Paccagnella A, Orlando A, Marchiori C, Zorat P L, Cavaniglia G, Sileni V C, Jirillo A, Tomio L, Fila G, Fede A
Regional Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Padua, Italy.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Feb 16;86(4):265-72. doi: 10.1093/jnci/86.4.265.
The standard treatment for advanced (stage III and IV) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (i.e., surgery with postoperative radiotherapy in operable patients and radiotherapy alone in inoperable patients) has had poor results. A series of randomized trials of induction chemotherapy have up to now failed to demonstrate an improvement in survival.
This trial was designed to determine whether intensive induction chemotherapy administered before loco-regional treatment would improve survival of patients with advanced disease.
Patients had previously untreated, advanced nonmetastatic (stages III and IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and paranasal sinuses. The study design was a randomized, multi-institutional, phase III trial. Eligible patients (n = 237) were randomly assigned to receive either initial chemotherapy (cisplatin and infusional fluorouracil) followed by loco-regional treatment (group A, n = 118) or loco-regional treatment alone (group B, n = 119). For operable patients (group A, n = 34; group B, n = 32), loco-regional treatment included resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. For inoperable patients, radical irradiation was performed with a planned dose of 65-70 Gy to involved areas. A dose of 45-50 Gy was also planned to the uninvolved neck or postoperatively. The statistical (log-rank) test was performed no earlier than 2 years after the randomization of the last patient.
Seventy-one patients (60%) in group A and 67 patients (56%) in group B were considered free of disease after they completed the treatment sequence. The analysis of time to distant metastases showed an advantage for group A patients. (Respective 2- and 3-year values for inoperable patients were 15% and 24% for group A versus 36% and 42% for group B, P = .04; only one operable group A patient had distant metastases after 49 months versus 26% [2 years] and 31% [3 years] for operable group B patients, P = .01.) For inoperable patients, the combined treatment was significantly associated with an increase in complete remission rate (group A, 44%) as compared with radiotherapy alone (group B, 30%) (P = .037). Inoperable patients also benefitted from induction chemotherapy in terms of disease-free survival (49% and 34% for group A versus 28% and 26% for group B; P = .06) and of overall survival (30% and 24% for group A versus 19% and 10% for group B; P = .04).
When all 237 randomly assigned patients were analyzed, there were no significant differences in the two treatment strategies in loco-regional failure or in disease-free or overall survival, although the development of distant metastases was reduced. For operable patients, the only benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy was a significant reduction in the incidence of distant metastases. For inoperable patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy improved local control, decreased the incidence of distant metastases, and improved the complete remission rate and overall survival.
Confirmatory studies with effective chemotherapy regimens delivered for an adequate number of cycles are required.
晚期(III期和IV期)头颈部鳞状细胞癌的标准治疗方法(即可手术患者采用手术加术后放疗,不可手术患者单纯放疗)效果不佳。一系列诱导化疗的随机试验至今未能证明生存率有所提高。
本试验旨在确定在局部区域治疗前给予强化诱导化疗是否能提高晚期疾病患者的生存率。
患者为先前未经治疗的晚期非转移性(III期和IV期)口腔、口咽、下咽和鼻窦鳞状细胞癌。研究设计为一项随机、多机构、III期试验。符合条件的患者(n = 237)被随机分配接受初始化疗(顺铂和静脉输注氟尿嘧啶),然后进行局部区域治疗(A组,n = 118)或单纯局部区域治疗(B组,n = 119)。对于可手术患者(A组,n = 34;B组,n = 32),局部区域治疗包括手术切除加辅助放疗。对于不可手术患者,对受累区域进行根治性放疗,计划剂量为65 - 70 Gy。对未受累颈部或术后也计划给予45 - 50 Gy的剂量。在最后一名患者随机分组后不早于2年进行统计学(对数秩)检验。
A组71例患者(60%)和B组67例患者(56%)在完成治疗序列后被认为无疾病。远处转移时间分析显示A组患者有优势。(不可手术患者2年和3年的相应数值,A组分别为15%和24%,B组为36%和42%,P = 0.04;可手术的A组仅1例患者在49个月后发生远处转移,而可手术的B组患者2年和3年的发生率分别为26%和31%,P = 0.01。)对于不可手术患者,联合治疗与单纯放疗(B组,30%)相比,完全缓解率显著提高(A组,44%)(P = 0.037)。不可手术患者在无病生存率(A组为49%和34%,B组为28%和26%;P = 0.06)和总生存率(A组为30%和24%,B组为19%和10%;P = 0.04)方面也从诱导化疗中获益。
当对所有237例随机分组的患者进行分析时,尽管远处转移的发生有所减少,但两种治疗策略在局部区域失败、无病生存率或总生存率方面没有显著差异。对于可手术患者,新辅助化疗的唯一益处是远处转移发生率显著降低。对于不可手术患者,新辅助化疗改善了局部控制,降低了远处转移发生率,提高了完全缓解率和总生存率。
需要采用有效的化疗方案并进行足够疗程的验证性研究。