Skip to content

Definitive Radiochemotherapy Plus/Minus Cetuximab in Unresectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Definitive Radiochemotherapy With 5-FU / Cisplatin Plus/Minus Cetuximab in Unresectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: a Phase II Study

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01787006
Enrollment
74
Registered
2013-02-08
Start date
2011-09-30
Completion date
2018-09-06
Last updated
2020-03-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Esophageal Cancer

Keywords

non resectable, locally advanced, Cetuximab, radiation

Brief summary

Esophageal cancer is a highly aggressive tumor. Treatment options are various and range from chemotherapy to radiotherapy and several surgical techniques. Nevertheless, the overall survival rates for this disease remain poor. During the last years the combination of cetuximab with standard chemotherapy or radiotherapy has mainly be investigated in clinical trials focusing on colorectal and/or head and neck cancer. The results obtained from theses studies were very encouraging and led to the initiation of active clinical research in esophageal cancer patients with antibody inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The first data in this indication are encouraging showing that cetuximab can safely be added to chemoradiation for esophageal cancer patients with first hints of efficacy. Based on the experiences with cetuximab in colorectal cancer and in combination with radiotherapy in head and neck cancer, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of a combined treatment of cetuximab with continuous infusional 5-FU, cisplatin and radiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer and to assess if the overall survival rates can be increased by addition of an EGFR-targeted therapy.

Detailed description

Esophageal cancer is a highly aggressive neoplasm which is fatal in the great majority of patients. On a global basis, cancer of the esophagus is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In fact, gastric and esophageal cancers together accounted for nearly 1.3 million new cases and 980,000 deaths worldwide in 2000 - more than lung, breast, or colorectal cancer. With advances in surgical techniques and treatment, the prognosis of esophageal cancer has slowly improved over the past decades. However, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 14%, at the time of development of the LEOPARD-II protocol, survival was poor, even in comparison with the dismal survival rates (4%) from the 1970s. Underlying reasons for this disappointingly low survival rate are above all the difficulties in cancer detection at an advanced stage, with over 50% of patients with unresectable disease or distant metastasis at presentation and the limited survival achieved with palliative chemotherapy alone for patients with metastatic or unresectable disease. Clearly, additional strategies are needed to improve the systemic treatment options for esophageal cancer. The optimal treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer, a potentially curable disease, is controversial. Through several non-randomized cooperative group trials, concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiation or surgery alone represent acceptable standards of care for patients with resectable tumors. Metastatic or unresectable esophageal cancer is found at presentation in more than 50% of patients and is considered incurable. At the time of protocol development, chemotherapy was palliative, improving quality of life and dysphagia in 60%-80% of patients. Typical clinical and radiographic responses lasted for fewer than 4 months, with a median overall survival time of 8-10 months. Combination chemotherapies have been demonstrated to be superior to best supportive care and chemotherapy given as a single agent, with occasional patients achieving complete responses (0%-11%). However, even with the combination regimens, the median survival time remained less than 10 months. An improved understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of cancer has facilitated the development of novel agents designed to target critical pathways involved in cancer development and progression. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays a crucial role in tumour growth. EGFR-dependent signaling is involved in cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and metastatic spread. The overexpression of EGFR has repeatedly been shown to predict poor prognosis in both esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and gastro esophageal junction adenocarcinoma. EGFR blockade through monoclonal antibodies (Cetuximab, Matuzumab and Panitumumab) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib, erlotinib) has translated into promising evidence of clinical benefit in clinical trials. Cetuximab is a targeted therapeutic agent, a chimeric monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the EGFR with high affinity, internalising the receptor and preventing ligands from interacting with the receptors and thus effectively blocking ligand-induced EGFR phosphorylation. In addition, cetuximab had been found to potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in experimental systems. The dose of cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m2 and subsequent weekly doses of 250 mg/m2) has been found to be generally safe and effective in several studies in major tumor types expressing the EGFR. These included colorectal cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, with cetuximab given either in combination studies with chemotherapy and radiotherapy or as monotherapy. In two phase I studies prior to LEOPARD-II, EGFR-directed antibodies had shown activity in patients with esophageal cancer. In the phase I study of the humanized EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb) EMD72000, one patient with metastatic, pretreated squamous cell carcinoma had had a durable, 6-month partial response. In addition, a phase I trial with a fully human EGFR mAb, had reported stable disease for 7 months in one esophageal cancer patient. Preclinical and these early clinical studies suggested potential activity and minimal toxicities with EGFR antibodies for esophageal cancer. Furthermore, a randomised phase II compared cisplatin + 5-FU (CF) to cisplatin + 5-FU + cetuximab (CET-CF) (n=62). Cetuximab did not increase grade 3/4 toxicity, except for rash (6% versus 0%) and diarrhea (16% versus 0%). The overall response rates were 19% and 13% for the CET-CF and CF arms respectively, and the disease control rates were 75% and 57%, respectively. The median progression free survival was 5.9 and 3.6 months and median overall survival 9.5 and 5.5 months for CET-CF and CF, respectively. With respect to the combination of Cetuximab with radiotherapy, preclinical studies have shown, that Cetuximab enhanced the radiosensitivity of EGFR expressing tumour cells in vitro and in tumour xenografts and the repopulation of epithelial tumour cells after exposure to radiation was related to the activation and expression of EGFR. Cetuximab also enhanced the efficacy of docetaxel chemoradiotherapy in human adenocarcinoma xenografts. Rationale for the LEOPARD-II study Esophageal cancer is a highly aggressive tumor and one of the most frequent malignant diseases worldwide. Treatment options are various and range from chemotherapy to radiotherapy and several surgical techniques. Nevertheless, the overall survival rates for this disease remain poor. During the last years before protocol development the combination of cetuximab with standard chemotherapy or radiotherapy had mainly been investigated in clinical trials focusing on colorectal and/or head and neck cancer. The results obtained from these studies had been very encouraging and led to the initiation of active clinical research in esophageal cancer patients with antibody inhibition of the EGFR. The first data in this indication were encouraging showing that cetuximab could safely be added to chemoradiation for esophageal cancer patients with first hints of efficacy. Based on the experiences with cetuximab in colorectal cancer and in combination with radiotherapy in head and neck cancer, the aim of the LEOPARD-II study was to evaluate the feasibility of a combined treatment of cetuximab with continuous infusional 5-FU, cisplatin and radiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer and to assess if the overall survival rates could be increased by addition of an EGFR-targeted therapy.

