Weekly vs. Bolus Cisplatin Concurrent with Definitive Radiotherapy for Squamous Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The optimal schedule for cisplatin delivered concurrently with definitive radiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck remains controversial. Randomized data in the postoperative setting is mixed, and definitive studies are ongoing. Meanwhile, multiple trials have already compared cetuximab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Vol. 117; no. 2; pp. e632 - e633
Main Authors: Ward, M.C., Atlas, J.L., Carrizosa, D.R., Milas, Z.L., Brickman, D.S., Frenkel, C.H., Hong, S., Heinzerling, J.H., Prabhu, R.S., Moeller, B.J.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier Inc 01-10-2023
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract The optimal schedule for cisplatin delivered concurrently with definitive radiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck remains controversial. Randomized data in the postoperative setting is mixed, and definitive studies are ongoing. Meanwhile, multiple trials have already compared cetuximab to cisplatin in the definitive setting. Across these trials, the cetuximab dosing was identical, but cisplatin dosing was variable and can be categorized as weekly (40 mg/m2 q1 week) or bolus (100 mg/m2 q3 weeks). We indirectly compared these two cisplatin schedules by performing a network meta-analysis of cetuximab trials. We performed a PRISMA-concordant systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials comparing cisplatin to cetuximab for patients with non-metastatic squamous carcinoma of the head and neck treated with definitive radiation therapy. Trials of primary surgery, incorporating induction therapy, or mixing other therapeutics were excluded. The analysis was pre-registered with the Open Science Foundation. Individual patient survival data was extracted from the published overall survival curves using a digitizer, and outcomes were validated against published point-estimates and hazard ratios. A random effects Cox regression was used to perform the individual-patient analysis using a one-step approach under a frequentist framework. Random effects were applied to model heterogeneity in the baseline hazard function and treatment effect. Models were adjusted by HPV and smoking status, which were trial-level covariates. Alternative endpoints (DFS, LRF, DM, etc.) were analyzed qualitatively. IRB approval was not required. Five randomized trials were identified, including 1,678 patients. Bolus cisplatin was delivered to 572 patients in 2 trials, and weekly to 271 in 3 trials. The risk of bias was low. Relative to cetuximab, both bolus and weekly cisplatin reduced the risk of death (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.87, p = 0.004 & HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.86, p = 0.008 respectively). No interaction was identified between regimen and HPV or smoking status. Between-study heterogeneity (δ2) was 0.148 and treatment effect heterogeneity (τ2) was small (<0.0002). There was no statistical difference in OS between bolus vs. weekly regimens (weekly vs. bolus HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.53-1.52, p = 0.345). This Cox model therefore suggested that on average, the absolute difference in 5-year OS is <1.5% between the two regimens, which was not statistically significant. Secondary endpoints and toxicity were not obviously different by regimen, qualitatively. Using cetuximab as a common reference, there was no significant difference in survival between weekly and bolus cisplatin schedules.
AbstractList The optimal schedule for cisplatin delivered concurrently with definitive radiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck remains controversial. Randomized data in the postoperative setting is mixed, and definitive studies are ongoing. Meanwhile, multiple trials have already compared cetuximab to cisplatin in the definitive setting. Across these trials, the cetuximab dosing was identical, but cisplatin dosing was variable and can be categorized as weekly (40 mg/m2 q1 week) or bolus (100 mg/m2 q3 weeks). We indirectly compared these two cisplatin schedules by performing a network meta-analysis of cetuximab trials. We performed a PRISMA-concordant systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials comparing cisplatin to cetuximab for patients with non-metastatic squamous carcinoma of the head and neck treated with definitive radiation therapy. Trials of primary surgery, incorporating induction therapy, or mixing other therapeutics were excluded. The analysis was pre-registered with the Open Science Foundation. Individual patient survival data was extracted from the published overall survival curves using a digitizer, and outcomes were validated against published point-estimates and hazard ratios. A random effects Cox regression was used to perform the individual-patient analysis using a one-step approach under a frequentist framework. Random effects were applied to model heterogeneity in the baseline hazard function and treatment effect. Models were adjusted by HPV and smoking status, which were trial-level covariates. Alternative endpoints (DFS, LRF, DM, etc.) were analyzed qualitatively. IRB approval was not required. Five randomized trials were identified, including 1,678 patients. Bolus cisplatin was delivered to 572 patients in 2 trials, and weekly to 271 in 3 trials. The risk of bias was low. Relative to cetuximab, both bolus and weekly cisplatin reduced the risk of death (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.87, p = 0.004 & HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.86, p = 0.008 respectively). No interaction was identified between regimen and HPV or smoking status. Between-study heterogeneity (δ2) was 0.148 and treatment effect heterogeneity (τ2) was small (<0.0002). There was no statistical difference in OS between bolus vs. weekly regimens (weekly vs. bolus HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.53-1.52, p = 0.345). This Cox model therefore suggested that on average, the absolute difference in 5-year OS is <1.5% between the two regimens, which was not statistically significant. Secondary endpoints and toxicity were not obviously different by regimen, qualitatively. Using cetuximab as a common reference, there was no significant difference in survival between weekly and bolus cisplatin schedules.
