Predictive factors of toxicity of TPF induction chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancers.
Head and neck cancer
Hepatic dysfunction
Induction chemotherapy
Nutritional status
TPF
Toxicity
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Apr 2021
07 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
05
01
2021
accepted:
23
03
2021
entrez:
8
4
2021
pubmed:
9
4
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The rate of toxic deaths related to induction chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancers is unacceptable and calls into question this therapeutic strategy, which is however highly effective in terms of rate and speed of response. The purpose of the study was to investigate predictive factors of toxicity of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) in locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC). Between June 2009 and December 2017, 113 patients treated consecutively with TPF were included retrospectively. Patients were receiving induction chemotherapy for either an inoperable cancer or laryngeal preservation. For inoperable cancer, induction chemotherapy was proposed to patients presenting either a large tumor with strong symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia, pain) or a tumor with rapid progression. Risk factors were chosen among the initial patient and tumour characteristics and chemotherapy modalities. Eighty-nine patients (79%) were male; the median age was 58 years [32-71]. Sixty-nine (61%) patients were treated for inoperable cancer and 44 (39%) for laryngeal preservation. 45% had stage IVa cancer, 28% stage III and 25% stage IVb. Sixty percent of patients had a partial response after TPF, 22% had a complete response, 12% were stable, 5% were progressing, and 1% had a discordant response. Thirty-four patients (30%) received enteral feeding during induction chemotherapy with TPF. The possibility of oral feeding without a tube was predictive of a better response (p = 0.003). Seven (6%) patients died during TPF. There was an increased risk of death with preexisting liver dysfunction (liver dysmorphia on imaging or decrease prothrombin rate) (p = 0.032). There was an increased risk of grade ≥ 3 infection if an enteral feeding occurred during the period of induction chemotherapy (p = 0.03). TPF induction chemotherapy had an 82% objective response rate with 6% toxic deaths. Nutritional status and the presence of hepatic dysfunction are significant risk factors to be taken into account in therapeutic decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The rate of toxic deaths related to induction chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancers is unacceptable and calls into question this therapeutic strategy, which is however highly effective in terms of rate and speed of response. The purpose of the study was to investigate predictive factors of toxicity of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) in locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC).
METHODS
METHODS
Between June 2009 and December 2017, 113 patients treated consecutively with TPF were included retrospectively. Patients were receiving induction chemotherapy for either an inoperable cancer or laryngeal preservation. For inoperable cancer, induction chemotherapy was proposed to patients presenting either a large tumor with strong symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia, pain) or a tumor with rapid progression. Risk factors were chosen among the initial patient and tumour characteristics and chemotherapy modalities.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighty-nine patients (79%) were male; the median age was 58 years [32-71]. Sixty-nine (61%) patients were treated for inoperable cancer and 44 (39%) for laryngeal preservation. 45% had stage IVa cancer, 28% stage III and 25% stage IVb. Sixty percent of patients had a partial response after TPF, 22% had a complete response, 12% were stable, 5% were progressing, and 1% had a discordant response. Thirty-four patients (30%) received enteral feeding during induction chemotherapy with TPF. The possibility of oral feeding without a tube was predictive of a better response (p = 0.003). Seven (6%) patients died during TPF. There was an increased risk of death with preexisting liver dysfunction (liver dysmorphia on imaging or decrease prothrombin rate) (p = 0.032). There was an increased risk of grade ≥ 3 infection if an enteral feeding occurred during the period of induction chemotherapy (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TPF induction chemotherapy had an 82% objective response rate with 6% toxic deaths. Nutritional status and the presence of hepatic dysfunction are significant risk factors to be taken into account in therapeutic decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33827483
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08128-5
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-08128-5
pmc: PMC8025378
doi:
Substances chimiques
Taxoids
0
Cisplatin
Q20Q21Q62J
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
360Références
Ann Oncol. 2010 Jul;21(7):1515-1522
pubmed: 20032123
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(3):257-64
pubmed: 23414589
Support Care Cancer. 2017 May;25(5):1699-1712
pubmed: 28204992
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Apr 1;101(7):498-506
pubmed: 19318632
N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 25;357(17):1695-704
pubmed: 17960012
Head Neck. 2018 Apr;40(4):676-686
pubmed: 29171929
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 10;31(23):2854-60
pubmed: 23835714
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Jul;100(1):33-40
pubmed: 21684027
Ann Oncol. 2014 Jan;25(1):216-25
pubmed: 24256848
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Feb;118(2):238-43
pubmed: 26589131
N Engl J Med. 1981 Oct 22;305(17):982-7
pubmed: 7278922
Br J Cancer. 2010 Mar 16;102(6):966-71
pubmed: 20160725
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 1;33(28):3199-212
pubmed: 26169616
Strahlenther Onkol. 2015 Aug;191(8):635-41
pubmed: 25782685
N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 25;357(17):1705-15
pubmed: 17960013
Ann Oncol. 2012 Oct;23(10):2708-2714
pubmed: 22492697
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1941-1947
pubmed: 26109631
Ann Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;28(9):2206-2212
pubmed: 28911070
Ann Oncol. 2009 May;20(5):921-7
pubmed: 19179556
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;36(31):3077-3083
pubmed: 30016178
N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 27;349(22):2091-8
pubmed: 14645636
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983 Mar;9(3):335-8
pubmed: 6841185
Oncotarget. 2016 Jun 14;7(24):37297-37304
pubmed: 27119503
N Engl J Med. 1991 Jun 13;324(24):1685-90
pubmed: 2034244
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar 1;31(7):853-9
pubmed: 23341517
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 1;32(25):2735-43
pubmed: 25049329
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8636-45
pubmed: 16275937
Laryngoscope. 1975 Sep;85(9):1424-9
pubmed: 1177634
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Feb 4;101(3):142-52
pubmed: 19176454
Lancet. 2000 Mar 18;355(9208):949-55
pubmed: 10768432
Laryngoscope. 1975 Sep;85(9):1485-93
pubmed: 1177640
N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 9;354(6):567-78
pubmed: 16467544
Support Care Cancer. 2007 Sep;15(9):1045-50
pubmed: 17277925
Oral Oncol. 1998 May;34(3):224-8
pubmed: 9692058
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jul;92(1):4-14
pubmed: 19446902