ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2014
Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy as definitive, first line treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A retrospective single center analysis.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone in stage III-IV unresectable head and neck cancer: Results of a randomized phase II study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2015Trial
- Induction chemotherapy for locally advanced OPSCC: real-world evidence and HPV-dependent prognostic value of treatment response.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Induction Chemotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Combined Study of Two National Cohorts in Taiwan.Medicine · 2016Observational
- High-grade acute organ toxicity and p16(INK4A) expression as positive prognostic factors in primary radio(chemo)therapy for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2015Article
- 3'-deoxy-3'-[¹⁸F]-fluorothymidine PET/CT in early determination of prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer: comparison with [¹⁸F]-FDG PET/CT.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2015Article
- Sequential chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck cancer after induction chemotherapy: an induction chemotherapy schedule more suited to a limited resource setting.Ecancermedicalscience · 2015Article
- Trial Watch: Radioimmunotherapy for oncological indications.Oncoimmunology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite the lack of evidence to support its implementation in the clinical practice, induction chemotherapy (IC) before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is often used in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We retrospectively examined the tolerability, feasibility, and clinical outcome of both concepts in a single center analysis. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn all, 83 patients were treated between 2007 and 2010 with IC + CRT (n = 42) or CRT alone (n = 41). IC consisted of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF), or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF). All patients were scheduled to receive 2 cycles of PF during concurrent CRT. Adverse events were assessed according to the common toxicity criteria of adverse events (CTCAE v. 3.0). Associations were tested using the χ² test, and survival estimates were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier.
resultsThe median follow-up was 30.35 months (range 2.66-61.25 months). At 2 years, the overall survival rate was significantly higher for primary CRT compared to IC + CRT group (74.8 % vs. 54 %, respectively; p = 0.041). Significantly more treatment-related overall grade 4 toxicities were documented in the IC + CRT group compared to the CRT group (42.9% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.001). Renal toxicity ≥ grade 2 occurred in 52.4 % vs. 7.3 % (p < 0.001), respectively. In all, 93 % of the patients with primary CRT compared to 71 % with IC + CRT received the planned full radiotherapy dose (p = 0.012).
conclusionThis is, to our knowledge, the largest retrospective study to compare IC + CRT with primary CRT. IC showed high acute toxicity, compromised the feasibility of concurrent CRT, and was associated with reduced overall survival rates compared to primary CRT. The lack of clinical benefit in conjunction with the increased toxicity does not support implementation of IC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24413895What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.