Varagur Venkatesan

BACKGROUND: A randomized phase 3 trial of the treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck compared induction chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF) with cisplatin and fluorouracil (PF), followed by chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 501 patients (all of whom had stage III or IV disease with no distant metastases and tumors considered to be unresectable or were candidates for organ preservation) to receive either TPF or PF induction chemotherapy, followed by chemoradiotherapy with weekly carboplatin therapy and radiotherapy for 5 days per week. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: With a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (> or =3 years for 69% of patients), significantly more patients survived in the TPF group than in the PF group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; P=0.006). Estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 62% in the TPF group and 48% in the PF group; the median overall survival was 71 months and 30 months, respectively (P=0.006). There was better locoregional control in the TPF group than in the PF group (P=0.04), but the incidence of distant metastases in the two groups did not differ significantly (P=0.14). Rates of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were higher in the TPF group; chemotherapy was more frequently delayed because of hematologic adverse events in the PF group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who received docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy had a significantly longer survival than did patients who received cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00273546 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

PURPOSE: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Protocol 92-02 was a randomized trial testing long-term (LT) adjuvant androgen deprivation (AD) after initial AD with external-beam radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PC; T2c-4) and with prostate-specific antigen level less than 150 ng/mL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received a total of 4 months of goserelin and flutamide, 2 months before and 2 months during RT. A radiation dose of 65 to 70 Gy was given to the prostate and a dose of 44 to 50 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes. Patients were randomly assigned to receive no additional therapy (short-term [ST]AD-RT) or 24 months of goserelin (LTAD-RT); 1,554 patients were entered onto the study. RESULTS: The LTAD-RT arm showed significant improvement in all efficacy end points except overall survival (OS; 80.0% v 78.5% at 5 years, P =.73), compared with the STAD-RT arm. In a subset of patients not part of the original study design, with tumors assigned Gleason scores of 8 to 10 by the contributing institutions, the LTAD-RT arm had significantly better OS (81.0% v 70.7%, P =.044). There was a small but significant increase in the frequency of late radiation grades 3, 4, and 5 gastrointestinal toxicity ascribed to the LTAD-RT arm (2.6% v 1.2% at 5 years, P =.037), the cause of which is not clear. CONCLUSION: The RTOG 92-02 trial supports the addition of LT adjuvant AD to STAD with RT for T2c-4 PC. In the exploratory subset analysis of patients with Gleason scores 8 to 10, LT adjuvant AD resulted in a survival advantage.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcome for patients electively treated with ADT before and during radiation therapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer patients with T2c-T4 prostate cancer with no extra pelvic lymph node involvement and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 150 ng/mL were included. All patients received 4 months of goserelin and flutamide before and during RT. They were randomized to no further ADT (short-term ADT [STAD] + RT) or 24 months of goserelin (long-term ADT [LTAD] + RT). A total of 1,554 patients were entered. RT was 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes and 65 to 70 Gy to the prostate. Median follow-up of all survival patients is 11.31 and 11.27 years for the two arms. RESULTS: At 10 years, the LTAD + RT group showed significant improvement over the STAD + RT group for all end points except overall survival: disease-free survival (13.2% v 22.5%; P < .0001), disease-specific survival (83.9% v 88.7%; P = .0042), local progression (22.2% v 12.3%; P < .0001), distant metastasis (22.8% v 14.8%; P < .0001), biochemical failure (68.1% v 51.9%; P <or= .0001), and overall survival (51.6% v 53.9%, P = .36). One subgroup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers. An overall survival difference was observed (31.9% v 45.1%; P = .0061), as well as in all other end points herein. CONCLUSION: LTAD as delivered in this study for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is superior to STAD for all end points except survival. A survival advantage for LTAD + RT in the treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be the standard of treatment for these high-risk patients.