Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleReviewsR

Potential of Amifostine for Chemoradiotherapy and Radiotherapy-associated Toxicity Reduction in Advanced NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis

ANNEMARIE DEVINE and LAURE MARIGNOL
Anticancer Research January 2016, 36 (1) 5-12;
ANNEMARIE DEVINE
Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity (ARTT), Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LAURE MARIGNOL
Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity (ARTT), Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: marignol@ted.ie
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The addition of amifostine to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or radiotherapy (RT) in advanced, inoperable NSCLC presents varying toxicity. The present study examined amifostine's effect on toxicity and efficacy of CRT or RT alone. Materials and Methods: Database searches yielded 16 eligible trials comprising of 1,057 patients. Results of randomised trials were pooled and used to estimate the overall effect. Results: Amifostine reduced the risk of >grade 2 acute oesophagitis by 26% [risk ratio (RR), 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.65-0.86; p<0.0001] and the risk of acute pulmonary toxicity by 44% (RR, 0.56; 95%CI=0.41-0.75; p=0.0001). Risk of complete response was unchanged (RR, 1.64; 95%CI=0.99-2.73; p=0.06), partial response was unchanged (RR, 0.92; 95% CI=0.73-1.16; p=0.48). Statistical heterogeneity was high for toxicity but low for response. Conclusion: Statistical heterogeneity of retrived results casts doubt over amifostine's efficacy in this setting, despite decreased acute oesophageal and pulmonary toxicity. Amifostine did not compromise treatment efficacy.

  • Amifostine
  • non-small cell lung cancer
  • NSCLC
  • radiotherapy
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • toxicity
  • review

Abbreviations: NSCLC: Non-small cell lung cancer; CRT: chemoradiotherapy; conCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; seqCRT: sequential chemoradiotherapy; RT: radiation therapy; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; BED: biologically effective dose; RCT: randomised controlled trial; ASCO: American Society of Clinical; Oncology; AUC: area under curve; M-H: Mantel Haenszel; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence intervall; IV: intravenous; CT: computed tomography; Df: degrees of freedom; SE: standard error; N: nodal stage; TGF-β1: transforming growth factor-beta 1.

The standard-of-care for locally advanced, inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is chemoradiation therapy (CRT) (1); concurrent CRT (conCRT) affords maximum survival when contrasted with sequential CRT (seqCRT) or radiation therapy (RT) alone (1). However, conCRT does not necessarily improve the therapeutic ratio as it is associated with significant, particularly oesophageal, morbidity (1, 2) and increased treatment mortality (1). Therefore, conCRT is generally reserved for patients with a good performance status and limited co-morbidities (1); geriatric patients are often denied conCRT due to these factors or a belief that they are inherently more vulnerable to conCRT morbidity (3). A meta-analysis of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) experience found that a higher biologically effective dose (BED) provided improved loco-regional control and overall survival in the setting of CRT (4), however, morbidity remained an issue (4). Therefore, morbidity of conCRT for NSCLC may impede improvements in tumour control or survival for these patients by preventing radiation dose escalation or causing treatment interruptions, where often survival is poor, even with conCRT. The use of amifostine (Ethyol, WR-2017), a cytoprotective agent, has been investigated in this setting in multiple phase II and III randomised and non-randomised trials (RCTs and non-RCTs) however questions remain regarding the efficacy and safety of amifostine in this setting.

Amifostine is an organic thiophosphate pro-drug that is de-phosphorylated in vivo into its active moiety, WR-1065(5). Concerns regarding its selectivity for normal tissue have hampered its use and widespread recommendation by consensus groups such as the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), despite many small trials showing favourable results for treatment efficacy end-points. Therefore, the present review expands previous meta-analyses (6-8) that have suggested the safety and efficacy of amifostine in this setting to give a more comprehensive view of the role of amifostine in the treatment of patients with inoperable NSCLC treated with CRT or RT alone.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy for identification of studies. MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched. Reference lists of relevant studies were searched to identify further relevant studies.

Type of studies. Eligible studies were either RCT or non-RCT types.

