Publication Date: 04 Jan 2015
Type: Original Research
Journal: Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology
Citation: Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology 2015:9 1-7
doi: 10.4137/CMO.S18682
Efficacy of cisplatin versus cetuximab with radiation in locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) was evaluated. A total of 96 patients with newly diagnosed LAHNC treated at our institution between 2006 and 2011 with concurrent radiation and cisplatin (group A, n = 45), cetuximab (group B, n = 24), or started with cisplatin but switched to cetuximab because of toxicity (group C, n = 27) were reviewed. Chi-square test, analysis of variance, and log-rank test were used for analysis. The three groups had similar baseline characteristics, except for median age, T stage, albumin levels, hemoglobin levels, performance status, and comorbidities. A complete response (CR) was seen in 77%, 17%, and 67% of patients (P < 0.001), respectively. There was no significant difference in median overall survival (OS) between groups A and C. The median OS for groups A and C was not reached (>65 months), even though it was significantly longer than median OS for group B (11.6 months; P ≤ 0.001). The 2-year OS in groups A and C is significantly higher than that in group B (70% for groups A and C, 22% for group B). There is no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between groups A and C. The median PFS for these groups was not reached (.62 months), and is significantly longer than that for group B (4.3 months; P ≤ 0.001). The 2-year PFS of group A (67%) and group C (76%) was significantly longer than that of group B (20%). Cisplatin with radiation appears to be more efficacious even in suboptimal dosing than cetuximab with radiation in LAHNC but the two groups were not well matched.
PDF (857.73 KB PDF FORMAT)
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
Supplementary Files 1 (46.63 KB DOCX FORMAT)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
PMC HTML
We have had a fantastic and unprecedented experience publishing our paper in Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology. The process of submitting and correcting the proofs were simple, quick, and smooth. We appreciated the clarity and easiness of instructions and your fast responses to our emails. Great work. Keep it up.
Facebook Google+ Twitter
Pinterest Tumblr YouTube