A randomised multicentre trial of CHART versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Intensified hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy limits the additional benefit of simultaneous chemotherapy--results of a multicentric randomized German trial in advanced head-and-neck cancer. Accelerated versus conventional fractionated postoperative radiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter Phase III study. Prophylaxis of radiation-associated mucositis in conventionally treated patients with head and neck cancer: a double-blind, phase III, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the clinical efficacy of an antimicrobial lozenge using a validated mucositis scoring system. Radiation-induced proctosigmoiditis. Prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial of oral sulfasalazine plus rectal steroids versus rectal sucralfate.
Continuous, hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) has shown promise of improved tumour control and reduced late morbidity in pilot studies and has now been tested in a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial.
                Patients with squamous cell cancer in the main sites within the head and neck region with the general exception of early T1 N0 tumours were entered into the study by 11 centres. There was a 3:2 randomisation to either CHART, where a dose of 54 Gy was given in 36 fractions over 12 days, or to conventional therapy where 66 Gy was given in 33 fractions over 6.5 weeks. A total of 918 patients were included over a 5 year period from March 1990.
                ACUTE MORBIDITY: Acute radiation mucositis was more severe with CHART, occurred earlier but settled sooner and was in nearly all cases healed by 8 weeks in both arms. Skin reactions were less severe and settled more quickly in the CHART treated patients. TUMOUR CONTROL AND SURVIVAL: Life table analyses of loco-regional control, primary tumour control, nodal control, disease-free interval, freedom from metastasis and survival showed no evidence of differences between the two arms. In exploratory subgroup analyses there was evidence of a greater response to CHART in younger patients (P = 0.041) and poorly differentiated tumours appeared to fare better with conventional radiotherapy (P = 0.030). In the larynx there was evidence of a trend towards increasing benefit with more advanced T stage (P = 0.002). LATE TREATMENT RELATED MORBIDITY: Osteoradionecrosis occurred in 0.4% of patients after CHART and 1.4% of patients after conventional radiotherapy. The incidence of chondritis or cartilage necrosis was similar in both arms. Life table analysis showed evidence of reduced severity in a number of late morbidities in favour of CHART. These were most striking for skin telangiectasia, superficial and deep ulceration of the mucosa and laryngeal oedema.
                Similar local turnout control was achieved by CHART as compared with conventional radiotherapy despite the reduction in total dose from 66 to 54 Gy supporting the importance of repopulation as a cause of radiation failure. The effects seen in advanced laryngeal cancer and those related to histological differentiation need further study. Reduced late morbidity is a factor which together with patient preference should be considered in the decision as to the programme of radiotherapy to employ in the curative treatment of head and neck cancer. To demonstrate the efficacy of radiochemotherapy (RCT) as the first choice of treatment for advanced unresectable head-and-neck cancer. To prove an expected benefit of simultaneously given chemotherapy, a two-arm randomized study with hyperfractionated accelerated radiochemotherapy (HF-ACC-RCT) vs. hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HF-ACC-RT) was initiated. The primary endpoint was 1-year survival with local control (SLC).
                Patients with Stage III and IV (UICC) unresectable oro- and hypopharyngeal carcinomas were randomized for HF-ACC-RCT with 2 cycles of 5-FU (600 mg/m(2)/day)/carboplatinum (70 mg/m(2)) on days 1--5 and 29--33 (arm A) or HF-ACC-RT alone (arm B). In both arms, there was a second randomization for testing the effect of prophylactically given G-CSF (263 microg, days 15--19) on mucosal toxicity. Total RT dose in both arms was 69.9 Gy in 38 days, with a concomitant boost regimen (weeks 1--3: 1.8 Gy/day, weeks 4 and 5: b.i.d. RT with 1.8 Gy/1.5 Gy). Between July 1995 and May 1999, 263 patients were randomized (median age 56 years; 96% Stage IV tumors, 4% Stage III tumors).
                This analysis is based on 240 patients: 113 patients with RCT and 127 patients with RT, qualified for protocol and starting treatment. There were 178 oropharyngeal and 62 hypopharyngeal carcinomas. Treatment was tolerable in both arms, with a higher mucosal toxicity after RCT. Restaging showed comparable nonsignificant different CR + PR rates of 92.4% after RCT and 87.9% after RT (p = 0.29). After a median observed time of 22.3 months, l- and 2-year local-regional control (LRC) rates were 69% and 51% after RCT and 58% and 45% after RT (p = 0.14). There was a significantly better 1-year SLC after RCT (58%) compared with RT (44%, p = 0.05). Patients with oropharyngeal carcinomas showed significantly better SLC after RCT (60%) vs. RT (40%, p = 0.01); the smaller group of hypopharyngeal carcinomas had no statistical benefit of RCT (p = 0.84). For both tumor locations, prophylactically given G-CSF was a poor prognostic factor (Cox regression), and resulted in reduced LRC (log-rank test: +/- G-CSF, p = 0.0072).
