4.6 Review

Chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
Volume 44, Issue -, Pages 10-16

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.01.002

Keywords

Locally advanced head and neck cancer; Concomitant; Induction; Chemotherapy; Chemoradiotherapy; Cetuximab

Categories

Funding

  1. Sanofi
  2. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  3. Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  4. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  5. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.
  6. Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.
  7. Eisai Co., Ltd.
  8. Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  9. Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd.
  10. YakultHonsya Co., Ltd.
  11. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma
  12. Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  13. MSD K.K.
  14. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  15. Eli Lilly Japan K.K.
  16. Pfizer Inc.
  17. Novartis Pharma K.K.
  18. Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.
  19. Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.
  20. AstraZenaca K.K.
  21. GlaxoSmithKline plc.
  22. ASKA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  23. Terumo Corporation
  24. Bayel Holding Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chemotherapy, in combination with a local treatment, has a role in nearly all the settings of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) treatment: as definitive, adjuvant or induction therapy. However, despite many years of trials, controversies still exist regarding the best approach to using chemotherapy in the multi-modal treatment of LAHNSCC. Opinions are divided on sequential versus concurrent use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for unresectable LAHNSCC. More debate exists on whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to concomitant chemoradiotherapy is clinically meaningful. After the approval of cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy for this disease, making treatment choices have become further complicated. Although new data from trials are arriving every year, the results have been inconclusive. In this review, we provide the readers with the latest information on various strategies of using chemotherapy and cetuximab that will help to make an evidence-based decision in the treatment of LAHNSCC, including the approach to larynx preservation. We conclude that with the available information, concurrent chemoradiotherapy should be preferred over induction chemotherapy, except in the setting of larynx preservation. Furthermore, given the paucity of positive data and severe financial toxicity associated with cetuximab, concurrent chemoradiotherapy should be the preferred choice over cetuximab-radiotherapy. Future trials in head and neck cancer should be properly planned to address these controversies and provide clear solutions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available