Outcomes after up-front surgery and metronomic neoadjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 or UFT for early tongue squamous cell carcinoma
Our aim was to investigate the disease-free survival in patients with tongue squamous cell carcinoma receiving metronomic neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil prodrugs (UFT or S-1) plus bleomycin compared with those who had up-front surgery retrospectively.
In this retrospective study, 108 patients with stages I to II tongue squamous cell carcinoma who had undergone surgery were divided into the “surgery group” or “neoadjuvant chemotherapy group.”
A total of 41 patients received up-front surgery; 67 received metronomic neoadjuvant chemotherapy with UFT plus bleomycin (39) or S-1 plus bleomycin (28). The rate of disease-free survival was the primary outcome measure. Neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil prodrugs did not correlate higher with improved disease-free survival than up-front surgery (72 and 54%, respectively; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 1.03; P = 0.06). Patients who received S-1 were more likely than those who received UFT to have pathological complete response (46% vs. 15%; P = 0.007). Neoadjuvant S-1 significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with up-front surgery (79% vs. 54%; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.98; P = 0.04). However, neoadjuvant UFT did not improve disease-free survival as compared with up-front surgery (67% vs. 54%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.33; P = 0.24).
Neoadjuvant S-1 chemotherapy, as compared with up-front surgery, significantly improved disease-free survival among patients with tongue squamous cell carcinoma.
A choice of drugs before neoadjuvant metronomic chemotherapy is needed.
KeywordsMetronomic S-1 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Tongue squamous cell carcinoma
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethics committee at the University of the Ryukyus (No. 772), and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
We treated the patients at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and all patients provided written informed consent.
- 4.Patil VM, Noronha V, Joshi A, Muddu VK, Dhumal S, Bhosale B et al (2015) A prospective randomized phase II study comparing metronomic chemotherapy with chemotherapy (single agent cisplatin), in patients with metastatic, relapsed or inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. Oral Oncol 51(3):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Atula TS, Varpula MJ, Kurki TJ, Klemi PJ, Grénman R (1997) Assessment of cervical lymph node status in head and neck cancer patients: palpation, computed tomography and low field magnetic resonance imaging compared with ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology. Eur J Radiol 25:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Tsukuda M, Miyake H (2000) Maintenance chemotherapy with UFT for head and neck carcinoma. Oncology 14:93–95Google Scholar
- 22.Grégoire V, Beauduin M, Humblet Y, Hamoir M, Longueville J, Majois F et al (1991) A phase I-II trial of induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and fluorouracil in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a report from the UCL-Oncology Group, Belgium. J Clin Oncol 9:1385–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar