Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 22, Number 5, 2017

A comparison of concurrent cisplatin versus cetuximab with radiotherapy in locally-advanced head and neck cancer: A bi-institutional analysis

William A. Stokes, Whitney A. Sumner, Kiersten L. Breggren, John T. Rathbun, David Raben,
Jessica D. McDermott, Gregory Gan,

Summary:

Aim

To present our experience comparing cisplatin- and cetuximab-based radiotherapy for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Background

The comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy (BRT) for locally-advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) continues to be explored.

Materials and methods

Outcomes of LAHNSCC patients treated with CRT (125) or BRT (34) at two institutions were compared retrospectively, with attention to overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant control (DC). Univariate analysis (UVA) using Cox regression was performed to explore the association of intervention with survival and disease control, and multivariate (MVA) Cox regression was then performed to assess the association of intervention with survival.

Results

There were significant baseline differences between the CRT and BRT groups with respect to age, race, performance status, N-classification, tobacco history, and human papillomavirus status. UVA demonstrated inferiority of BRT versus CRT with respect to both OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.03–4.63, p = 0.04) and CSS (HR 3.33, 95%CI 1.42–7.78, p < 0.01), but non-significantly different outcomes in LRC (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.37–2.61, p = 0.98) and DC (HR 2.01, 95%CI 0.78–5.37, p = 0.14). On MVA, there was no significant OS difference between interventions (HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.42–3.35, p = 0.74); there were too few events for the other outcomes to draw meaningful conclusions with MVA.

Conclusions

In our retrospective analysis, patients undergoing CRT experienced improved OS and CSS over those receiving BRT; however, disease control did not significantly differ. These findings may inform management of LAHNSCC patients.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2017; 22(5) : 389-395


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2