Prospective phase II trial of cetuximab plus VMAT-SIB in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, Humanitas Cancer Center, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Via Manzoni 56, 20098, Rozzano (Milan), Italy.
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie (Impact Factor: 2.91). 12/2011; 188(1):49-55. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-011-0006-y
Source: PubMed


Cetuximab plus radiotherapy (RT) may be an effective alternative to chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LASCCHN) patients. We analyzed a group of patients treated at our institute with cetuximab plus volumetric modulation arc therapy (VMAT) with the RapidArc technique in a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) regime. The primary end point was the assessment of acute toxicity and the feasibility of the combined approach.
Between December 2008 and March 2010, 22 patients were submitted to IMRT-SIB plus cetuximab for radical intent in case of LASCCHN. None of the patients was suitable for chemotherapy because of important comorbidities (the majority suffered of heart chronic diseases). All patients underwent planning CT (additional image modalities were acquired for contouring purposes in the same treatment position: MRI in 12 and FDG-PET in 4 out of 22 patients). VMAT, by means of RapidArc, and SIB with two dose levels of 54.45 Gy and 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions were adopted. All patients included in the analysis were concomitantly treated with cetuximab: administration of the drug was initiated 1 week before RT at a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) body surface area over a period of 120 min, follow by a weekly 60 min infusion of 250 mg/m(2) for the duration of RT. Patients were assessed for toxicities according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria.
All but 2 patients completed treatment and achieved the minimum follow-up of 12 months after the end of the treatment. Of the 22 patients, 18% (4 patients) showed grade 1, 36% (8 patients) grade 2, and 36% (8 patients) showed grade 3 dermatitis, while 9% (2 patients) had grade 1, 36% (8 patients) grade 2, and 45% (10 patients) had grade 3 mucositis/stomatitis. No grade 4 toxicities were recorded. Considering blood parameters, 3 cases of grade 1 anemia and 1 case of grade 2 thrombocytopenia were observed. Nobody required feeding tube placement during treatment.
The here reported toxicity data are promising and encouraging in regard to the adoption of moderate hypofractionation with VMAT-SIB techniques, when cetuximab is concomitantly administered.

Download full-text


Available from: Luca Cozzi, Aug 29, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this work, the treatment tolerance of elderly patients (≥70 years) undergoing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer was assessed. A retrospective review of 112 patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer was performed. Treatment toxicity, protocol violations, long-term complications, and survival were compared between 85 younger patients (< 70 years) and 27 older patients (≥ 70 years). Grade 3-4 treatment toxicity was observed in 88.2% and 88.8% for younger and older patients, respectively. Mean weight loss and treatment break were 5.9 and 3.9 kg (p = 0.03) and 7.3 and 7.8 days (p = 0.8) for younger and older patients, respectively. Seven patients (8.2%) did not complete treatment in the younger group compared to 1 patient (3.7%) in the older group (p = 0.6). No significant differences in protocol violations and survival were found between the two groups. Compared to younger patients, elderly patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer tolerated chemoradiation with IMRT and IGRT well, and should not be denied curative treatment based solely on age.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 06/2012; 188(8):677-83. DOI:10.1007/s00066-012-0125-0 · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (C225) is used in combination with radiotherapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. We investigated whether conjugation of cetuximab with trans-cyclohexyl-diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid (CHX-A″-DTPA) and radiolabeling with (90)Yttrium affect the molecular and cellular function of cetuximab and improve its combined effect with external-beam irradiation (EBI). The following cell lines were used: HNSCC UT5, SAS, FaDu, as well as A43, Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO), and human skin fibroblast HSF7. Binding affinity and kinetics, specificity, retention, and the combination of (90)Y-cetuximab with EBI were evaluated. Control cetuximab and CHX-A″-DTPA-cetuximab blocked the proliferation activity of UT5 cells. In combination with EBI, CHX-A″-DTPA-cetuximab increased the radiosensitivity of UT5 to a similar degree as control cetuximab did. In contrast, in SAS and HSF7 cells neither proliferation nor radiosensitivity was affected by either of the antibodies. Binding [(90)Y]Y-CHX-A″-DTPA-cetuximab ((90)Y-cetuximab) to EGFR in HNSCC cells occurred time dependently with a maximum binding at 24 h. Retention of (90)Y-cetuximab was similar in both HNSCC cell lines; 24 h after treatment, approximately 90% of bound activity remained in the cell layer. Competition assays, using cell membranes in the absence of an internalized fraction of cetuximab, showed that the cetuximab affinity is not lost as a result of conjugation with CHX-A″-DTPA. Cetuximab and CHX-A″-DTPA-cetuximab blocked EGF-induced Y1068 phosphorylation of EGFR. The lack of an effect of cetuximab on EGF-induced Akt and ERK1/2 phosphorylation and the inhibition of irradiation (IR)-induced Akt and ERK1/2 phosphorylation by cetuximab were not affected by DTPA conjugation. (90)Y-cetuximab in combination with EBI resulted in a pronounced inhibition of colony formation of HNSCC cells. Conjugation of CHX-A″-DTPA to cetuximab does not alter the cellular and biological function of cetuximab. (90)Y-labeling of cetuximab in combination with EBI may improve radiotherapy outcome.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 08/2012; 188(9):823-32. DOI:10.1007/s00066-012-0121-4 · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: In the present study, the acute toxicity profiles for prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) with volumetric modulated arcs in a hypofractionated regime are reported. Patients and methods: A total of 70 patients treated with RapidArc between May 2010 and September 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were stratified into low (36%), intermediate (49%), and high-risk (16%) groups. Target volumes (expanded to define the planning volumes (PTV)) were clinical target volume (CTV) 1: prostate; CTV2: CTV1 + seminal vesicles; CTV3: CTV2 + pelvic nodes. Low-risk patients received 71.4 Gy to PTV1; intermediate-risk 74.2 Gy to PTV1 and 61.6 or 65.5 Gy to PTV2; high-risk 74.2 Gy to PTV1, 61.6 or 65.5 Gy to PTV2, and 51.8 Gy to PTV3. All treatments were in 28 fractions. The median follow-up was 11 months (range 3.5-23 months). The acute rectal, gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were scored according to EORTC/RTOG scales. Results: Acute toxicities were recorded for the GU [G0 = 31/70 (44%), G1 = 22/70 (31%); G2 = 16/70 (23%); G3 = 1/70 (1%)], the rectum [G0 = 46/70 (66%); G1 = 12/70 (17%); G2 = 12/70 (17%); no G3], and the GI [G0 = 54/69 (77%); G1 = 11/69 (16%); G2 = 4/69 (6%); no G3]. Median time to rectal, GU, and GI toxicities were 27, 30, and 33 days, respectively. Only the GI toxicity correlated with stage and pelvic irradiation. Univariate analysis presented significant correlations between GI toxicity and intestinal irradiation (V(50 Gy) and V(60 Gy)). In the multivariate analysis, the only significant dosimetric variable was V(50 Gy) for the intestinal cavity. Conclusion: Moderate hypofractionation with SIB and RapidArc was shown to be safe, with acceptable acute toxicity. Longer follow-up is needed to assess late toxicity and clinical outcome.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 09/2012; 188(11):990-996. DOI:10.1007/s00066-012-0171-7 · 2.91 Impact Factor
Show more