Head & Neck Flashcards
How is HPV status important ?
A/w >90% of HPV-related HNSCC
HPV is a small dsDNA virus
HPV E6 and E7 oncogenes bind and inactivate p53 and pRb.
- p53 and pRb are tumor suppressor genes
- unchecked cellular replication hence results
Inactivation of pRb result in over expression of p16
- p16 is an upstream tumor suppressor protein
Viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 inactive main Tumors suppressor genes resulting in:
- proliferation
- overexpression of p16
HPV + relates to:
- higher response to chemotherapy or ChemoRT
- improved OS
- improved PFS
What are the treatment goals for resectable H&N disease?
1) Improve locoregional control
2) Improve OS
3) Organ and function preservation for appropriate patients
- Laryngeal
- Hypopharyngeal
- Oropharyngeal
Which H&N cancers are a/w higher likelihood of micromets at diagnosis?
Nasopharynx
Hypopharynx
- Hence they require better systemic control to improve survival
What are the strategies that can be used to improve locoregional control and/or survival in stage III/IV disease?
1) Altered fractionation radiation
2) Systemic treatment
- radiosensitisation to improve locoregional control
- reduction of tumor bulk with induction therapy to facilitate locoregional therapy
- improve systemic control
- select patients for organ preservation (Larynx/hypopharynx)
What is the evidence for concurrent high-dose single agent CDDP to conventional RT for H&N cancers?
Aldestein JCO 2003
Aim of study: Test the benefit of adding chemo to RT in Unresectable SCC H&N
N=300 (study closed early due to not enough enrollment)
3arms:
A) = control arm = Single daily fractionated RT, 70Gy at 2Gy/day
B) = Identical Group A RT + CDDP on D1, 22 43
C) = Chemoradiotherapy:
- 3# of D1-4 CI 5FU (1000) + Bolus CDDP (75) D1
- Q4w
- RT at 2Gy/day split between first chemo course and 3rd chemo course (total 60-70Gy)
- Chemo break is to allow for possibility of surgical resection
RESULTS:
3y OS 20% (A) vs 35% (B) vs 30% (C)
3y DFS 50% (CDDP/RT) vs 30% (RT alone)
Tell me about the Forastiere study
RTOG 91-11
Forastiere NEJM 2003
Question:
1) value of adding chemo to RT?
2) Optimal timing of chemo
Locally advanced cancer of larynx patients, n=550 3 arms: 1) Induction CDDP/5FU --> RT 2) Concurrent CDDP/RT 3) RT alone
RESULTS med f/u almost 4 y:
1) Intact larynx at 2 years: 90% (concurrent) vs 75%(induction) vs 70% (RT alone)
2) 5y Rate of locoregional control 80% (Concurrent) vs 70%(induction) vs 65% (RT)
3) Better DFS when chemo added
4) OS similar I all groups
5) High-grade toxic effects greatest with chemo-based regimens
- mucosal toxicity of concurrent ChemoRT nearly 2x that of the other 2 regimens
6) 5y Laryngeal preservation rate 80%(CRT) vs 70% (IC) vs 65%(RT)
What is the MACH-NC study about?
Pignon Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009
Meta-analysis of chemo in H&N cancer
93 RCTs, 17 000 patients
Aim: To confirm that chemotherapy improved survival
RESULTS:
1) Chemo added additional 4.5% at 5 years in terms of OS
2) Concurrent ChemoRT better; HR 0.8 and absolute benefit of 6.5% at 5 years
What is the ideal treatment for maxillary/oral cavity cancers?
Surgery + adjuvantRT
Btwn Surgery and ChemoRT, - Med DFS 5.5y (Sx) Vs 1y 5y DFS 55% vs 15% - Med OS 5.5y (Sx) vs 1y 5 OS 55% vs 20%
In Oropharyngeal Ca, what is preferred? ChemoRT or surgery?
No difference noted in terms of DFS and OS
Is there a value of induction CDDP/5FU (PF) in Unresectable disease?
