4.7 Article

Sequential therapy for the locally advanced larynx and hypopharynx cancer subgroup in TAX 324: survival, surgery, and organ preservation

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 921-927

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn752

关键词

chemotherapy; chemoradiotherapy; head and neck cancer; larynx cancer; hypopharynx cancer; organ preservation

类别

资金

  1. Sanofi-aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Locally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers (LHC) represent a group of cancers for which surgery, laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) are clinically meaningful end points. Patients and methods: These outcomes were analyzed in the subgroup of assessable LHC patients enrolled in TAX 324, a phase III trial of sequential therapy comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF) against cisplatin and fluorouracil (PF), followed by chemoradiotherapy. Results: Among 501 patients enrolled in TAX 324, 166 had LHC (TPF, n = 90; PF, n = 76). Patient characteristics were similar between subgroups. Median OS for TPF was 59 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 31-not reached] versus 24 months (95% CI: 13-42) for PF [hazard ratio (HR) for death: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41-0.94; P = 0.024]. Median PFS for TPF was 21 months (95% CI: 12-59) versus 11 months (95% CI: 8-14) for PF (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.97; P = 0.032). Among operable patients (TPF, n = 67; PF, n = 56), LFS was significantly greater with TPF (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.37-0.95; P = 0.030). Three-year LFS with TPF was 52% versus 32% for PF. Fewer TPF patients had surgery (22% versus 42%; P = 0.030). Conclusions: In locally advanced LHC, sequential therapy with induction TPF significantly improved survival and PFS versus PF. Among operable patients, TPF also significantly improved LFS and PFS. These results support the use of sequential TPF followed by carboplatin chemoradiotherapy as a treatment option for organ preservation or to improve survival in locally advanced LHC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据