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...
Saved in:
Published in: | International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Vol. 117; no. 2; pp. e632 - e633 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
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 |