Yes. Zorat et al. JNCI 2004
–> 10% benefit 10y OS
Phase 3 study
1) Locoregional treatment alone
2) 4# Induction PF–> Locoregional treatment
- Locoreginal treatment =
- Resectable disease = Sx + Adjuvant RT
- Unresetable disease = RT alone
RESULTS:
1) Resectable disease: No difference in OS at 5 and 10y
2) Unresectable disease:
- 5y OS 20% vs 10%
- 10y OS 15% vs 5%
What is the evidence for TPF?
1) TAX 324 Posner et al NEJM 2007
N=500
Stage III/IV, no distant mets
Considered to be Unresectable OR were candidates for organ preservation
2 arms:
1) Induction TPF –> ChemoRT with weekly Carbo
2) Induction PF –> ChemoRT with weekly Carbo
RESULTS: 3y OS 60% (TPF) vs 50%(PF) Med OS 70m (TPF) vs 30m Better locoregional control in TPF Incidence of distant mets ~ ORR 90% (CR 40%) ================
2) TAX 323 Vermoken NEJM 2007
N=350 Stage III/IV, no distant mets 2 arms: 1) 4# Induction TPF --> RT 2) 4# Induction PF --> RT
RESULTS: Med PFS 11m (TPF) vs 8m Med OS 19m vs 14.5m Rates of death from toxic effects: 2% (TPF) vs 5.5% (PF) ORR 70% vs 55% (PF)
What is the evidence for TPF, specifically for organ preservation?
Pointreau et al JNCI 2009
Aim: Determine if adding Docetaxel to PF could increase the Larynx preservation rate.
N=200 Larynx and hypopharynx cancer 2 arms: 1) 3# TPF 2) 3# PF
Those who respond:
- RT +/- additional chemo
Those who DID NOT Respond:
- Total laryngectomy –> RT +/- chemo
RESULTS after 3y f/u:
3y larynx preservation rate 70% (TPF) vs 55%
ORR 80% (TPF) vs 60%
OS~ 60%
What is the role of Cetuximab combined with RT?
Bonner et al Lancet Oncol 2010
N=400
Locally advanced SCC of Oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx with measurable disease.
2 arms:
1) H&N RT for 6-7 weeks
2) H&N RT + weekly Cetuximab
- 400mg/m2 initial dose, followed by 7 weekly doses of 250mg/m2
RT consists of 1 of 3 regimens:
- once daily RT at 2Gy/day to total 70Gy gross disease
- twice-daily RT 1.2Gy in 2 separate fractions each day, 6h or more apart, total 72-77Gy
- 72Gy/42# + concomitant boost RT 18Gy for 30#, with a 2nd fraction 1.5Gy >6 hours after the first fraction during the last 12 days of tax.
Results:
- Med OS 50m (Cetux) vs 30m
- 5y OS 45% vs 35%
- Cetuximab OS significantly improved in those who experienced an acne inform rash of at least G2 severity
- Seems to benefit oropharynx most
- Once daily seems to do worst.
Any value in adding Cetuximab to Concurrent CDDP/RT?
No. Ang KK JCO 2014
RTOG 0522
B/g: CDDP OR Cetux + RT improved OS in Stage III/IV HNSCC
Cetux+platinum also increased OS in met HNC
QTN: whether adding Cetux to CDDP/RT will improve PFS
N=900
2 arms:
1) Cetux+ CDDP/RT
2) CDDP/RT
RESULTS:
1) Cetux resulted in more frequent interruptions in RT 25% vs 15%
2) Cetux resulted in more G3/4 radiation mucositis 40% vs 30%
3) No differences in 30-day mortality/locoregional failure/distant met/3y PFS/3y OS
- 3y PFS ~60%
- 3y OS ~75%
4) p16+ had better 3y PFS 70% vs 50% and OS 85% vs 60%
Give me some General conclusions of the Staging for H&N Cas
T1N0M0 = Stage I T2N0M0 = Stage II T3N0M0 = Stage II T4aN0M0 = Stage IVA T4bN0M0 = Stage IVB
TxN2M0 = Stage IVA TxN3M0 = Stage IVB
M1 = Stage IVC