Type of participants. Eligible trials included patients with histologically-confirmed advanced, medically- or surgically-inoperable NSCLC treated exclusively with CRT or RT alone. Trials were included if some, but not all, patients have had previous treatment.

Type of interventions. Eligible trials employed amifostine as a cytoprotectant. Trials were included where amifostine was not the sole intervention of interest but comprised part of the intervention.

Type of outcomes. Eligible trials reported acute or late treatment-related toxicities or a measure of CRT or RT efficacy, although both were preferable.

Primary Outcomes: 1) Incidence and severity of acute treatment-related toxicity (various toxicity scales); 2) Incidence and severity of late treatment-related toxicity (various toxicity scales); 3) Amifostine-related toxicity.

Secondary Outcomes: 1) Response Rates; 2) Survival Data.

Statistical analysis. Forest Plots were generated for acute oesophageal and pulmonary toxicity; data regarding other acute side-effects were too heterogeneous to include. The threshold for acute oesophageal toxicity was ≥Grade 2, where possible. No threshold was required for acute and late pulmonary toxicity due to heterogeneity in reporting. Complete and partial response were also analysed. Toxicity and response was considered dichotomous endpoints and Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) test used for comparison. The Chi-square test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity for each comparison, the I2 statistic quantified statistical heterogeneity. Only RCTs were included in statistical analysis due to the potential for increased reporting and selection bias (24).

Results

Description of studies. Thirteen full-text articles comprised of 7 RCTs with one long-term follow-up study and 6 non-RCTs, one of which was a non-randomised controlled clinical trial. One RCT was a double-blind trial. A further 3 studies only available in abstract form were added, as their full texts were not available and efforts to obtain the full texts from corresponding authors were unsuccessful. Overall, 16 studies involving 1,057 patients were included in the present review.

Risk of bias in included studies. The evident biases in included studies include publication bias, selection bias, chronology bias, confounding and outcome reporting bias. Study publication bias may have resulted in overestimation of amifostine efficacy. Selection bias existed where trials incorporated performance status and age into their eligibility criteria (9-16, 20-22). Chronological bias may have been a factor in one trial using a historical control (22); bias may have been introduced due to changes in protocol, practices or procedures following the treatment of the control group. Confounding bias existed where trials failed to control for factors affecting outcome. Outcome reporting bias was prevalent across many studies reporting various toxicity assessments, responses and survival outcomes. Comparison between studies was, therefore, difficult. Only articles available in full text were suitable for quality analysis. RCTs scored from 19-25 (9-15) and non-RCTs scored from 13-17 (16-18, 20-22). Statistical power was analyzed separately; power was not calculated for 7 non-RCTs (16-18, 20-22). Seven RCTs were powered for toxicity end-points alone. One RCT did not document power calculations (15), four RCTs did not meet their power calculations for toxicity end-points (9, 11, 13, 14).

Effect of interventions. Six RCTs indicated a significant decrease in the severity of acute oesophageal toxicity in the amifostine arm (9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25). RTOG98-01 reported no statistically significant difference in two physician-rated end-points (10). One RCT noted no statistically significant difference in favour of amifostine (11), while another RCT found similar incidence and severity between arms (14). Non-randomised trials reported varying incidence and severity of acute oesophageal toxicity for various outcomes (16-18, 20-22, 26). Two non-RCTs reported similar incidence and severity of oesophagitis in patients with or without amifostine (16), while another noted no statistically significant difference in favour of amifostine when compared to a historical control (22).

Pooling results for 6 RCTs (9-12, 14, 15) identified that compared to placebo or no amifostine, amifostine significantly reduced the risk of ≥grade 2 acute oesophageal toxicity by 26% (Risk Ratio (RR), 0.74; 95%Confidence Interval(CI)=0.65-0.86; p<0.0001). Three RCTs were excluded from the analysis; data were not available in full from two (25, 27); another did not record acute oesophageal toxicity (13). Statistical heterogeneity was evident (Chi-square=36.94, df=5, p<0.00001; I2=86%) (Figure 1A). Four RCTs recorded statistically significant decreases in incidence of acute pulmonary toxicity, reporting on various toxicity outcomes (9, 12, 13, 15). One RCT did not analyze differences in incidence and severity of acute pulmonary toxicity in a statistical manner (10), finding a similar incidence of grade 1-5 toxicity (10). Three non-RCTs reported similar incidences of pulmonary toxicity (17, 21, 22). One non-RCT found a similar incidence of dyspnea grade 4 in patients with and without amifostine pre-treatment (16).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Forest Plots for comparison: A: acute oesophageal toxicity (grades ≥2), B: acute pulmonary toxicity (all grades), C: late pulmonary toxicity (all grades), D: complete response, E: partial response. M-H: mantel haenszel, CI: confidence interval, df: degrees of freedom.

