Comparative study of efficacy and toxicities of cisplatin vs vinorelbine as radiosensitisers in locally advanced head and neck cancer

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly versus triweekly cisplatin in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy is standard of care for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. This systemic review compared efficacy and safety of weekly vs triweekly cisplatin in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

METHODS

Among 1500 prospective studies published from 1970 to 2015, 39 (18 weekly, 21 triweekly) including 3668 patients qualified for inclusion. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using weighted estimates and 2-tailed t test for comparisons; significance level was 0.05.

RESULTS

Locoregional control was 58% (CI 53%-63%) vs 61% (CI 56%-65%; P = .7). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 74% (CI 66%-80%) for weekly vs 67% (64%-69%) triweekly groups (P = .67). The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 69% (CI 59%-77%) for weekly vs 62% (CI 58%-65%) triweekly groups (P = .9). Grade 3 to 5 toxicities were 36% vs 40% (P = .37) in weekly vs triweekly groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly cisplatin was comparable in efficacy and safety to the triweekly regimen. Our analysis supports the use of weekly or triweekly cisplatin in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, with tolerability being a key factor in selection.

Weekly Low-Dose Versus Three-Weekly High-Dose Cisplatin for Concurrent Chemoradiation in Locoregionally Advanced Non-Nasopharyngeal Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Aggregate Data

BACKGROUND

Three-weekly high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m²) is considered the standard systemic regimen given concurrently with postoperative or definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). However, due to unsatisfactory patient tolerance, various weekly low-dose schedules have been increasingly used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy, safety, and compliance between these two approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched literature for prospective trials of patients with LA-SCCHN who received postoperative or definitive conventionally fractionated concurrent chemoradiation. Radiation doses were usually 60-66 gray (Gy) in the postoperative setting and 66-70 Gy in the definitive setting. Standard, three-weekly high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m², 3 doses) was compared with the weekly low-dose protocol (≤50 mg/m², ≥6 doses). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary outcomes comprised response rate, acute and late adverse events, and treatment compliance.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies with 4,209 patients were included in two separate meta-analyses according to the two clinical settings. There was no difference in treatment efficacy as measured by overall survival or response rate between the chemoradiation settings with low-dose weekly and high-dose three-weekly cisplatin regimens. In the definitive treatment setting, the weekly regimen was more compliant and significantly less toxic with respect to severe (grade 3-4) myelosuppression (leukopenia p = .0083; neutropenia p = .0024), severe nausea and/or vomiting (p < .0001), and severe nephrotoxicity (p = .0099). Although in the postoperative setting the two approaches were more equal in compliance and with clearly less differences in the cisplatin-induced toxicities, the weekly approach induced more grade 3-4 dysphagia (p = .0026) and weight loss (p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In LA-SCCHN, current evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a meaningful survival difference between the two dosing regimens. Prior to its adoption into routine clinical practice, the low-dose weekly approach needs to be prospectively compared with the standard three-weekly high-dose schedule.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Given concurrently with conventional radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer, high-dose three-weekly cisplatin has often been replaced with weekly low-dose infusions to increase compliance and decrease toxicity. The present meta-analysis suggests that both approaches might be equal in efficacy, both in the definitive and postoperative settings, but differ in toxicity. However, some toxicity data can be influenced by unbalanced representation, and the conclusions are not based on adequately sized prospective randomized studies. Therefore, low-dose weekly cisplatin should not be used outside clinical trials but first prospectively studied in adequately sized phase III trials versus the high-dose three-weekly approach.

A randomized comparison of cisplatin and oral vinorelbine as radiosensitizers in aged or comorbid locally advanced cervical cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Chemoradiation with cisplatin is considered the standard of care for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer; however, cisplatin could be difficult to use in aged patients or patients with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus and blood hypertension; hence, it is important to investigate nonplatinum drugs for radiosensitization. In addition, oral cytotoxics may overcome the drawbacks of intravenous infusions and could be of easier administration.

