Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Nov 1;148(11):1022-1028. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.2791.
Cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are often used for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are ineligible for cisplatin. There are no prospective head-to-head data comparing cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based regimens for radiosensitization.
To compare survival with cetuximab-based and carboplatin-based CRT in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included US veterans who received a diagnosis of HNSCC between January 2006 and December 2020 and were treated with systemic therapy and radiation. Data cutoff was March 1, 2022 and data analysis was conducted from April-May 2022.
Cisplatin, cetuximab, or carboplatin-based systemic therapy as captured in VA medication data and cancer registry.
Overall survival by systemic therapy was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used propensity score and inverse probability weighting to achieve covariate balance between cetuximab-treated and carboplatin-treated patients and used Cox regression to estimate cause-specific hazard ratios of death associated with carboplatin vs cetuximab. We also performed subgroup analyses of patients with oropharynx vs nonoropharynx primary sites.
A total of 8290 patients (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; 8201 men [98.9%]; 1225 [15.8%] Black or African American and 6424 [82.6%] White individuals) with nonmetastatic HNSCC were treated with CRT with cisplatin (5566 [67%]), carboplatin (1231 [15%]), or cetuximab (1493 [18%]). Compared with cisplatin-treated patients, patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older with worse performance status scores and higher comorbidity burden. Median (IQR) overall survival was 74.4 (22.3-162.2) months in patients treated with cisplatin radiotherapy (RT), 43.4 (15.3-123.8) months in patients treated with carboplatin RT, and 31.1 (12.4-87.8) months in patients treated with cetuximab RT. After propensity score and inverse probability weighting, carboplatin was associated with improved overall survival compared with cetuximab (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .001). This difference was prominent in the oropharynx subgroup.
In this cohort study of a US veteran population with HNSCC undergoing treatment with CRT, almost a third of patients were ineligible to receive treatment with cisplatin and received cetuximab-based or carboplatin-based radiosensitization. After propensity score matching, carboplatin-based systemic therapy was associated with 15% improvement in overall survival compared with cetuximab, suggesting that carboplatin may be the preferred radiosensitizer, particularly in oropharynx cancers.
西妥昔单抗联合卡铂化疗联合放化疗(CRT)常用于不适合顺铂的局部晚期头颈部癌症患者。目前尚无头对头比较西妥昔单抗联合和卡铂为基础的方案用于放射增敏的前瞻性数据。
比较局部晚期头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)患者中使用西妥昔单抗联合和卡铂为基础的 CRT 的生存情况。
设计、地点和参与者:这项队列研究纳入了 2006 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间在美国退伍军人中诊断为 HNSCC 并接受系统治疗和放疗的患者。数据截止日期为 2022 年 3 月 1 日,数据分析于 2022 年 4 月至 5 月进行。
VA 药物数据和癌症登记处记录的顺铂、西妥昔单抗或卡铂为基础的系统治疗。
使用 Kaplan-Meier 方法估计总体生存率。我们使用倾向评分和逆概率加权来实现西妥昔单抗和卡铂治疗患者之间的协变量平衡,并使用 Cox 回归来估计卡铂与西妥昔单抗相关的死亡原因特异性危险比。我们还对口咽与非口咽原发灶的患者进行了亚组分析。
共有 8290 名(中位数[IQR]年龄,63[58-68]岁;8201 名男性[98.9%];1225 名黑人或非裔美国人[15.8%]和 6424 名白人[82.6%])患有非转移性 HNSCC 的患者接受了 CRT 治疗,其中使用顺铂(5566 名[67%])、卡铂(1231 名[15%])或西妥昔单抗(1493 名[18%])。与顺铂治疗的患者相比,接受卡铂和西妥昔单抗治疗的患者年龄更大,表现状态评分更差,合并症负担更高。接受顺铂放疗(RT)的患者中位(IQR)总生存期为 74.4(22.3-162.2)个月,接受卡铂 RT 的患者为 43.4(15.3-123.8)个月,接受西妥昔单抗 RT 的患者为 31.1(12.4-87.8)个月。在进行倾向评分和逆概率加权后,与西妥昔单抗相比,卡铂与总生存期的改善相关(特异性死亡危险比,0.85;95%CI,0.78-0.93;P = .001)。在口咽亚组中,这种差异更为明显。
在这项对接受 CRT 治疗的美国退伍军人 HNSCC 患者的队列研究中,近三分之一的患者不适合接受顺铂治疗,并接受了西妥昔单抗联合或卡铂为基础的放射增敏治疗。在进行倾向评分匹配后,与西妥昔单抗相比,卡铂为基础的系统治疗与 15%的总生存改善相关,表明卡铂可能是首选的放射增敏剂,尤其是在口咽癌中。