Shapiro Lauren Q, Sherman Eric J, Riaz Nadeem, Setton Jeremy, Koutcher Lawrence, Zhang Zhigang, Shi Weiji, Fury Matthew G, Wolden Suzanne L, Pfister David G, Morris Luc, Lee Nancy
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York, NY, United States.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Oral Oncol. 2014 Oct;50(10):947-55. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.07.001. Epub 2014 Aug 11.
We previously reported inferior outcomes for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) patients treated with concurrent cetuximab vs. high-dose cisplatin with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Prior to FDA approval of cetuximab for LAHNSCC, non-cisplatin eligible patients at our institution received 5-fluorouracil (5FU)/carboplatin. We sought to compare concurrent cetuximab vs. 5FU/carboplatin vs. high-dose cisplatin with IMRT for LAHNSCC.
Retrospective review was performed for LAHNSCC patients treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from 11/02 to 04/08 with concurrent cetuximab (n=49), 5FU/carboplatin (n=52), or cisplatin (n=259) and IMRT. Overall survival (OS), locoregional failure (LRF), distant metastasis-free survival, and late toxicity were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. OS analysis was confirmed by propensity score adjustment.
Treatment groups were similar with regard to primary tumor site, overall stage, and alcohol and tobacco history. Cetuximab and 5FU/carboplatin patients were older, with lower performance status, more comorbidities, higher T classification, and worse renal function. On multivariate analysis, compared with cisplatin and 5FU/carboplatin, cetuximab was associated with inferior 4-year OS (86.9% vs. 70.2% vs. 40.9%; P<.0001) and 4-year LRF (6.3% vs. 9.7% vs. 40.2%; P<.0001). Late toxicity was highest with 5FU/carboplatin (25.0%) vs. cisplatin (8.0%) vs. cetuximab (7.7%).
Although 5FU/carboplatin patients were sicker and experienced greater toxicity than cisplatin patients, no significant difference was found in all endpoints. In contrast, despite similar pretreatment characteristics, outcomes for cetuximab vs. 5FU/carboplatin were significantly worse. We feel that caution should be used with routine use of cetuximab in the management of LAHNSCC.
我们之前报道了局部晚期头颈部鳞状细胞癌(LAHNSCC)患者接受西妥昔单抗与高剂量顺铂同步强度调制放射治疗(IMRT)的疗效较差。在美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准西妥昔单抗用于LAHNSCC之前,我们机构中不符合使用顺铂条件的患者接受了5-氟尿嘧啶(5FU)/卡铂治疗。我们试图比较西妥昔单抗与5FU/卡铂以及高剂量顺铂同步IMRT治疗LAHNSCC的效果。
对2002年11月至2008年4月在纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心接受同步西妥昔单抗(n = 49)、5FU/卡铂(n = 52)或顺铂(n = 259)及IMRT治疗的LAHNSCC患者进行回顾性分析。采用单因素和多因素分析方法分析总生存期(OS)、局部区域复发(LRF)、无远处转移生存期和晚期毒性。通过倾向评分调整对OS分析进行确认。
治疗组在原发肿瘤部位、总体分期以及饮酒和吸烟史方面相似。使用西妥昔单抗和5FU/卡铂的患者年龄较大,体力状况较差,合并症较多,T分类较高,肾功能较差。多因素分析显示,与顺铂和5FU/卡铂相比,西妥昔单抗组的4年总生存率较低(86.9%对70.2%对40.9%;P <.0001),4年局部区域复发率也较低(6.3%对9.7%对40.2%;P <.0001)。5FU/卡铂组的晚期毒性最高(25.0%),其次是顺铂组(8.0%)和西妥昔单抗组(7.7%)。
尽管使用5FU/卡铂的患者比使用顺铂的患者病情更重且毒性更大,但在所有终点指标上均未发现显著差异。相比之下,尽管西妥昔单抗组和5FU/卡铂组的预处理特征相似,但西妥昔单抗组的疗效明显更差。我们认为在LAHNSCC的治疗中常规使用西妥昔单抗时应谨慎。