METHODS

In this small randomized trial, we tested cisplatin against oral vinorelbine as radiosensitizers in these patients. A total of 39 patients 65 years or older or diabetic and hypertensive patients of any age were randomized to cisplatin or oral vinorelbine at 40 mg/m² or 60 mg/m², respectively. Both drugs were administered weekly for 6 courses during pelvic external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy radiation. Efficacy and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients received oral vinorelbine, and 20 patients received cisplatin. The median cumulative dose to point A was 80.8 Gy for both groups, and the overall treatment time was 48 (42-54) and 50 (43-55) days for vinorelbine and cisplatin groups, respectively. Patients in both arms received a median of 5 applications of chemotherapy. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. The most frequent toxicity in both arms was lymphopenia grades 2 and 3. At a median follow-up time of 16 months (4-19), there were no differences in either progression-free survival or overall survival between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that these patient populations can safely be treated with either cisplatin or navelbine as radiosensitizers; however, a larger randomized study is needed to demonstrate the noninferiority of oral vinorelbine as an easier and practical alternative for radiosensitization in cervical cancer.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) pharmacogenetics, activity and expression analysis in cancer patients and healthy volunteers

There is a wide inter-individual variation in PARP-1 {PAR [poly(ADP-ribose)] polymerase 1} activity, which may have implications for health. We investigated if the variation: (i) is due to polymorphisms in the PARP-1 gene or PARP-1 protein expression; and (ii) affects patients' response to anticancer treatment. We studied 56 HV (healthy volunteers) and 118 CP (cancer patients) with supporting in vivo experiments. PARP activity ranged between 10 and 2600 pmol of PAR/106 cells and expression between 0.02-1.55 ng of PARP-1/μg of protein. PARP-1 expression correlated with activity in HV (R2=0.19, P=0.003) and CP (R2=0.06, P=0.01). A short CA repeat in the promoter was significantly associated with increased cancer risk [OR (odds ratio), 5.22; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.79-15.24]. PARP activity was higher in men than women (P=0.04) in the HV. Male mice also had higher PARP activity than females or castrated males. Oestrogen supplementation activated PARP in PBMCs (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) from female mice (P=0.003), but inhibited PARP-1 in their livers by 80%. PARP activity and expression were not dependent on the investigated polymorphisms, but there was a modest correlation of PARP activity with expression. Studies in the HV revealed sex differences in PARP activity, which was confirmed in mice and shown to be associated with sex hormones. Toxic response to treatment was not associated with PARP activity and/or expression.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 1st December 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eighty-nine trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and data were extracted by two or more review authors. The primary outcome was total mortality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information or for clarification.

MAIN RESULTS

There is evidence of a small increase in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone (25 trials), hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00, P = 0.06). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (10 trials), HR of mortality 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, P = 0.03), and there is some evidence that this improvement may be greater with concomitant adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (4 trials), HR of mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03). In patients with unresectable tumours, there is evidence that concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy is associated with improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone (26 trials), HR of mortality 0.78 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.83, P < 0.00001). These findings are confirmed by sensitivity analyses based on studies assessed at low risk of bias. There is insufficient evidence to identify which agent(s) and/or regimen(s) are the most effective. The additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy may prolong survival by 8 to 20% and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by up to 16%. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by 10 to 22%. There is insufficient evidence as to which agent or regimen is most effective and the additional toxicity associated with chemotherapy given in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery cannot be quantified.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 28th July 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other possible sources of bias. Data were extracted using a specially designed form and entered into the characteristics of included studies table and the analysis sections of the review. The proportion of participants in each trial with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are recorded in Additional Table 1.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone in 25 trials (hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery +/- radiotherapy alone in 10 trials (HR of mortality 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and there was an additional benefit of adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy in 4 of these trials (HR of mortality 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Concomitant chemoradiotherapy resulted in improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone in patients whose tumours were considered unresectable in 25 trials (HR of mortality 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). However, the additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy is associated with a 9% increase in survival and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a 16% increase in overall survival following surgery. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant chemoradiotherapy showed a 22% benefit in overall survival compared with radiotherapy alone.