| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Lacas, Benjamin, et al.
(author)
-
Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH) : an updated meta-analysis
- 2017
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 18:9, s. 1221-1237
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. Methods For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Findings Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90–0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3–4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (−0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74–0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (−0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05–1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of −5·8% (−11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of −5·1% (−13·0 to 2·8). Interpretation This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested. Funding Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Petit, Claire, et al.
(author)
-
Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer : an individual patient data network meta-analysis
- 2021
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 22:5, s. 727-736
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other.METHODS: We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies).FINDINGS: 115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRTP) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRTP (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (ICTaxPF-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and ICTaxPF followed by CLRT (80%).INTERPRETATION: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or ICTaxPF-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.FUNDINGS: French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.
|
|
| 5. |
- Torrino, S., et al.
(author)
-
UBTD1 regulates ceramide balance and endolysosomal positioning to coordinate EGFR signaling
- 2021
-
In: Elife. - 2050-084X. ; 10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To adapt in an ever-changing environment, cells must integrate physical and chemical signals and translate them into biological meaningful information through complex signaling pathways. By combining lipidomic and proteomic approaches with functional analysis, we have shown that ubiquitin domain-containing protein 1 (UBTD1) plays a crucial role in both the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) self-phosphorylation and its lysosomal degradation. On the one hand, by modulating the cellular level of ceramides through N-acylsphingosine amidohydrolase 1 (ASAH1) ubiquitination, UBTD1 controls the ligand-independent phosphorylation of EGFR. On the other hand, UBTD1, via the ubiquitination of Sequestosome 1 (SQSTM1/p62) by RNF26 and endolysosome positioning, participates in the lysosomal degradation of EGFR. The coordination of these two ubiquitin-dependent processes contributes to the control of the duration of the EGFR signal. Moreover, we showed that UBTD1 depletion exacerbates EGFR signaling and induces cell proliferation emphasizing a hitherto unknown function of UBTD1 in EGFR-driven human cell proliferation.
|
|
| 6. |
- Zakeri, Kaveh, et al.
(author)
-
Predictive classifier for intensive treatment of head and neck cancer
- 2020
-
In: Cancer. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 126:24, s. 5263-5273
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of intensive treatment for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) depends on the proportion of patients' overall event risk attributable to cancer. Methods This study analyzed 22,339 patients with LAHNC treated in 81 randomized trials testing altered fractionation (AFX; Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH] data set) or chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] data set). Generalized competing event regression was applied to the control arms in MARCH, and patients were stratified by tertile according to the omega score, which quantified the relative hazard for cancer versus competing events. The classifier was externally validated on the MACH-NC data set. The study tested for interactions between the omega score and treatment effects on overall survival (OS). Results Factors associated with a higher omega score were a younger age, a better performance status, an oral cavity site, higher T and N categories, and a p16-negative/unknown status. The effect of AFX on OS was greater in patients with high omega scores (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99) and medium omega scores (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) versus low omega scores (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05;Pfor interaction = .086). The effect of chemotherapy on OS was significantly greater in patients with high omega scores (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88) and medium omega scores (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93) versus low omega scores (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08;Pfor interaction = .011). Conclusions LAHNC patients with a higher risk of cancer progression relative to competing mortality, as reflected by a higher omega score, selectively benefit from more intensive treatment.
|
|