Interventions

DRUGCetuximab

Initial doses 400mg/m2 (day 1), followed by weekly doses of 250mg/m2 for 14 weeks in total

5-FU: 1000mg/m2 per day as continuous infusion on day 1-4 of cycle 1 and 2, 750mg/m2/day as continuous infusion on day 1-4 of cycle 3 and 4 Cisplatin 20mg/m2/day as intravenous bolus over 60 min on day 1-4 of every cycle

RADIATIONRadiotherapy

59.4 Gy (33 fractions of 1.8 Gy) over 6.5-7 weeks (5 x 1.8 Gy per week)on primary tumor. 50.4 Gy on locoregional lymphnodes. If resectability is reached after 4-4.5 weeks (36-41.4 Gy) the radiotherapy stops after 45 Gy and the patient undergoes surgery.

Sponsors

University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Dated and signed written informed consent * Male or female patients between 18 years and 75 years; patients \> 75 years if their karnofsky performance status is ≥ 80. * Histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus which is not curatively resectable. Resectability has to be defined by a surgeon before radiochemotherapy. The tumor is considered unresectable due to T-stage, N-stage, performance status, nutritional status, co-morbidity (pulmonal function, other), tumor location upper third or other reasons * Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 70 * Women of child-bearing potential must have a negative pregnancy test * Adequate cardial-, pulmonal- and ear function Adequate bone marrow function: * leukocytes ≥ 3.0 x 10\^9/L * neutrophiles ≥ 1.5 x 10\^9/L * thrombocytes ≥ 100 x 10\^9/L * hemoglobin ≥ 10.0 g/dl Adequate liver function: * bilirubin ≤ 2.0 mg/dl * transaminases (serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT), serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), gamma-GT) ≤ 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN) Adequate kidney function: * serum creatinine ≤ 1.5 mg/dl * creatinine clearance ≥ 50 ml/min according to Cockcroft-Gault Formula * no known allergies against chimeric antibodies * effective contraception for male and female patients if there is a risk of conception

