Reirradiation With Cetuximab in Locoregional Recurrent and Inoperable Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Feasibility and First Efficacy Results
ABSTRACT To report our experience with a prospective protocol of external beam reirradiation (Re-RT) combined with cetuximab for patients with inoperable, recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).
Between August 2008 and June 2010, 18 patients with inoperable recurrence of SCCHN after adjuvant or definitive radiotherapy (RT) and simultaneous or sequential cisplatin-based chemotherapy for primary SCCHN were enrolled. Acute and late toxicity from the experimental regimen were recorded every week during RT and every 3 months thereafter. Efficacy was assessed with repeated imaging using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and clinical examinations 8-12 weeks after completion of the treatment and every 3 months thereafter.
Median follow-up time for all patients was 9.4 (range: 3.85-31.7) months and for patients alive 30.4 (range: 15.7-31.7) months. Acute toxicity was generally mild or moderate. Five patients developed a grade 3 acneiform rash related to cetuximab. Late toxicity occurred as grade 3 trismus in five and as grade 3 abacterial salivary gland inflammation in one patient, respectively. Overall response rate was 47%. Median overall and progression-free survival for all patients was 8.38 months and 7.33 months, respectively. The overall survival rate was 44% at 1 year, with a 1 year local control rate of 33%.
Notwithstanding the limitations of our preliminary data Re-RT combined with cetuximab for recurrent and inoperable SCCHN is feasible and the integration of newer targeted agents seems to be less toxic compared to conventional chemotherapy with encouraging response rates at least for a subset of patients.
- SourceAvailable from: Marc Hamoir[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The management of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas does not end with the completion of ablative therapy. The oncologic objectives of post-treatment follow-up are to detect recurrences and second primary tumors; beyond that, follow-up should evaluate acute and chronic treatment-related side effects, guide the rehabilitation process, alleviate functional loss, manage pain, restore nutritional status and assess psychosocial factors. In this structured review, we address the questions of timing and the tools required to achieve a complete and coherent routine surveillance. Several guidelines and consensus statements recommend clinical examination as the cornerstone of follow-up which should be performed for at least 5 years, although there are no data in favor of any one particular follow-up program, and only low-level evidence suggests an improvement in oncologic outcomes by close follow-up. Baseline imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) should be obtained within 2-6 months after definitive therapy if used for treatment response evaluation. Metabolic response, if indicated, should be assessed preferably after 3 months in patients who undergo curative-intent therapy with (chemo)-radiotherapy. Chest computed tomography is more sensitive than plain radiography, if used in follow-up, but the benefit and cost-effectiveness of routine chest computed tomography has not been demonstrated. There are no current data supporting modifications specific to the surveillance plan of patients with human papillomavirus-associated disease.Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 09/2012; 270(5). DOI:10.1007/s00405-012-2172-7 · 1.61 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A multitude of surgical and non-surgical therapies are available to treat malignant epithelial tumors of the skin. The article summarizes the current treatment options for basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma. Moreover, the possibilities of primary and secondary prevention for high-risk patients are reviewed. The decision about the best therapeutic option depends on location, age, and general health of the patient as well as the risk of tumor recurrence.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft 01/2013; 11(1):9-27. DOI:10.1111/ddg.12001 · 1.40 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite aggressive efforts to cure head and neck cancer patients, including altered fractionation and the addition of chemotherapy to radiation, locoregional recurrence remains a serious issue to face in clinical practice. Indeed, recurrent and second primary tumors occurring in previously irradiated area are common clinical challenge. Whenever possible, patients are advised to undergo salvage surgery. Nevertheless, few patients are suitable candidates for curative resection. In such cases, chemotherapy alone has traditionally been considered, with a poor response rate. It has been questioned whether re-irradiation toxicity outweighs the potential benefits, considering that the median survival of re-irradiated patients marginally exceeds the benefits observed with chemotherapy alone. However, full-dose re-irradiation is a viable treatment option, offering long-term survival for selected patients. Moreover, several prognostic factors should be considered for patients undergoing re-irradiation, such as basic patient characteristics, performance status, the location and extension of recurrent disease, patient co-morbidities, current speech and swallowing function, the interval from the initial radiation therapy to recurrence, previously received doses by critical structures and prior treatment toxicity. Nevertheless, several questions remain unanswered. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the major issues in the field of re-irradiation regarding the current evidence. Therefore, the major selection criteria and new treatment strategies are discussed to define the ideal candidates to undergo re-irradiation and describe a practical approach to these patients. Given the limited evidence in this field, the optimal treatment of recurrent and second primary cancers remains to be defined. Future prospective study of this approach is warranted.Cancer Treatment Reviews 08/2013; 40(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.08.002 · 6.47 Impact Factor