MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971492107 · doi:10.3747/co.v17i3.520

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Targeted Therapy in Stages III and IV Head and Neck Cancer

2010· article· en· W1971492107 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. Cripps, Eric Winquist, Michele deVries, Denise Stys‐Norman, Ralph Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCancer Care OntarioLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCetuximabErlotinibOncologyGefitinibHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaInternal medicineHead and neck cancerCancerEpidermal growth factor receptorRadiation therapyAfatinibEGFR inhibitorsTargeted therapyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: What are the benefits associated with the use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) therapies in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC)? Anti-EGFR therapies of interest included cetuximab, gefitinib, lapatinib, zalutumumab, erlotinib, and panitumumab. PERSPECTIVES: Head-and-neck cancer includes malignant tumours arising from a variety of sites in the upper aerodigestive tract. The most common histologic type is squamous cell carcinoma, and most common sites are the oral cavity, the oropharynx, the hypopharynx, and the larynx. Worldwide, HNSCC is the sixth most common neoplasm, and despite advances in therapy, long-term survival in HNSCC patients is poor. Primary surgery followed by chemoradiation, or primary chemoradiation, are the standard treatment options for patients with locally advanced (stages III-IVB) HNSCC; however, meta-analytic data indicate that the benefit of concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy disappears in patients over the age of 70 years. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody approved for use in combination with radiation in the treatment of patients with untreated locally advanced HNSCC and as monotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic (stage IVC) HNSCC who have progressed on platinum-based therapy. Given the interest in anti-EGFR agents in advanced HNSCC, the Head and Neck Cancer Disease Site Group (DSG) of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) chose to systematically review the literature pertaining to this topic so as to develop evidence-based recommendations for treatment. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest included overall and progression-free survival, quality of life, tumour response rate and duration, and the toxicity associated with the use of anti-EGFR therapies. METHODOLOGY: The medline, embase, and Cochrane Library databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology online conference proceedings, the Canadian Medical Association InfoBase, and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse were systematically searched to locate primary articles and practice guidelines. The reference lists from relevant review articles were searched for additional trials. All evidence was reviewed, and that evidence informed the development of the clinical practice guideline. The resulting recommendations were approved by the Report Approval Panel of the PEBC, and by the Head and Neck Cancer DSG. An external review by Ontario practitioners completed the final phase of the review process. Feedback from all parties was incorporated to create the final practice guideline. RESULTS: The electronic search identified seventy-four references that were reviewed for inclusion. Only four phase iii trials met the inclusion criteria for the present guideline. No practice guidelines, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses were found during the course of the literature search. The randomized controlled trials (RCTS) involved three distinct patient populations: those with locally advanced HNSCC being treated for cure, those with incurable advanced recurrent or metastatic HNSCC being treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and those with incurable advanced recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who had disease progression despite, or who were unsuitable for, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. PRACTICE GUIDELINE: These recommendations apply to adult patients with locally advanced (nonmetastatic stages iii-ivb) or recurrent or metastatic (stage IVC) HNSCC. Platinum-based chemoradiation remains the current standard of care for treatment of locally advanced HNSCC. In patients with locally advanced HNSCC who are medically unsuitable for concurrent platinum based chemotherapy or who are over the age of 70 years (because concurrent chemotherapy does not appear to improve overall survival in this patient population), the addition of cetuximab to radical radiotherapy should be considered to improve overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to local recurrence.Cetuximab in combination with platinum-based combination chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, and is recommended to improve overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate.The role of anti-EGFR therapies in the treatment of locally advanced HNSCC is currently under study in large randomized trials, and patients with HNSCC should continue to be offered clinical trials of novel agents aimed at improving outcomes. QUALIFYING STATEMENTS: Chemoradiation is the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced HNSCC, and to date, there is no evidence that compares cetuximab plus radiotherapy with chemoradiation, or that examines whether the addition of cetuximab to chemoradiation is of benefit in these patients. However, five ongoing trials are investigating the effect of the addition of EGFR inhibitors concurrently with, before, or after chemoradiotherapy; those trials should provide direction about the best integration of cetuximab into standard treatment. In patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who experience progressive disease despite, or who are unsuitable for, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, gefitinib at doses of 250 mg or 500 mg daily, compared with weekly methotrexate, did not increase median overall survival [hazard ratio (hr): 1.22; 96% confidence interval (ci): 0.95 to 1.57; p = 0.12 (for 250 mg daily vs. weekly methotrexate); hr: 1.12; 95% ci: 0.87 to 1.43; p = 0.39 (for 500 mg daily vs. weekly methotrexate)] or objective response rate (2.7% for 250 mg and 7.6% for 500 mg daily vs. 3.9% for weekly methotrexate, p > 0.05). As compared with methotrexate, gefitinib was associated with an increased incidence of tumour hemorrhage (8.9% for 250 mg and 11.4% for 500 mg daily vs. 1.9% for weekly methotrexate).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207