Pooling results from 5 RCTs (9, 10, 12, 13, 15) showed that compared to no amifostine, amifostine reduced the odds of acute pulmonary toxicity by 44% (RR, 0.56; 95%CI=0.41-0.75; p=0.0001). RCTs were not included if acute toxicity was not recorded (11, 14) or if sufficient information was not available (25, 27). Statistical heterogeneity was evident (Chi-square=17.12, df=4, p=0.002; I2=77%) (Figure 1B).

Eleven trials recorded acute haematological toxicity, reporting various toxicity outcome measures (9-12, 16-18, 20-22, 26). One RCT found a statistically significant difference in favour of amifostine (12); two RCTs noted no significant difference in favour of amifostine (9, 11); in one no statistical tests were performed, but similar incidences and severity in both arms were reported (10). Non-RCTs reported conflicting incidence and severity of neutropenia (17, 18, 20, 21, 26) and anemia (18, 21) the incidence of thrombocytopenia was low in three non-RCTs (17, 20, 21). One non-RCT reported similar incidence in patients with and without amifostine (16).

Three RCTs assessed other toxicities with no statistical analysis; similar incidence and severity of neurotoxicity (10, 11), nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation (10, 11), alopecia, fatigue (11) cardiovascular, constitutional symptoms, dermatological toxicity, stomatitis, dysgeusia, hepatic toxicity, and pain were noted (10), with no difference in the incidence or severity of non-oesophageal toxicities between the arms (14). Non-RCTs reported varying incidences of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (17, 18) dermatological toxicity (17, 18) and similar incidence of renal toxicity (18, 20) and neurotoxicity (18, 21); nausea (20), fatigue and fever (21). One non-RCT found similar incidence and severity of hepatic toxicity and alopecia (16).

Eight trials reported late toxicity, predominantly pulmonary toxicity with varying outcome measures. A statistically significant difference in favour of amifostine was found in late pneumonitis (9) compared to no pneumontis (21). Fibrosis incidence varied (9, 15, 17), one RCT found a statistically significant difference in favour of amfostine (27). One non-RCT found no incidence of soft tissue, cardiac or neurological late toxicity (18). RTOG 98-01 noted no significant difference in the incidence of non-pulmonary toxicity at initial (10) and 10 years follow-up (19).

Pooling the data for 3 RCTs (9, 10, 15) identified that amifostine compared to no amifostine does not reduce the risk of late pulmonary toxicity (RR, 0.84; 95%CI=0.65-1.08; p=0.17). Six RCTs did not record late pulmonary toxicity or did not provide sufficient data (11-14, 25, 27). Statistical heterogeneity was noted (Chi-square=4.86, df=2, p=0.09; I2=59%) (Figure 1C).

Eleven trials administrated amifostine intravenously (IV) (9-15, 17, 18, 20, 22) and four subcutaneously (16, 18, 21, 25). Doses and scheduling varied greatly in different trials. Four RCTs reported a significantly increased incidence of hypotension of varying incidence and severity in the amifostine arm (10-13); others did not statistically compare arms but reported greater hypotension incidence in the amifostine arm. Three non-RCTs reported hypotension with amifostine (18, 20, 22); one during IV administration only (18). One RCT and two non-RCTs reported no hypotension (17, 21, 25).

