors have not demonstrated a better treatment effect.…”
Section: Key Evidence and Qualifying Statementsmentioning
confidence: 99%