This study is a prospective open-label randomized clinical trial. Following informed consent eligible LASCCHN patients (n=100) planned for CRT will be stratified by tumor p16 status and then randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either concurrent HD cisplatin or concurrent weekly LD cisplatin.
Human papilloma virus-related oropharynx cancer is increasing in incidence and is now the most common indication for LASCCHN CRT. It more commonly affects younger patients without other comorbidities and is associated with high rates of cure. This creates a survivorship dilemma, as these patients suffer a greater and more prolonged impact from chronic treatment effects such as hearing loss on their HRQOL. Furthermore, this cohort of patients is more likely to be engaged in contributing to societal and economic productivity for a more prolonged period of time. Minimizing long term side effects through strategies to better individualize treatment has been recognized as a priority by the US NIH. Efforts to identify risk factors for cisplatin toxicity have been previously reported in pediatric cancer patients. Pussegoda and colleagues identified greater risk of hearing loss with cisplatin in children who carried single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) genes. However, the role of these genes in predicting ototoxicity risk has remained controversial with both confirmatory and conflicting reports. Two independent studies identified SNPs in the gene acylphosphatase 2 (ACYP2) as being predictive of ototoxicity in pediatric populations. Additional studies have implicated drug transporters involved in cisplatin disposition including the multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1) to be associated with platinum response and toxicities. In vitro experiments and know-out studies identified cisplatin as a substrate of MATE1. To date, there remains a paucity of data investigating the association between genetic factors and hearing loss in adult LASCCHN patients. A prospective cohort study conducted at LHSC in collaboration with Dr. Richard Kim studied 206 adult LASCCHN patients receiving CRT with cisplatin and identified four independent risk factors for cisplatin-related hearing loss. Risk of hearing loss was increased with the presence of COMT SNPs (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.17 - 2.52) while MATE1 reduced the risk (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26 - 0.84). The risk of hearing loss was reduced with cisplatin administered on a weekly low dose (LD) compared to a HD schedule. PFS and OS were similar between SNP cohorts and patients treated with weekly LD cisplatin and HD cisplatin regimens. To validate these results and confirm benefits on the pragmatic endpoint of hearing-related QOL, the investigators propose a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing HD and weekly LD cisplatin. Opinion leaders such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines endorse the use of weekly LD cisplatin as a reasonable alternative to HD cisplatin when administered concurrently with radiation. While the study conducted at LHSC observed weekly LD patients had reduced ototoxicity with similar efficacy compared to HD patients, there is no randomized control trial data in LASCCHN to support this practice. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines support HD cisplatin in this setting based strength of evidence. Therefore, the optimal schedule and dosing of cisplatin when administered as part of CRT in the curative intent treatment of patients with LASCCHN remains unresolved supporting clinical equipoise as to which constitutes the "best" approach. The investigators primary hypothesis is that LD weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m² is associated with reduced frequency of severe hearing loss and improved hearing-related QOL when compared to conventional HD cisplatin 100 mg/m² days 1, 22 \& 43 (control arm) in LASCCHN patients treated with CRT. Furthermore, the investigators hypothesize that a significant proportion of the risk of cisplatin-related hearing loss is attributable to individual differences in pharmacogenomics factors affecting cisplatin disposition that could be identified prior to treatment.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
100
Intravenous administration of High-Dose Cisplatin
Intravenous administration of Low-Dose Cisplatin
Participating centres are to follow their local radiation treatment planning and delivery techniques.
Juravinski Cancer Centre
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
RECRUITINGLondon Regional Cancer Program
London, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITINGSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
RECRUITINGHearing related quality of life (QOL)
Assessed with the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) Questionnaires. Scored by a points system. The higher the points the more significant the hearing handicap.
Time frame: 1-year post start of treatment
Hearing related quality of life (QOL)
Assessed with the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE). Scored by a points system. The higher the points the more significant the hearing handicap.
Time frame: 1-year post start of treatment
Compare Incidence of > Grade 2 hearing loss
A comprehensive audiological examination including case history, otoscopy, behavioural and physiological auditory measures will be conducted prior to an ototoxic drug administration. Subsequent audiology testing will be performed at 3, 6 and 12 months post-start of treatment.
Time frame: At 1 year post start of treatment
Compare Incidence of > Grade 1 hearing loss
Will be scored according to the CTCAE v4.02 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events)
Time frame: At 1 year post start of treatment
Proportion of patients recommended for hearing amplification
This information will be specified on the audiology report and collected on the CRF
Time frame: at year 1 post start of treatment
Compare incidence of > grade 2 hearing loss
This information will be specified on the audiology report and collected on the CRF
Time frame: At 6 months and at 1 year post start of treatment
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Change in Health related Quality of Life (HRQOL)
Measured using the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ H\&N35 (Quality of Life Questionnaire Head \& Neck). According to the EORTC scoring guidelines All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. A high scale score represents a higher response level. Thus a high score for a functional scale represents a high / healthy level of functioning, a high score for the global health status / QoL represents a high QoL, but a high score for a symptom scale / item represents a high level of symptomatology / problems.
Time frame: At 1 year post start of treatment
Incidence of > Grade 3 treatment-related neuropathy
Measured using the CTCAE Version 4.02 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events)
Time frame: At baseline, day 21 and day 42
Change in neuropathy-associated QOL
FACT/GOG-Ntx-4 questionnaire subscale (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity version 4 subscale). According to the FACT-GOG scoring guidelines Higher scores for the scales and subscales indicate better quality of life.
Time frame: At year 1 post start of treatment
Incidence of any treatment related nephropathy
Measured using the CTCAE Version 4.02
Time frame: A baseline, day 21 and day 42
Prevalence of persistent > Grade 3 nephropathy
Measured using the CTCAE Version 4.02
Time frame: At 1 year post start of treatment
Evaluate the validity of MATE1 SNPs as a predictor of ototoxicity
Mutational status will be analyzed on samples collected at baseline
Time frame: At baseline
Evaluate the validity of COMT SNPs as a predictor of ototoxicity
Mutational status will be analyzed at baseline
Time frame: At baseline
Change in Health related Quality of Life (HRQOL)
Measured using the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ-30 (Quality of Life Questionnaire). According to the EORTC scoring guidelines All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. A high scale score represents a higher response level. Thus a high score for a functional scale represents a high / healthy level of functioning, a high score for the global health status / QoL represents a high QoL, but a high score for a symptom scale / item represents a high level of symptomatology / problems.
Time frame: At 1 year post start of treatment