Author Heinzerling, J.H.
Hong, S.
Brickman, D.S.
Frenkel, C.H.
Milas, Z.L.
Atlas, J.L.
Carrizosa, D.R.
Ward, M.C.
Prabhu, R.S.
Moeller, B.J.
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: M.C.
  surname: Ward
  fullname: Ward, M.C.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health and Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 2
  givenname: J.L.
  surname: Atlas
  fullname: Atlas, J.L.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 3
  givenname: D.R.
  surname: Carrizosa
  fullname: Carrizosa, D.R.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Z.L.
  surname: Milas
  fullname: Milas, Z.L.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 5
  givenname: D.S.
  surname: Brickman
  fullname: Brickman, D.S.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 6
  givenname: C.H.
  surname: Frenkel
  fullname: Frenkel, C.H.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 7
  givenname: S.
  surname: Hong
  fullname: Hong, S.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 8
  givenname: J.H.
  surname: Heinzerling
  fullname: Heinzerling, J.H.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health and Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 9
  givenname: R.S.
  surname: Prabhu
  fullname: Prabhu, R.S.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health and Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, NC
– sequence: 10
  givenname: B.J.
  surname: Moeller
  fullname: Moeller, B.J.
  organization: Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health and Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, NC
BookMark eNqFkE1OIzEQhS0EEoGZIyDVBbrHjtvdNJtRJvxKMEgwCHaW4y4LJx072E6iPgx3xVHYz-otqt6ret8JOXTeISFnjJaMsvrXvLTz4GerckzHvKR1Vs4OyIidN23BhXg7JCPKa1rwvH1MTmKcU0oZa6oR-XxFXPQDbGIJf3y_jjC1cdWrZB1MvdPrENAl2Nr0DpdorLPJbhCeVGd9esegVgMYH-D5Y62WfmdXQVvnlwq8gbwBt6g6UK6Dv6gXFzCB5yEmXOYLGp5wY3H7PU1bHxbwgEkVE6f6Idr4gxwZ1Uf8-a2n5OX66t_0trh_vLmbTu4LzeiYFWI2q3P1uuKqQqON5lXdNQ1TFatEx1tuRCd0UxlhWmTYZs-M0bYZi5YqwWp-SsQ-VwcfY0AjV8EuVRgko3LHWM7lnrHcMZa0ljvG2fd778P8XK4SZNQWncbOBtRJdt7-J-ELs22K8g
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2023
Copyright_xml – notice: 2023
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2031
DatabaseName CrossRef
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
DatabaseTitleList
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1879-355X
EndPage e633
ExternalDocumentID 10_1016_j_ijrobp_2023_06_2031
S0360301623064659
GroupedDBID ---
--K
.1-
.FO
0R~
1B1
1P~
1RT
1~5
4.4
457
4G.
53G
5RE
7-5
AAEDT
AAEDW
AAIAV
AALRI
AAWTL
AAXUO
ABJNI
ABLJU
ABNEU
ABOCM
ABUDA
ACGFS
ACIUM
ADBBV
AENEX
AEVXI
AFCTW
AFRHN
AFTJW
AGZHU
AHHHB
AITUG
AJUYK
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALXNB
AMRAJ
BELOY
DU5
EBS
EFJIC
F5P
FDB
GBLVA
HED
HMO
IHE
J1W
KOM
LX3
M41
MO0
O9-
OC~
OO-
RNS
ROL
RPZ
SDG
SEL
SES
SEW
SSZ
UV1
XH2
Z5R
ZA5
~S-
.55
.GJ
29J
5VS
AAQFI
AAQQT
AAQXK
AAYXX
ABEFU
ADMUD
ADPAM
ADVLN
AFFNX
AFJKZ
AGRDE
AKRWK
ASPBG
AVWKF
AZFZN
CITATION
EJD
FEDTE
FGOYB
FIRID
G-2
HMK
HVGLF
HX~
HZ~
NQ-
R2-
RIG
SAE
UDS
X7M
XPP
ZGI
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c1021-5bb6023643a4efcfc346d771a4145d393f5d5c74f5f9e1e9021b10972590a5163
ISSN 0360-3016
IngestDate Thu Sep 26 18:25:48 EDT 2024
Fri Feb 23 02:35:45 EST 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 2
Language English
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c1021-5bb6023643a4efcfc346d771a4145d393f5d5c74f5f9e1e9021b10972590a5163
ParticipantIDs crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2023_06_2031
elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2023_06_2031
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2023-10-01
2023-10-00
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2023-10-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2023
  text: 2023-10-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationTitle International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
PublicationYear 2023
Publisher Elsevier Inc
Publisher_xml – name: Elsevier Inc
SSID ssj0001174
Score 2.4775107
Snippet The optimal schedule for cisplatin delivered concurrently with definitive radiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck remains controversial....
SourceID crossref
elsevier
SourceType Aggregation Database
Publisher
StartPage e632
Title Weekly vs. Bolus Cisplatin Concurrent with Definitive Radiotherapy for Squamous Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
URI https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2031
Volume 117
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3JjtNAEG1NBglxQaxi2FQHbpGNt3ZsbkMmKAcyh2QQo7lY3XZbcgT2ECcc-Bf-lerNixQhQOJiJb14Sb10V5dfvSbkjYhnM1wWSKoOF04k0sJJmM-cMi5SQXMaR0wG3Jab2eV1crGIFicTuz9mX_ZfLY1laGuZOfsX1u5OigX4GW2OR7Q6Hv_I7loif_q9dafv8ULtdF61t5LwprL7ciPHpMKvF6KsDHdozYrK5GJpBufm24HJqIBkhORV3Xxllk2wRFSoVw6XAodSldi-6eWgjVC_rlcM8-lK7JljxU-GzvA4GjnQsNhJwQTtytZ5l07D-8waHY_plgOfmSbor9y52yF4_8Xkqrkfu0J8mF31o2n1Sy533VWsKtP6xrY2kZCg59SZ8JxN0RkxSHGGxonG843eth7lk1nqoKN1PZoGdA6pwXswGNRFbEKwwn4Nj04-Og6ydavtruFSCzUIpTZs4Jl5bqzrvZF3Jm9MLQJjmk7InQBHSzlY39B15074RkrcPkefhvb26KWOO1gDp-nqAblvVjtwrmH6kJyI-hG5uzJ8jsfkp0YrIFpBoRU6tEKPVpBohR6tMEQrIFrBohU6tEJTArYAiVZANIJE6zs4hx6roLFqahVWYYTVJ-TTh8XVfOmYDUOcXO5Q71DOY7UjQsgiUeZlHkZxgWMRi_yIFmEalrSg-SwqaZkKX6TYh0sGRkBTj1FcmTwlp3VTi2cEPO4VJc9jXJ7wyONSeMFPE3Rvi7zknKVnxLW_cnardWEyS5jcZtosmTRL5sWZNMsZSawtMuPcaqc1Q_j8vuvzf-_6gtzr_ykvyel-dxCvyKQtDq8Vyn4BsGDKDA
link.rule.ids 315,782,786,27933,27934
linkProvider Elsevier
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Weekly+vs.+Bolus+Cisplatin+Concurrent+with+Definitive+Radiotherapy+for+Squamous+Carcinoma+of+the+Head+and+Neck%3A+A+Systematic+Review+and+Network+Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=International+journal+of+radiation+oncology%2C+biology%2C+physics&rft.au=Ward%2C+M.C.&rft.au=Atlas%2C+J.L.&rft.au=Carrizosa%2C+D.R.&rft.au=Milas%2C+Z.L.&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.pub=Elsevier+Inc&rft.issn=0360-3016&rft.eissn=1879-355X&rft.volume=117&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e632&rft.epage=e633&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ijrobp.2023.06.2031&rft.externalDocID=S0360301623064659
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0360-3016&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0360-3016&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0360-3016&client=summon