ArticleEcancermedicalscience2015
Sequential chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck cancer after induction chemotherapy: an induction chemotherapy schedule more suited to a limited resource setting.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn our experience, induction docetaxel, platinum, and fluorouracil (TPF) chemotherapy and sequential chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck cancer lowers compliance owing to their considerable toxicity. Most of our head and neck cancer patients have locally advanced disease at presentation. Physicians frequently prefer paclitaxel-cisplatin induction chemotherapy instead, because of better patient tolerance. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 207 locally advanced head and neck cancer patients receiving paclitaxel and cisplatin prior to chemoradiation from November 2010 to October 2013 were studied retrospectively. Parameters like febrile neutropaenia, treatment compliance, and response rates were compared to our institutional retrospective data with TPF chemotherapy. Response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (Recist) version 1.1. Toxicity was assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 during chemotherapy. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) acute toxicity criteria were used for assessment during chemoradiation.
resultsFebrile neutropaenia with paclitaxel- cisplatin was significantly lower 3.4% (7/207) versus 44.5% (73/164) with TPF chemotherapy (two-tailed P value < 0.0001). A 95.7 % (198/207) paclitaxel-cisplatin patients completed chemoradiation versus 87% with TPF. The difference was significant (two-tailed P value = 0.0070). Response rate at treatment completion with paclitaxel -cisplatin was 89.7% versus 88% with TPF chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed (two-tailed P value = 0.7007).
conclusionInduction paclitaxel and cisplatin with sequential chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck cancer is more suitable in a limited resource setting. Lower toxicity, better compliance, and comparable response are encouraging in our study cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.