Nausea or emesis was reported in 9 trials; (9-11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25). One RCT noted a significantly higher incidence (10); others did not statistically compare arms, but noted greater nausea and/or emesis in the amifostine arm (9, 11, 15, 25). Three non-RCTs and one RCT noted alterations in planned amifostine administration and refusal due to nausea/emesis (20, 25), reduced mean dose of amifostine (17), cessation of amifostine (21). Other toxicities such as dysgeusia (12) sneezing (11, 12), dizziness, chills and hiccups (11) occurred significantly more frequently in the amifostine arm. Fatigue, local pain, erythema, asthenia, fever and rash were also noted (17, 18, 20, 25).

All trials analyzed response and/or survival as surrogates for treatment efficacy. Response was most frequently analyzed using a Computed Tomography (CT) scan following treatment completion (9, 11, 14-18, 20, 21). Response and survival differences were non-significant between both arms of RCTs (9-13, 15, 25); similar response rates were noted between both arms in one RCT (14). Long-term follow-up of RTOG98-01 noted non-significant differences in response or survival (19). There was a trend towards greater complete response in one RCT (13).

Five RCTs (9, 11, 13-15) were statistically analyzed for complete response; four RCTs (10, 12, 25, 27) were excluded as response data were not available. Amifostine increased the risk of complete response compared to no-amifostine or placebo (RR, 1.64; 95% CI=0.99-2.73; p=0.06). Statistical heterogeneity was evident (Chi-square=3.18, df=4, p=0.53; I2=0%) (Figure 1D).

Pooling partial response results for 4 RCTs (9, 11, 14, 15) showed that amifostine compared to no amifostine or placebo did not alter the odds of partial response (RR, 0.92; 95%CI,=0.73-1.16; p=0.48). Partial response results were insufficient or missing for five RCTs (10, 12, 13, 25, 27) Statistical heterogeneity was low (Chi square=0.76, df=3, p=0.86, I2=0%) (Figure 1E).

Non randomised trials reported varying rates of response and survival end-points (16-18, 20-22, 26).

Discussion

Conflicting guidelines are pronouncely reflected in the results of this study, regarding acute and late treatment-related toxicity. American Cancer Society guidelines endorse amifostine to reduce acute oesophagitis (28), citing only one study (included in this study) (12). ASCO guidelines (2008) cite insufficient data to recommend amifostine in the same setting (29).

Our results suggest that amifostine can almost halve the odds of ≥grade 2 acute oesophageal toxicity, with considerable heterogeneity. Another meta-analysis (7) agrees with amifostine's ability to reduce oesophageal toxicity incidence, specifically dysphagia, although the trials included were not NSCLC trials. The results agree with two reviews supporting amifostine's potential to reduce incidence and severity of acute pneumonitis (30, 31).

I2 values for acute oesophageal, acute pulmonary and late pulmonary toxicity, respectively, indicate considerable and substantial statistical heterogeneity (24). Heterogeneity stems largely from clinical and methodological variations between included studies.

Generally, acute toxicity incidence and severity was greater in RCTs using conCRT (9-13), compared to RT alone (15), as expected. Incidence and severity of acute and late toxicities were similar in patients treated with hyperfractionated and conventional regimens; rates of late pulmonary toxicity in both hypofractionated regimens (17, 21) were similar and slightly lower compared to those of conventional fractionation, as expected (17).

Amifostine protocol varied significantly between trials. The best and worst amifostine protocols in terms of efficacy could not be established due to considerable heterogeneity. Reducing time between administration and RT to ≤15 min offers better cytoprotection (33). Six trials adhering to this reported varying incidence of acute and late toxicities, suggest that other factors are relevant (9, 11, 14-16, 20). Compliance varied; 29% of patients completed amifostine per protocol, covering 40% of weekly RT in RTOG98-01 (10). Amifostine may not have been present in sufficient frequency or quantities to mediate clinically relevant cytoprotection, possibly explaining failure to establish significance for two acute oesophageal toxicity end-points (10). This argument is weakened by another RCT's positive results administering a similar amifostine protocol, also covering 40% of fractions(12), although adherence was not reported (12).

