Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Feb 21:9:86.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00086. eCollection 2019.

Low-Dose vs. High-Dose Cisplatin: Lessons Learned From 59 Chemoradiotherapy Trials in Head and Neck Cancer

Affiliations
Review

Low-Dose vs. High-Dose Cisplatin: Lessons Learned From 59 Chemoradiotherapy Trials in Head and Neck Cancer

Petr Szturz et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

In locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN), concurrent chemoradiotherapy is an integral part of multimodality management both in the adjuvant and in the definitive settings. Although de-intensification strategies have been propelled to the forefront of clinical research in human papillomavirus (HPV) positive oropharyngeal cancer, three cycles of 100 mg/m2 cisplatin given every 3 weeks concurrently with conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy represent a cost-effective and globally accessible treatment option for the majority of LA-SCCHN cases. Based on four large randomized trials, this regimen has become the non-surgical standard of care for cisplatin-eligible patients. Nevertheless, the outcomes in terms of efficacy, toxicity, and compliance have been rather disappointing. Therefore, there is an unmet need to find a better alternative. With limited support from randomized trials, weekly low-dose cisplatin regimens have replaced the standard high-dose schedule at some institutions. Four prospective trials exploring radiotherapy with and without weekly low-dose cisplatin have been published. Two of them were conducted in the 1980s, one of which had a negative outcome, the third study provided insufficient information on toxicity, and the fourth trial had to be prematurely terminated due to poor accrual. Moreover, the findings of two phase III trials comparing the two concurrent cisplatin regimens favored the high-dose protocol. We performed a composite meta-analysis of 59 prospective trials enrolling a total of 5,582 patients. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Reflecting different radiotherapy fractionation schemes and treatment intents, three meta-analyses were carried out, one for postoperative conventional chemoradiotherapy, one for definitive conventional chemoradiotherapy, and one for definitive altered fractionation chemoradiotherapy. In the former two settings, both high- and low-dose regimens yielded similar survival outcomes, thus, the primary objective was not met. When given concurrently with altered fractionation radiotherapy, patients treated with high-dose cisplatin had significantly longer overall survival than those who received low-dose cisplatin. In this article we provide a synthetic view of the results, discuss the issue of cumulative dose, compare two vs. three cycles of high-dose cisplatin, and present our three-step recommendations for use of the current standard of care, high-dose cisplatin, in clinical practice.

Keywords: chemoradiotherapy; cisplatin; clinical trials; cumulative dose; fractionation; head and neck cancer; practice recommendations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of study distribution into three separate meta-analyses (8, 9).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall survival analysis comparing high-dose vs. low-dose cisplatin given concurrently with conventional (A) and altered fractionation (B) radiotherapy in the definitive setting. Reprinted in part from Szturz et al. (8). Copyright © 2017, with permission from AlphaMed Press, and from Szturz et al. (9). Copyright © 2018, with permission from Elsevier.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. (eds.). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; (2018). Available online at: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/, based on November 2017 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
    1. Mehanna H, West CM, Nutting C, Paleri V. Head and neck cancer–Part 2: treatment and prognostic factors. BMJ (2010) 341:c4690. 10.1136/bmj.c4690 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, Garden AS, Weber RS, Cooper JS, et al. . Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol. (2008) 26:3582–9. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8841 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA, Jacobs J, Campbell BH, Saxman SB, et al. . Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. (2004) 350:1937–44. 10.1056/NEJMoa032646 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, Matuszewska K, Lefèbvre JL, Greiner RH, et al. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. (2004) 350:1945–52. 10.1056/NEJMoa032641 - DOI - PubMed