Feasibility and efficacy of subcutaneous amifostine therapy in patients with head and neck cancer treated with curative accelerated concomitant-boost radiation therapy.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.78). 03/2006; 132(2):141-5. DOI: 10.1001/archotol.132.2.141
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the feasibility and efficacy of subcutaneous amifostine therapy in patients with head and neck cancer treated with curative accelerated radiotherapy (RT).
Retrospective study.
University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Thirty-three consecutive patients (male-female ratio, 4.5; median age, 54 years [age range, 39-76 years]).
Between November 2000 and January 2003, the 33 patients were treated with curative definitive (n = 19) or postoperative (n = 14) RT with (n = 26) or without (n = 7) chemotherapy. All patients received conformal RT. Fractionation schedule consisted of concomitant-boost (Friday afternoon session) accelerated RT using 70 Gy (2 Gy per fraction) in 6 weeks in patients treated with definitive RT and 66 Gy (2 Gy per fraction) in 5 weeks and 3 days in the postoperative setting. Parotid glands received at least 50 Gy in all patients. Amifostine was administered to a total dose of 500 mg subcutaneously, 15 to 30 minutes before morning RT sessions.
All patients received their planned treatment (including chemotherapy). Ten patients received the full schedule of amifostine (at least 25 injections), 9 received 20 to 24 doses, 4 received 10 to 19 doses, 5 received 5 to 9 doses, and 5 received fewer than 5 doses. Fifteen patients (45%) did not show any intolerance related to amifostine use. Amifostine therapy was discontinued because of nausea in 11 patients (33%) and hypotension in 6 patients (18%), and 1 patient refused treatment. No grade 3, amifostine-related, cutaneous toxic effects were observed. Radiotherapy-induced grade 3 acute toxic effects included mucositis in 14 patients (42%), erythema in 14 patients (42%), and dysphagia in 13 patients (39%). Late toxic effects included grade 2 or more xerostomia in 17 patients (51%) and fibrosis in 3 patients (9%). Grade 2 or more xerostomia was observed in 8 (42%) of 19 patients receiving 20 injections or more vs 9 (64%) of 14 patients receiving fewer than 20 injections (P = .15).
Subcutaneous amifostine administration in combination with accelerated concomitant-boost RT with or without chemotherapy is feasible. The major adverse effect of subcutaneous administration was nausea despite prophylactic antiemetic medication, and hypotension was observed in only 6 patients (18%).

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review the available literature from 1966 until December 31, 2010 and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of amifostine for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology. The body of evidence for the use of amifostine, in each cancer treatment setting was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: Thirty papers were reviewed for evidence on amifostine as an intervention for oral mucositis. No guideline was possible for amifostine in any cancer treatment setting due to inadequate and conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Review of the amifostine studies for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis has found insufficient evidence to support its use in any cancer treatment setting for this purpose. Additional well-designed research is needed to clarify the role of amifostine as an intervention for oral mucositis.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2012; · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer chemotherapy has evolved from a few therapeutic agents in three drug classes to more than 50 drugs in over ten drug classes. With generally cytotoxic mechanisms of action, there is continued research interest in preventing and managing adverse events of chemotherapy. Although treatment-induced symptom management has made significant progress, most therapies lead to intolerable reactions that result in a dose reduction or discontinuation of therapy. Mucositis is a common adverse event that can occur after administration of systemic chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy leading to inflammatory lesions anywhere from the oral cavity to the GI tract. Although pathophysiologically similar, gastrointestinal mucositis and oral mucositis (OM) differ in terms of symptom presentation and offending therapies. The focus of the article will be on OM; gastrointestinal mucositis will be mentioned when therapy efficacy is relevant to OM. OM prophylaxis has been a subject of interest for at least the past 30 years, yet progress has been limited due to a lack of understanding of the condition. With the recent introduction of palifermin (Kepivance™), novel therapies continue to be developed that may significantly reduce the incidence, duration and/or severity of OM. In addition, outcomes including an improvement in patient quality of life, increasing treatment dose intensity or reducing healthcare costs may result from successful management of OM prophylaxis. This article will review currently available OM prophylactic therapies. Agents in preclinical or clinical development and natural supplements will also be discussed.
    Future Oncology 11/2010; 6(11):1751-70. · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiotherapy is an important component of the multimodality treatment of head and neck cancer. Although an effective treatment for many patients, it can have significant long-term sequelae. In particular, xerostomia - or dry mouth - caused by salivary gland injury is a serious problem suffered by most patients and leads to problems with oral comfort, dental health, speech and swallowing. This article explores the mechanisms behind radiation injury to the major salivary glands, as well as different strategies to minimize and alleviate xerostomia. This includes technical approaches to minimize radiation dose to salivary tissue, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and surgical transfer of salivary glands, as well as pharmacologic approaches to stimulate or protect the salivary tissue. The scientific literature will be critically examined to see what works and what strategies have been less effective in attempting to minimize xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients.
    Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 09/2011; 11(9):1437-48. · 2.07 Impact Factor