Generally, there was greater incidence and severity of acute and late treatment-related toxicity in RCTs compared to non-RCTs; non-RCTs gave more regular doses of amifostine and higher overall doses (ranging from 500-1,000 mg/m2); suggesting a benefit to higher doses of amifostine more regularly, although the use of vastly different treatment regimens in non-RCTs may have contributed to variations. However, late toxicities did not correlate with a difference of 500 mg in some trials (10, 17, 18, 21). Two RCTs reported significantly reduced acute treatment-related toxicities when altering dose based on body surface area (9, 15), a later trial achieved statistically similar results with a flat dose (12).

Generally, treatment-related toxicity incidence and severity was similar in trials giving daily (9, 17, 18) (one non-RCT was an exception with no late pulmonary toxicity (21)) and more irregular amifostine (10, 13), further contributing to difficulty establishing the optimum amifostine regimen. Subcutaneous administration was associated with lower severity of acute oesophageal and no late pulmonary toxicity in one non-RCT (21), contrasting with others using a combination or IV administration. Subcutaneous administration is more commonly associated with reducing amifostine-related toxicity (32). Therefore, it appears that higher overall doses of amifostine given >15 min before treatment may mediate better cytoprotection, although it is difficult to establish a clear relationship due to heterogeneity of amifostine protocols used.

Only two trials positive for acute toxicity reduction had sufficient statistical power to detect a clinically relevant difference in acute oesophageal toxicity (10, 12); possibly accounting for varying incidence and severity of acute toxicity among under-powered trials. Sufficiently powered trials were also conflicting. Amifostine was a component of the intervention in four non-RCTs (17, 18, 21, 26); therapy in these trials differed from the standard-of-care (34). Varying chemotherapeutic agents and doses contributed to varying haematological toxicities.

Confounding factors affecting oesophagitis incidence and severity such as Nodal stage (N) 2 disease (35) and pre-existing dysphagia (35) were not recorded in many trials, therefore contributing to methodological heterogeneity. Smoking status (36) was reported in one trial. Tumour in the upper lobe combined with diabetes mellitus or chronic lung diseases (31), poor pre-RT pulmonary function (31), plasma transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1) ratio of ≥1 pre- or post-RT (31) and other biochemical markers (30) increase the risk of pneumonitis and subsequent fibrosis. Tumour location, co-morbidities and plasma TGF-β1 were not recorded, pre-treatment pulmonary function tests were completed by two studies (12, 20).

The majority of patients were males, showing Irish (37) and international (38) incidence patterns. No patient had previous surgery, while some non-RCTs included patients who had prior chemotherapy (17, 18, 21), which may have contributed to clinical heterogeneity. Most patients had a good performance status and minimal weight loss; many trials incorporated performance status into eligibility criteria (9-16, 20-22), limiting the opportunity for patients with significant co-morbidities to participate, although for such patients conCRT may be contraindicated due to significant morbidity; they are under-represented in trials of CRT for advanced stage, inoperable NSCLC (3, 4), however the majority of patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Ireland are >65 years (37). Frail patients or those unable to tolerate conCRT, may be offered seqCRT or RT alone (39), although one RCT treating with RT alone had patients with minimal weight loss and a good performance status (15).

The optimal amifostine administration protocol is unclear (40). Individual's tolerance to amifostine varies with age, performance status, gender and tumour type (40). Toxicity results were reported together and toxicity varied despite patient populations being similar in terms of the above factors. Varying administration protocol contributed to methodological heterogeneity (40).

Amifostine administration protocol affected amifostine toxicity. Subcutaneous administration trials reported no hypotension (18, 21, 25); comparing favourably with IV administration (9-15, 17, 20, 22), this is also supported by others (2, 5, 32). Incidence and severity of other toxicities were reduced with subcutaneous administration. One study used both methods; it noted less amifostine-related toxicity on days where amifostine was administered subcutaneously (18). The subcutaneous route was well-tolerated compared to IV; its applicability to a busy department and its simplicity compared to IV administration have been noted (25) and it has been proposed to increase compliance in relation to RTOG 98-01 (32). Incidence of hypotension and other toxicities varied in trials using IV administration; possibly from variations in monitoring, prophylaxis and patient factors. A dose relationship was apparent; trials reduced dose based on amifostine toxicities experienced: two (17, 21) used an algorithm to individualize doses (40). Other factors including scheduling and frequency of administration were difficult to separate to ascertain their effect on the incidence and severity of amifostine toxicity.

