A. Kirkpatrick

BACKGROUND: As a general rule, surgery whenever possible, followed by irradiation is considered to be the standard treatment for cancer of the hypopharynx, thus sacrificing natural speech. In most patients, surgery includes removal of the larynx. PURPOSE: A prospective, randomized phase III study was conducted by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) starting in 1990 to compare a larynx-preserving treatment (induction chemotherapy plus definitive, radiation therapy in patients who showed a complete response or surgery in those who did not respond) with conventional treatment (total laryngectomy with partial pharyngectomy, radical neck dissection, and postoperative irradiation) in previously untreated and operable patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinomas of the pyriform sinus or aryepiglottic fold, but free of other cancers. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: 1) immediate surgery with postoperative radiotherapy (50-70 Gy) or 2) induction chemotherapy (cisplatin [100 mg/m2] given as a bolus intravenous injection on day 1, followed by infusion of fluorouracil [1000 mg/m2 per day] on days 1-5). An endoscopic evaluation was performed after each cycle of chemotherapy. After two cycles, only partial and complete responders received a third cycle. Patients with a complete response after two or three cycles of chemotherapy were treated thereafter by irradiation (70 Gy); nonresponding patients underwent conventional surgery with postoperative radiation (50-70 Gy). Salvage surgery was also performed when patients relapsed after chemotherapy and irradiation. The trial was designed to test the equivalence of the two treatment arms; i.e., the induction chemotherapy treatment would be judged equivalent to immediate surgery if the relative risk of death for induction chemotherapy compared with immediate surgery was significantly less than 1.43 using a one-sided hypothesis test at the .05 level of significance. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients entered the trial and were randomly assigned; only 194 were eligible for treatment (94 in the immediate-surgery arm and 100 in the induction-chemotherapy arm). In the induction-chemotherapy arm, complete response was seen in 52 (54%) of 97 patients with local disease (primary tumor) and in 31 (51%) of 61 patients with regional disease (involvement of the neck). Treatment failures at local, regional, and second primary sites occurred at approximately the same frequencies in the immediate-surgery arm (12%, 19%, and 16%, respectively) and in the induction-chemotherapy arm (17%, 23%, and 13%, respectively). In contrast, there were fewer failures at distant sites in the induction-chemotherapy arm than in the immediate-surgery arm (25% versus 36%, respectively; P = .041). The median duration of survival was 25 months in the immediate-surgery arm and 44 months in the induction-chemotherapy arm and, since the observed hazard ratio was 0.86 (logrank test, P = .006), which was significantly less than 1.43, the two treatments were judged to be equivalent. The 3- and 5-year estimates of retaining a functional larynx in patients treated in the induction-chemotherapy arm were 42% (95% confidence interval = 31%-53%) and 35% (95% confidence interval = 22%-48%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Larynx preservation without jeopardizing survival appears feasible in patients with cancer of the hypopharynx. On the basis of these observations, the EORTC has now accepted the use of induction chemotherapy followed by radiation as the new standard treatment in its future phase III larynx preservation trials.

PURPOSE: The present study investigates the role of short chemotherapy (five cycles) versus prolonged (12 cycles) chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred eighty-seven patients with SCLC were registered in a multicenter study to receive five cycles of chemotherapy consisting of cyclophosphamide 1 g/m2 on day 1, doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 3 and 5 (CDE), every 3 weeks. Four hundred thirty-four nonprogressing patients after five cycles of chemotherapy were randomized either to receive seven further cycles of the same chemotherapy or to follow-up. RESULTS: The response rate of 585 assessable patients was 79%, with 36% attaining a complete response. Toxicity was mainly hematologic, with 16 toxic deaths (2.4% of all eligible patients), 13 of which were due to sepsis. Median survival time from registration of all patients was 326 days (396 and 267 days for limited and extensive disease, respectively) with 3.2% of patients alive at 5 years. No difference in survival between the two arms was observed, with the same number of 5-year survivors in both arms. The patients randomized to the maintenance arm had a progression-free survival (PFS) duration approximately 2 months longer than the patients randomized to follow-up (median of 177 days v 114 days from randomization; P = .0004). Among patients with a partial response who were randomized to receive maintenance chemotherapy, 12 achieved a complete response after 12 cycles. More patients in the follow-up arm than in the maintenance arm received subsequent treatment on progression and responded more frequently to that treatment. Twelve patients developed second malignancies (seven non-small-cell lung cancers). CONCLUSION: Prolonged chemotherapy does not offer a better chance of cure than short chemotherapy (five cycles) and does not prolong survival in patients with SCLC. Short, combination chemotherapy appears to be a reasonable choice for standard treatment of SCLC and for attempts to improve the cure rate of this disease.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of alternating or sequential schedules of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) chemotherapy and irradiation in patients with previously untreated small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 335 eligible patients were randomized between five courses of CDE chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation 50 Gy in 20 daily fractions (S) and the same total dose of chemotherapy and irradiation split into four courses of five daily fractions delivered on days 14 to 21 of the second and subsequent chemotherapy courses (A). Patients had a median age of 61 years (range, 33 to 75); 224 (66%) were male; the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was 0 or 1 in 311; and 254 had weight loss less than 10%. RESULTS: The overall median survival duration was 15 months, with 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57% to 67%) 1-year, 25% (95% CI, 20% to 30%) 2-year, and 14% (95% CI, 10% to 18%) 3-year survival rates. There was no significant difference between the arms. The median survival time was 14 months in A and 15 months in S. One-year survival was 60% in A (95% CI, 53% to 67%) and 64% in S (95% CI, 57% to 71%); 2-year survival was 26% in A (95% CI, 19% to 33%) and 23% in S (95% CI, 16% to 30%); and 3-year survival was 12% in A (95% CI, 6% to 18%) and 15% in S (95% CI, 9% to 21%). World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 90% of A and 77% of S patients (P < .001) and WHO grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 33% of A and 20% of S patients (P < .001). Rates of other acute and late toxicities were similar in both arms. Hematologic toxicity compromised treatment dose delivery; less than 50% of A patients received greater than 95% of prescribed chemotherapy and 77% their full radiation course, compared with 60% and 93% for arm S (P < .009). Local relapse was the site of first failure in 60% of all patients and 75% of these suffered an in-field relapse; no difference could be seen between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to confirm the superiority of an alternating schedule of delivery. For this combination of chemotherapy and irradiation, hematologic toxicity compromised treatment delivery and could have contributed to the overall result. The poor rates of local control are disappointing and require intensification of the radiation therapy strategy.