                With accelerated radiotherapy, the efficiency of simultaneously given chemotherapy may be not as high as expected when compared to standard fractionated RT. Oropharyngeal carcinomas showed better LRC after HF-ACC-RCT vs. HF-ACC-RT; hypopharyngeal carcinomas did not. Prophylactic G-CSF resulted in an unexpected reduced local control and should be given in radiotherapy regimen only with strong hematologic indication. To determine whether, in the postoperative setting, accelerated fractionation (AF) radiotherapy (RT) yields a superior locoregional control rate compared with conventional fractionation (CF) RT in locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx.
                Patients from four institutions with one or more high-risk features (pT4, positive resection margins, pN >1, perineural/lymphovascular invasion, extracapsular extension, subglottic extension) after surgery were randomly assigned to either RT with one daily session of 2 Gy up to 60 Gy in 6 weeks or AF. Accelerated fractionation consisted of a "biphasic concomitant boost" schedule, with the boost delivered during the first and last weeks of treatment, to deliver 64 Gy in 5 weeks. Informed consent was obtained. The primary endpoint of the study was locoregional control. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.
                From March 1994 to August 2000, 226 patients were randomized. At a median follow-up of 30.6 months (range, 0-110 months), 2-year locoregional control estimates were 80% +/- 4% for CF and 78% +/- 5% for AF (p = 0.52), and 2-year overall survival estimates were 67% +/- 5% for CF and 64% +/- 5% for AF (p = 0.84). The lack of difference in outcome between the two treatment arms was confirmed by multivariate analysis. However, interaction analysis with median values as cut-offs showed a trend for improved locoregional control for those patients who had a delay in starting RT and who were treated with AF compared with those with a similar delay but who were treated with CF (hazard ratio = 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.2-1.1). Fifty percent of patients treated with AF developed confluent mucositis, compared with only 27% of those treated with CF (p = 0.006). However, mucositis duration was not different between arms. Although preliminary, actuarial Grade 3+ late toxicity estimates at 2 years were 18% +/- 4% and 27% +/- 6% for CF and AF, respectively (p = 0.10).
                Accelerated fractionation does not seem to be worthwhile for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after resection; however, AF might be an option for patients who delay starting RT. Mucositis occurs in almost all patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. The aim of this multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized trial was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an economically viable antimicrobial lozenge (bacitracin, clotrimazole, and gentamicin [BcoG]) in the alleviation of radiation-induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer.
                One hundred thirty-seven eligible patients were randomized to treatment with either antimicrobial lozenge (69 patients) or placebo lozenge (68 patients). The primary end point of the study was the time to development of severe mucositis from the start of radiotherapy. Secondary end points included severity and duration of mucositis, pain measurement, radiation therapy interruption, and quality of life. Mucositis was scored using a validated mucositis scoring system.
                Toxicity profiles were similar between the two arms of the study. The median time to development of severe mucositis from the start of radiotherapy was 3.61 weeks on BCoG and 3.96 weeks on placebo (P =.61). There were no statistically significant differences between the arms in the extent of severe mucositis as measured by physician, in oral toxicities as recorded by patients, or in radiotherapy delays.
                This study was conducted on the basis of a pilot study that demonstrated the BCoG lozenge to be tolerable and microbiologically efficacious. A validated mucositis scoring system was used. However, in this group of patients treated with conventional radiotherapy, the lozenge did not impact significantly on the severity of mucositis. Whether such a lozenge would be beneficial in treatment situations where rate of severe mucositis is higher (ie, in patients treated with unconventional fractionation or with concomitant chemotherapy) is unknown. In a prospective study, 37 consecutive patients with radiation-induced proctosigmoiditis were randomized to receive a four-week course of either 3.0 g oral sulfasalazine plus 20 mg twice daily rectal prednisolone enemas (group I, N = 18) or 2.0 g twice daily rectal sucralfate enemas plus oral placebo (group II, N = 19). The two groups were comparable with respect to demographic features, duration of symptoms, and clinical and endoscopic staging of the disease. Fifteen patients in group I and 17 in group II completed the trial. At four weeks, both groups showed significant clinical improvement (P less than 0.01 for group I and P less than 0.001 for group II) and endoscopic healing (P less than 0.01 for group I and P less than 0.001 for group II). When the two groups were compared, sucralfate enemas showed a significantly better response as assessed clinically (P less than 0.05), although endoscopically the response was not statistically different (P greater than 0.05). We conclude that both treatment regimens are effective in the management of radiation proctitis. Sucralfate enemas give a better clinical response, are tolerated better, and because of the lower cost should be the preferred mode of short-term treatment.
Late radiation complications are relatively rare, involving potential carers and poor diagnostic criteria. Although certain interventions look promising (e.g. rectal sucralfate, adding metronidazole to the anti-inflammatory regime and heater probes), single small studies, even if well conducted provide insufficient evidence. The episodic and variable nature of late radiation proctitis requires large multi-centre placebo-RCTs to establish whether particular treatments are effective. 
Regional or centralised registers of radiation toxicity should be established so interventions can be administered in the setting of multi-centre RCTs with specific entry criteria, formal baseline and therapeutic assessments providing standardised outcome data including quality of life (QOL) evaluations.