Exclusion criteria

* distant metastasis * previous treatment of esophageal cancer * previous therapy with monoclonal antibodies and / or EGFR-targeted therapy * previous second malignancies with exception of a history of a previous curatively treated basal cell carcinoma of the skin or pre-invasive cervix carcinoma * serious concomitant disease or medical condition * lung function: forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)) \< 1.1 * clinically relevant coronary artery diseases or known myocardial infarction within the last 12 months or ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal * every active dermatological condition \> grade 1 * contraindications to receive cisplatin, 5-FU or cetuximab * concurrent treatment with other experimental drugs or participation in another clinical trial within 30 days before study start * patient pregnant or breast feeding * known drug abuse, medication abuse, alcohol abuse * social situations limiting the compliance with the study requirements

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive at 2 Years2 yearsOverall Survival (OS) was defined as freedom from death of any cause. Time to death was calculated from the day of randomization, and the patients were followed for a maximum of 24 months (2 years).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 1 Year1 yearFor progression-free survival (PFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of radiologically proven progression or clinical progression or death due to progressive disease. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 2 Years2 yearsFor progression-free survival (PFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of radiologically proven progression or clinical progression or death due to progressive disease. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.
Number of Participants Experiencing at Least One Grade >=3 Toxicityup to 2 yearsToxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (version 4.03).
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 1 Year1 yearFor metastases-free survival (MFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of distant metastasis. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive at 1 Year1 yearOverall Survival (OS) was defined as freedom from death of any cause. Time to death was calculated from the day of randomization.
Number of Participants Who Achieved at Least Partial Response (Responders)up to 2 yearsResponse was defined according to the RECIST criteria (Version 1.1) based on the assessments (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or other) for target lesions, non-target lesions as well as considering the occurrence of new lesions. The best overall response (RECIST) was chosen for each patient out of all valid tumour assessments before start of next-line therapy (complete response=CR being the best and progressive disease=PD the worst). Frequencies with percentages were to be given for each category (CR, partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), PD) by treatment group. The data were to be presented as the dichotomous endpoint of objective response, for which patients with best overall response of CR or PR were considered as responders, and those with best overall response of SD or PD as non-responders. The difference between objective response rates in the two treatment arms was to be compared with a Chi-square test.
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 1 Year1 yearLoco-regional failure was defined as progressive primary tumor and/or regional lymph nodes on endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or computed tomography.Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 2 Years2 yearsLoco-regional failure was defined as progressive primary tumor and/or regional lymph nodes on endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or computed tomography. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.
Change in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)end of treatment (after 5 to 13 weeks)Quality of Life was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires. For QLQ-C30, global health status, functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning) and symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties) were calculated. Scores ranged from 0 to 100; higher scores represented higher levels of quality of life, functioning, or symptoms/problems. Score were calculated using mean values. For QLQ-OES18, symptom scales (problems with eating, reflux, pain, problems swallowing saliva, dry mouth, taste disorders, problems while coughing or speaking) and functional scale (dysphagia) were assessed the same way. A change between two time points, i.e. baseline (prior to treatment) and end of treatment (after 5 to 13 weeks, depending on treatment arm (6.5 weeks without and 13 weeks with cetuximab) and achievement of resectability (end of treatment after 5 weeks), is reported.
Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 2 Years2 yearsFor metastases-free survival (MFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of distant metastasis. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Countries

Germany

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, Radiotherapy
Cetuximab: Initial doses 400mg/m2 (day 1), followed by weekly doses of 250mg/m2 for 14 weeks in total, IV 5-FU: 1000mg/m2 per day as continuous infusion on day 8-11 and 36-39, 750mg/m2/day as continuous infusion on day 71-74 and 99-102 Cisplatin 20mg/m2/day as intravenous bolus over 60 min on day 1-4 of every cycle (day 8-11, 36-39, 71-74 and 99-102) radiotherapy: 59.4 Gy (33 fractions of 1.8 Gy) over 6.5-7 weeks (5 x 1.8 Gy per week)on primary tumor. 50.4 Gy on locoregional lymphnodes. If resectability is reached after 4-4.5 weeks (36-41.4 Gy) the radiotherapy stops after 45 Gy and the patient undergoes surgery.
32
Cisplatin, 5-FU, Radiotherapy
5-FU: 1000mg/m2 per day as continuous infusion on day 1-4 and 29-32, 750mg/m2/day as continuous infusion on day 64-67 and 92-95 Cisplatin 20mg/m2/day as intravenous bolus over 60 min on day 1-4 of every cycle (day 1-4, 29-32, 64-67 and 92-95) radiotherapy: 59.4 Gy (33 fractions of 1.8 Gy) over 6.5-7 weeks (5 x 1.8 Gy per week)on primary tumor. 50.4 Gy on locoregional lymphnodes. If resectability is reached after 4-4.5 weeks (36-41.4 Gy) the radiotherapy stops after 45 Gy and the patient undergoes surgery.
36
Total68

