Clinical evaluation of two dosages and schedules of ifosfamide in combination with cisplatin in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with advanced (stage III-IV) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a phase II randomized study

The aims of the present open, randomized, single-blind (patient), single institution, phase II study were: i) to compare the therapeutic effectiveness and toxicity of two dosages and schedules of ifosfamide (IFO) in combination with cisplatin (CDDP) mainly in the neo-adjuvant setting of patients (pts) with locally advanced (stage III-IV) head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) (primary endpoint); ii) to assess the quality of life (QL) of pts included in the study before and after treatment (secondary endpoint). From July 1996 to June 1997, 28 pts, all males (mean age 56.79 years, range 37-72), hospitalized in the Department of Medical Oncology, University of Cagliari, were enrolled in the study. Twenty pts (M/F 20/0, mean age 53.6, range 37-71 years; stage III 1 pt, stage IV 19 pts) were evaluable for response and all 28 pts enrolled were evaluable for toxicity. Arm A: lFO 2.2 g/m(2) i.v. as a 4 h infusion on days 1-5, Mesna 600 mg i.v. as push injection at 0 h, 4 h, 8 h on days 1-5, CDDP 20 mg i.v. as a 60 min infusion on days 1-5. The regimen was repeated every 28 days for 2 cycles. Fifteen pts (11 of whom were evaluable) were enrolled in this Arm. Arm B: IFO 1.5 g/m(2) i.v. as a 4 h infusion on days 1-5, Mesna 600 mg i.v. as push injection at 0 h, 4 h, 8 h on days 1-5, CDDP 20 mg i.v. as a 60 min infusion on days 1-5. The regimen was repeated every 28 days for 3 cycles. Thirteen pts (9 of whom were evaluable) were enrolled in this Arm. The two Arms were well-balanced for sex, age, site of primary, ECOG PS and clinical stage. After completion of 2 (Am A) or 3 (Arm B) cycles of chemotherapy, the pts were assessed for response. All evaluable pts received treatment as planned. Six pts (54.5%) of Arm A and 4 pts (44.5%) of Arm B had partial response (PR) with an overall response rate (ORR) of 54.5% and 44.5%, respectively: it is worth noting that all (100%) pts who had PR in Arm B achieved a high-grade PR, i.e. greater than or equal to 70%, whereas only one pt (16.7%) who had PR in Arm A achieved a high-grade PR. Three pts (27.3%) in Arm A and 2 pts (22.2%) in Arm B had stable disease (SD); 2 pts (18.2%) in Arm A and 3 pts (33.3%) in Arm B had progressive disease (PD). The actual dose intensity was over 80% of the projected dose intensity for both drugs and for both Arms. Over a total of 59 cycles administered, the total number of episodes of toxicity was 24 for Arm A and 17 for Arm B. Three pts out of 28 evaluable for toxicity (10.8%) died for Grade 5 hematological toxicity: all pts were included in Arm A. In Arm h, 2 pts (13.3%) experienced hematological Grade 3 toxicity and 2 pts (13.3%) hematological Grade 4 toxicity. In Arm B no pt experienced Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity. No Grade 3-4 toxicity of any other type was found in either Arm. The QL evaluation, using the Cella's FACT-G scale supplemented with disease-specific scale (FACT-H&N scale), did not show significant beneficial effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment.