Amifostine does not prevent platinum-induced hearing loss associated with the treatment of children with hepatoblastoma: a report of the Intergroup Hepatoblastoma Study P9645 as a part of the Children's Oncology Group. Toxicity prevention with amifostine in pediatric osteosarcoma patients treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Randomized phase III trial of postoperative radiochemotherapy +/- amifostine in head and neck cancer. Is there evidence for radioprotection?
The current study was conducted to determine whether amifostine is effective in reducing the toxicities associated with the administration of platinum-containing regimens in children with hepatoblastoma (HB).
                Patients were enrolled on P9645 beginning in March of 1999. Patients who had stage I/II disease received treatment with 4 cycles of combined cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and vincristine (C5V) with or without amifostine. Patients who had stage III/IV disease were randomized to receive treatment with 6 cycles of either C5V with or without amifostine or carboplatin alternating with cisplatin (CC) with or without amifostine. Patients who were randomized to receive amifostine were given a dose of 740 mg/m2 intravenously over 15 minutes before each administration of a platinum agent.
                Eighty-two patients were considered in a special interim analysis of the incidence of toxicity. The disease outcome for patients who received amifostine was similar to the outcome for patients who did not receive amifostine (P=.22). The incidence of significant hearing loss (>40 dB) was similar for patients who did or did not receive amifostine (38% [14 of 37 patients] vs 38% [17 of 45 patients], respectively; P=.68). There were no differences in the incidence of renal or bone marrow toxicities evaluated. Patients who received amifostine had a higher incidence of hypocalcemia (5% vs 0.5%; P=.00006).
                Amifostine in the doses and schedule used in this study failed to significantly reduce the incidence of platinum-induced toxicities in patients with HB.
                Copyright (c) 2009 American Cancer Society. Amifostine has emerged as a pancytoprotectant shown protection against nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and ototoxicity in preclinical studies.
                We designed a prospective comparative randomized trial to evaluate the cytoprotective effects of amifostine in patients with osteosarcoma receiving cisplatin and doxorrubicin. Patients were evaluated for renal, hearing and cardiac toxicity.
                We included 28 patients, mean age was 11.6 years, five had metastatic disease. Fifteen patients received amifostine and 13 did not. 20% of patients receiving amifostine developed renal toxicity compared to 30% in the control group (p = 0.318). Grade 1 and 2 audiologic toxicity was present in 100% of the experimental group against 85% of the controls (p = 0.501). Grade 1 cardiac toxicity was present in 2 patients in the control group (p = 0.175). There were no statistical significant differences between the two groups for chemotherapy-related toxicity. Response to chemotherapy was significantly better in the amifostine group.
                amifostine did not reduce the ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity of our treatment regime. It was not well tolerated due to emesis. It is a selective cytoprotectant without reducing the effect of chemotherapy. Experimental and clinical data suggest a reduction of radiation-induced acute toxicity by amifostine (A). We investigated this issue in a randomized trial comparing radiochemotherapy (RT + CT) versus radiochemotherapy plus amifostine (RC + CT + A) in patients with head and neck cancer.
                56 patients with oro-/hypopharynx or larynx cancer (T1-2 N1-2 G3, T3-4 N0-2 G1-3) were randomized to receive RC + CT alone or RC + CT + A. Patients were irradiated up to 60 Gy (R0) or 70 Gy (R1/2) and received chemotherapy (70 mg/m(2) carboplatin, day 1-5 in week 1 and 5 of radiotherapy). 250 mg amifostine were applied daily before each radiotherapy session. Acute toxicity was evaluated according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). As for acute xerostomia, patients with laryngeal cancer were excluded from evaluation.
                50 patients were evaluable (25 patients in the RC + CT, 25 patients in the RC + CT + A group). Clinical characteristics were well balanced in both treatment groups. Amifostine provided reduction in acute xerostomia and mucositis but had no obvious influence on Karnofsky performance status, body weight, cutaneous side effects, and alopecia. The differences between both groups were statistically significant for acute xerostomia and nonsignificant, but with a trend for mucositis.
                According to our results, there is a radioprotective effect on salivary glands and a potential effect on oral mucosa by amifostine in postoperative radiotherapy combined with carboplatin. To improve the radio- and chemoprotective effects of amifostine in clinical practice, the application of a higher dose (> 250 mg) seems to be necessary.
At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma and hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules which underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and all studies had serious methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. For other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies no eligible studies were identified, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high quality research is needed.