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalCetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyCisplatin, 5-FU, Radiotherapy
Age, Continuous
median
65 years65 years64 years
clinical M-category
cM0
66 Participants31 Participants35 Participants
clinical M-category
cM1 (formerly cM1a)
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
clinical M-category
cMx
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
clinical N-category
cN+
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
clinical N-category
cN0
15 Participants7 Participants8 Participants
clinical N-category
cN1
28 Participants14 Participants14 Participants
clinical N-category
cN2
14 Participants7 Participants7 Participants
clinical N-category
cN3
6 Participants3 Participants3 Participants
clinical N-category
cNx
3 Participants0 Participants3 Participants
clinical T-category
cT1
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
clinical T-category
cT2
2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
clinical T-category
cT3
40 Participants20 Participants20 Participants
clinical T-category
cT4
21 Participants8 Participants13 Participants
clinical T-category
cTx
3 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Histologic grading
G1
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Histologic grading
G2
34 Participants16 Participants18 Participants
Histologic grading
G3
21 Participants11 Participants10 Participants
Histologic grading
Gx
12 Participants5 Participants7 Participants
Histology
Adeno carcinoma
13 Participants5 Participants8 Participants
Histology
Squamous cell carcinoma
55 Participants27 Participants28 Participants
Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS)
KPS of 70
3 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS)
KPS of 80-100
65 Participants31 Participants34 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnic origin
Caucasian
68 Participants32 Participants36 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnic origin
Other
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Germany
68 participants32 participants36 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
16 Participants10 Participants6 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
52 Participants22 Participants30 Participants
Tumor site
Lower and middle third
4 Participants1 Participants3 Participants
Tumor site
Lower third only
24 Participants9 Participants15 Participants
Tumor site
Middle third only
21 Participants13 Participants8 Participants
Tumor site
Not specified
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Tumor site
Upper and middle third
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Tumor site
Upper third only
15 Participants9 Participants6 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
13 / 3220 / 36
other
Total, other adverse events
32 / 3236 / 36
serious
Total, serious adverse events
21 / 3224 / 36

Outcome results

Primary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive at 2 Years

Overall Survival (OS) was defined as freedom from death of any cause. Time to death was calculated from the day of randomization, and the patients were followed for a maximum of 24 months (2 years).

Time frame: 2 years

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive at 2 Years71 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive at 2 Years53 percentage of participants
Secondary

Change in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)

Quality of Life was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires. For QLQ-C30, global health status, functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning) and symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties) were calculated. Scores ranged from 0 to 100; higher scores represented higher levels of quality of life, functioning, or symptoms/problems. Score were calculated using mean values. For QLQ-OES18, symptom scales (problems with eating, reflux, pain, problems swallowing saliva, dry mouth, taste disorders, problems while coughing or speaking) and functional scale (dysphagia) were assessed the same way. A change between two time points, i.e. baseline (prior to treatment) and end of treatment (after 5 to 13 weeks, depending on treatment arm (6.5 weeks without and 13 weeks with cetuximab) and achievement of resectability (end of treatment after 5 weeks), is reported.

Time frame: end of treatment (after 5 to 13 weeks)

