Prévost Alain, Mérol Jean-Claude, Aimé Philippe, Moutel Karine, Roger-Liautaud Françoise, Nasca Salvador, Legros Michel, Coninx Paul
Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Robert Debré, Service de Chirurgie Cervico-faciale, 51100 Reims Cedex, France.
Oncol Rep. 2005 Sep;14(3):771-6.
We investigated a phase III randomized trial to compare efficacy and tolerance of CDDP + 5-FU to CDDP + VP16, both given intravenously in patients with unresectable advanced head and neck cancer. The 197 eligible patients were paired off successively on the basis of tumor sites and UICC stage. Comparisons were made through sequential closed plans. In 179 patients, tumor beds and cervical lymph nodes were irradiated, and 20 patients underwent salvage surgical procedures. Cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil showed a response (CR + PR) rate of 15% greater than that observed with cisplatin plus etoposide (alpha=0.05, power 70%). Complete responses played a major role in the CDDP + 5-FU regimen. Furthermore, we noted a higher cervical node regression with this chemotherapy combination. Because radiotherapy was administered after chemotherapy, we could not analyze the mean duration response for each protocol. No significant difference in survival existed between the two groups. Myelosuppression was the most frequent sign of toxicity observed, especially with the CDDP + VP16 regimen. Mucositis was rare with allopurinol protection. In the CDDP + 5-FU group, one patient had grade 4 cardiac dysfunction, and 3 patients exhibited unconsciousness that may be related to cerebral vascular damage. Thirteen patients died, with 8 cases related to septic shock (5 CPPP + VP16 and 3 CDDP + 5-FU). Cisplatin plus 5-FU chemotherapy showed a satisfactory efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile compared with CDDP + VP16, with caution to patients with a cardiac or vascular history. Although we could not show a benefit in survival with the CDDP + 5-FU protocol, this trial supports literature data and confirms that this regimen may be proposed as a first-line therapy in advanced cancer of the head and neck.
我们开展了一项III期随机试验,比较顺铂+5-氟尿嘧啶与顺铂+依托泊苷静脉给药治疗不可切除的晚期头颈癌患者的疗效和耐受性。197例符合条件的患者根据肿瘤部位和国际抗癌联盟(UICC)分期依次配对。通过序贯封闭设计进行比较。179例患者接受了肿瘤床和颈部淋巴结放疗,20例患者接受了挽救性手术。顺铂加5-氟尿嘧啶的缓解率(完全缓解+部分缓解)比顺铂加依托泊苷高15%(α=0.05,检验效能70%)。完全缓解在顺铂+5-氟尿嘧啶方案中起主要作用。此外,我们注意到该化疗方案使颈部淋巴结退缩更明显。由于放疗在化疗后进行,我们无法分析每个方案的平均缓解持续时间。两组患者的生存率无显著差异。骨髓抑制是观察到的最常见的毒性表现,尤其是在顺铂+依托泊苷方案中。使用别嘌醇保护后黏膜炎少见。在顺铂+5-氟尿嘧啶组,1例患者出现4级心脏功能障碍,3例患者出现可能与脑血管损伤有关的意识丧失。13例患者死亡,8例与感染性休克有关(5例为顺铂+依托泊苷方案,3例为顺铂+5-氟尿嘧啶方案)。与顺铂+依托泊苷相比,顺铂加5-氟尿嘧啶化疗显示出令人满意的疗效和可接受的毒性特征,但对有心脏或血管病史的患者需谨慎。尽管我们未能证明顺铂+5-氟尿嘧啶方案对生存有益,但该试验支持文献数据,并证实该方案可作为晚期头颈癌的一线治疗方案。