|
|
 |
 |
| |
 Printable version |
Induction chemotherapy and larynx preservation: is such attitude daily useful? |
Bulletin du Cancer. Volume 89, Number 4, 411-7, Avril 2002, Articles originaux
|
 Résumé
Article gratuit
|
Author(s) : Jérôme Sarini, Corso Bocciolini, Charles Fournier, Nicolas Penel, Ahmed Kara, Jean Ton Van, Jean-Louis Lefebvre |
Summary : Background: Surgery followed by irradiation is considered to be the standard treatment but require frequently a total laryngectomy. Chemotherapy followed by irradiation is available in larynx and hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) treatment. Are results obtained in daily induction chemotherapy usefulness identical to results obtained in larynx preservation studies? Patients and method: We conducted a retrospective study on patients treated at centre Oscar-Lambret, Lille, from 1986 to 1995, by chemotherapy followed by definitive radiotherapy or by surgery and radiotherapy for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer treatment. All patients were naive of previous head and neck SCC and a surgical treatment, requiring total laryngectomy, should be proposed with curative intent. Induction chemotherapy associated cisplatin (100 mg/m2) on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil (5FU)(1,000 mg/m2) on days 1-4 or 1-5. Irradiation was performed for responders (complete or partial > 50%). If case of non-responder, patients underwent surgical treatment followed by irradiation. We compared results obtained with patients enrolled in clinical trial and with patients whom benefited from this protocol out of trial. Results: Hundred-eight patients were evaluable for purposes of this study. Fifty-two patients were included in clinical trial (group 1) while 56 patients (group 2) were not. There was no statistical difference as regard neither to sex nor to node (palpable or not palpable) and metastasis status between the groups. We found a higher frequency of laryngeal tumour in group 2 (31 vs 17; p = .03). We observed more stage III and less stage IV in group 1. For chemotherapy-related toxic reactions, the exclusive statistical difference observed was haematological toxicity grade III and IV after the second cycle (0 pt in group 1 vs 8 pts in group 2; p = .02). After initial treatment, complete response was achieved without statistical difference between the groups (88.2% vs 78%; p = .27). A surgical procedure was performed in 46 cases without difference according to the reference group and functional larynx preservation was 55.8% (29/52) in group 1 and 53.6% (30/56) in group 2. Whatever the group, causes of death were similarly distributed. Cancer was the first cause of death in both groups. The overall survival of the population (108 patients) was 81.5% at one year, 49.6% at 3 years and 35.3% at 5 years with a median survival of 3 years. There was no statistical difference between both groups. Some parameters influenced the overall survival like T (p = .04), response to chemotherapy (p= .006), extra capsular spread (p = 0.03) and response after completion treatment. Conclusion: Induction chemotherapy is available for larynx preservation but cannot be considered as a standard treatment. Nevertheless, results should be reproduced in daily practice with experimented teams as found with non included patient's results. The long-term side effects of such protocols should be evaluated. Recent publication, on increase postoperative infection after chemotherapy, should be evaluated in clinical trial. If confirmed, cost effectiveness of such complication must be integrated in larynx preservation protocols. Larynx preservation remains an interesting point of view for patients but stay an optional procedure and not a reference. |
Keywords : cancer, induction chemotherapy, larynx preservation. |
|