Population: All scales used for the rows below in the outcome measure data table ranged between 0 and 100.~For scales indicated \[H\], a higher score represents a better situation (quality of life, functioning).~For scales indicated \[L\], a lower value represents a better outcome (symptoms/problems).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding dyspnoea [L]10.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.43
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding taste disorders [L]33.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 46.06
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding financial difficulties [L]0.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 36.24
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in role functioning [H]-22.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.69
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding loss of appetite [L]23.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 43.15
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in emotional functioning [H]-9.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.54
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding problems with eating [L]4.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 34.07
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in cognitive functioning [H]-13.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.95
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding pain [L]-2.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.66
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in social functioning [H]-12.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 37.86
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding reflux [L]11.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.62
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding fatigue [L]21.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.5
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding constipation [L]13.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 29.71
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding nausea/vomiting [L]23.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.46
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding insomnia [L]-10.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 35.44
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in global health status [H]-9.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.96
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding pain while eating [L]2.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.42
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding problems swallowing saliva [L]-2.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 41.33
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding problems while coughing [L]-1.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 34.05
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding diarrhea [L]15.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.62
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Dysphagia [H]-10.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.41
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding dry mouth [L]21.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 38.41
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in physical functioning [H]-19.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.34
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in global health status [H]-4.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.41
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding pain [L]2.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 37.85
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding dyspnoea [L]11.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 39.71
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding insomnia [L]14.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 41.23
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding loss of appetite [L]31.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 50.73
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding constipation [L]-1.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 39.54
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding diarrhea [L]2.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.88
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding financial difficulties [L]-5.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 38.47
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding problems with eating [L]1.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 36.2
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding reflux [L]-1.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 35.86
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding pain while eating [L]-6.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 35.24
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding problems swallowing saliva [L]4.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.66
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding dry mouth [L]1.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 41.76
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in physical functioning [H]-13.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.66
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in role functioning [H]-18.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.39
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in emotional functioning [H]3.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.52
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in cognitive functioning [H]-7.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.8
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change in social functioning [H]-3.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 42.03
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding fatigue [L]15.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.92
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding nausea/vomiting [L]21.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 29.06
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding taste disorders [L]27.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 39.36
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Change regarding problems while coughing [L]15.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.19
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyChange in Quality of Life Between Baseline and End of Treatment (After 5 to 13 Weeks)Dysphagia [H]0.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 35.93
Secondary

Number of Participants Experiencing at Least One Grade >=3 Toxicity

Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (version 4.03).

Time frame: up to 2 years

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Experiencing at Least One Grade >=3 Toxicityat least one grade >=3 toxicity26 Participants
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Experiencing at Least One Grade >=3 Toxicityno grade >=3 toxicity6 Participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Experiencing at Least One Grade >=3 Toxicityat least one grade >=3 toxicity27 Participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Experiencing at Least One Grade >=3 Toxicityno grade >=3 toxicity9 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants Who Achieved at Least Partial Response (Responders)

Response was defined according to the RECIST criteria (Version 1.1) based on the assessments (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or other) for target lesions, non-target lesions as well as considering the occurrence of new lesions. The best overall response (RECIST) was chosen for each patient out of all valid tumour assessments before start of next-line therapy (complete response=CR being the best and progressive disease=PD the worst). Frequencies with percentages were to be given for each category (CR, partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), PD) by treatment group. The data were to be presented as the dichotomous endpoint of objective response, for which patients with best overall response of CR or PR were considered as responders, and those with best overall response of SD or PD as non-responders. The difference between objective response rates in the two treatment arms was to be compared with a Chi-square test.

Time frame: up to 2 years

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Who Achieved at Least Partial Response (Responders)responders26 Participants
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Who Achieved at Least Partial Response (Responders)non-responders6 Participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Who Achieved at Least Partial Response (Responders)responders25 Participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyNumber of Participants Who Achieved at Least Partial Response (Responders)non-responders11 Participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive at 1 Year

Overall Survival (OS) was defined as freedom from death of any cause. Time to death was calculated from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 1 year

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive at 1 Year74 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive at 1 Year70 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 1 Year

For metastases-free survival (MFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of distant metastasis. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 1 year

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 1 Year79 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 1 Year70 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 2 Years

For metastases-free survival (MFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of distant metastasis. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 2 years

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 2 Years74 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Distant Metastases at 2 Years54 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 1 Year

Loco-regional failure was defined as progressive primary tumor and/or regional lymph nodes on endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or computed tomography.Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 1 year

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 1 Year89 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 1 Year81 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 2 Years

Loco-regional failure was defined as progressive primary tumor and/or regional lymph nodes on endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or computed tomography. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 2 years

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 2 Years84 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Loco-regional Failure at 2 Years72 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 1 Year

For progression-free survival (PFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of radiologically proven progression or clinical progression or death due to progressive disease. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 1 year

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 1 Year64 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 1 Year58 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 2 Years

For progression-free survival (PFS), the event was defined as first occurrence of radiologically proven progression or clinical progression or death due to progressive disease. Time to event was referenced from the day of randomization.

Time frame: 2 years

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cetuximab, Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 2 Years56 percentage of participants
Cisplatin, 5-FU, RadiotherapyRate of Participants Who Were Alive Without Progression of Disease at 2 Years44 percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 8, 2026