Rita Axelrod

BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinomas caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) are associated with favorable survival, but the independent prognostic significance of tumor HPV status remains unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the association between tumor HPV status and survival among patients with stage III or IV oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma who were enrolled in a randomized trial comparing accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy (with acceleration by means of concomitant boost radiotherapy) with standard-fractionation radiotherapy, each combined with cisplatin therapy, in patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Proportional-hazards models were used to compare the risk of death among patients with HPV-positive cancer and those with HPV-negative cancer. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 4.8 years. The 3-year rate of overall survival was similar in the group receiving accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy and the group receiving standard-fractionation radiotherapy (70.3% vs. 64.3%; P=0.18; hazard ratio for death with accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.13), as were the rates of high-grade acute and late toxic events. A total of 63.8% of patients with oropharyngeal cancer (206 of 323) had HPV-positive tumors; these patients had better 3-year rates of overall survival (82.4%, vs. 57.1% among patients with HPV-negative tumors; P<0.001 by the log-rank test) and, after adjustment for age, race, tumor and nodal stage, tobacco exposure, and treatment assignment, had a 58% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.66). The risk of death significantly increased with each additional pack-year of tobacco smoking. Using recursive-partitioning analysis, we classified our patients as having a low, intermediate, or high risk of death on the basis of four factors: HPV status, pack-years of tobacco smoking, tumor stage, and nodal stage. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor HPV status is a strong and independent prognostic factor for survival among patients with oropharyngeal cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047008.)

PURPOSE: Combining cisplatin or cetuximab with radiation improves overall survival (OS) of patients with stage III or IV head and neck carcinoma (HNC). Cetuximab plus platinum regimens also increase OS in metastatic HNC. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group launched a phase III trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to the radiation-cisplatin platform improves progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with stage III or IV HNC were randomly assigned to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Acute and late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features and markers. RESULTS: Of 891 analyzed patients, 630 were alive at analysis (median follow-up, 3.8 years). Cetuximab plus cisplatin-radiation, versus cisplatin-radiation alone, resulted in more frequent interruptions in radiation therapy (26.9% v. 15.1%, respectively); similar cisplatin delivery (mean, 185.7 mg/m2 v. 191.1 mg/m2, respectively); and more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (43.2% v. 33.3%, respectively), rash, fatigue, anorexia, and hypokalemia, but not more late toxicity. No differences were found between arms A and B in 30-day mortality (1.8% v. 2.0%, respectively; P = .81), 3-year PFS (61.2% v. 58.9%, respectively; P = .76), 3-year OS (72.9% v. 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v. 25.9%, respectively; P = .97), or distant metastasis (13.0% v. 9.7%, respectively; P = .08). Patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), compared with patients with p16-negative OPC, had better 3-year probability of PFS (72.8% v. 49.2%, respectively; P < .001) and OS (85.6% v. 60.1%, respectively; P < .001), but tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression did not distinguish outcome. CONCLUSION: Adding cetuximab to radiation-cisplatin did not improve outcome and hence should not be prescribed routinely. PFS and OS were higher in patients with p16-positive OPC, but outcomes did not differ by EGFR expression.

PURPOSE: To test the ability of the cytoprotectant, amifostine, to reduce chemoradiotherapy-induced esophagitis and evaluate its influence on quality of life (QOL) and swallowing symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 243 patients with stage II to IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer received induction paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) days 1 and 22 and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) days 1 and 22, followed by concurrent weekly paclitaxel (50 mg/m(2) IV) and carboplatin (AUC 2), and hyperfractionated radiation therapy (69.6 Gy at 1.2 Gy bid). Patients were randomly assigned at registration to amifostine (AM) 500 mg IV four times per week or no AM during chemoradiotherapy. Beyond standard toxicity end points, physician dysphagia logs (PDLs), daily patient swallowing diaries, and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30/LC-13) were also collected. Swallowing AUC analyses were calculated from patient diaries and PDLs. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive AM, and 122, to receive no AM (one patient was ineligible); 72% received AM per protocol or with a minor deviation. AM was associated with higher rates of acute nausea (P = .03), vomiting (P = .007), cardiovascular toxicity (P = .0001), and infection or febrile neutropenia (P = .03). The rate of >/= grade 3 esophagitis was 30% with AM versus 34% without AM (P = .9). Patient diaries demonstrated lower swallowing dysfunction AUC with amifostine (z test P = .025). QOL was not significantly different between the two arms, except for pain, which showed more clinically meaningful improvement and less deterioration at 6 weeks follow-up (v pretreatment) in the AM arm (P = .003). The median survival rates for both arms were comparable (AM, 17.3 v no AM, 17.9 months; P = .87). CONCLUSION: AM did not significantly reduce esophagitis >/= grade 3 in patients receiving hyperfractionated radiation and chemotherapy. However, patient self-assessments suggested a possible advantage to AM that is being explored with modified dosing route strategies.

PURPOSE: A multicenter randomized phase II trial to evaluate two treatment strategies in the first-line management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with a performance status (PS) of 2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to erlotinib 150 mg orally daily until progression or to carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) day 1 every 3 weeks) for up to four cycles. Patients who experienced progression or did not tolerate or refused further chemotherapy were allowed to cross over to erlotinib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response, survival, quality of life (QOL), and a retrospective molecular correlation. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to erlotinib and 51 to chemotherapy. Partial responses were 2% and 12%, respectively. Median PFS was 1.9 months in the erlotinib arm and 3.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.15; P = .06). Median survival times were 6.5 and 9.7 months, respectively (HR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.73; P = .018). Patients who crossed over to erlotinib had a median survival of 14.9 months. Sex, histology, skin rash, and smoking history predicted outcome with erlotinib. Rash and diarrhea were more common with erlotinib; emesis, alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, and fatigue were more common with chemotherapy. QOL was similar between the two arms. Molecular correlation was limited by available samples. CONCLUSION: Unselected patients with advanced NSCLC and PS 2 are best treated with combination chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Erlotinib may be considered in patients selected by clinical or molecular markers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib +/- docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 (arm A) or bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (arm B). A treatment cycle of 21 days comprised four bortezomib doses on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, plus, in arm B, docetaxel on day 1. Patients could receive unlimited cycles. The primary end point was response rate. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were treated, 75 in arm A and 80 in arm B. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Investigator-assessed response rates were 8% in arm A and 9% in arm B. Disease control rates were 29% in arm A and 54% in arm B. Median time to progression was 1.5 months in arm A and 4.0 months in arm B. One-year survival was 39% and 33%, and median survival was 7.4 and 7.8 months in arms A and B, respectively. Adverse effect profiles were as expected in both arms, with no significant additivity. The most common grade > or = 3 adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, and dyspnea (4% and 53%, 19% and 26%, and 17% and 14% of patients in arms A and B, respectively). CONCLUSION: Bortezomib has modest single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced NSCLC using this schedule, with minor enhancement in combination with docetaxel. Additional investigation of bortezomib in NSCLC is warranted in combination with other drugs known to be active, or using different schedules.