Most trials did not report what time-point the reported toxicity score referred to; the maximum grade, median grade or final grade, contributing heterogeneity to toxicity results. Use of abstracts only for three trials (25-27) meant their contribution was limited and quality analysis not possible. Two trials included other sub-groups and cancer types (15, 25); it was not possible to isolate results for NSCLC for these trials (15). Two acute toxicity end-points could not be incorporated into forest plots for one RCT (10), and no threshold severity of acute and late pulmonary toxicity contributed to statistical heterogeneity.

No evidence of a tumour-protective effect was noticed in survival or response results, concurring with smaller meta-analyses (6-8). The results of one meta-analysis suggest any effect of amifostine on reducing overall response is no larger than a 3% relative risk reduction (6); our results concur with this; the effect on complete response, if any, is no larger than 1%, however, the effect of potential on partial response is larger at 27%, although this result was non-significant it may be important to consider during the informed consent process prior to commencement of amifostine (41).

The potential for tumour protection by amifostine remains a significant barrier to routine use (7) as anti-oxidants can theoretically affect all tissues (41). No RCT included in this review was sufficiently powered to detect small differences in survival between arms; a major reason for opposition to amifostine (32). It has been suggested that cumulative evidence of RCTs should be sufficient proof of absence of tumour protection (42), and that an RCT with adequate power to detect small differences in survival or response requires over a thousand patients per arm which is a waste of limited resources (32, 42). In some cohorts eliminating the possibility of tumour protection may be secondary to improving the therapeutic index as the tumour protective effect is less important (32), this may be relevant for patients included in this review; prognosis is often poor, even with conCRT.

Economic evaluation indicates a favourable cost/utility ratio for amifostine use in ovarian cancer (43) and head and neck (44) cancers; implying amifostine's ability to reduce the need for toxicity management and supportive care. An analysis in NSCLC found amifostine not cost-effective, although this article was only available as an abstract (45). Cost benefit of amifostine in the short-term (the mean follow-up time for the head and neck study was 5.5 months) (44) may be offset by increased recurrence or tumour progression due to tumour protection.

The role of amifostine in routine clinical practice is unclear due to statistical heterogeneity. Future trials should focus on clinical and methodological homogeneity to minimize statistical heterogeneity to give more reliable data prior to routine clinical use. Standardisation is required across toxicity end-points, scales, evaluation and reporting, treatment regimens, populations and amifostine protocols and response evaluation. Long-term follow-up periods, similar to RTOG 98-01, are required to confirm on long-term survival or response effect. The combined effect of amifostine and modern RT techniques (3D-CRT and intensity-modulated RT) should also be investigated. There appear to be no current trials being conducted in this area.

Conclusion

This review expands on smaller meta-analyses; amifostine appears efficacious for acute oesophageal and pulmonary toxicity reduction when administered to patients receiving CRT or RT alone for advanced-stage, inoperable NSCLC. However, the results for both end-points are inconsistent, due to high statistical heterogeneity. The optimum amifostine protocol for maximal efficacy is a result unclear. Subcutaneous administration appears to reduce amifostine-related toxicity. Amifostine does not appear to alter response rates or survival after CRT or RT alone. Further clinical data are required to determine wherther Amifostine should be routinely administered in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with radiotherapy.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of Interest

    Both Authors have no competing interest to disclose.

  • Received October 2, 2015.
  • Revision received November 26, 2015.
  • Accepted December 2, 2015.
  • Copyright© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. O'Rourke N,
    2. Roque I,
    3. Figuls M,
    4. Farre Bernardo M,
    5. Macbeth F
    : Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (6): p. Cd002140, 2010.
  2. ↵
    1. Bar-Ad V,
    2. Ohri N,
    3. Werner-Wasik M
    : Esophagitis, treatment-related toxicity in non-small cell lung cancer. Rev Recent Clin Trials 7(1): 31-35, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Topkan E,
    2. Parlak C,
    3. Topuk S,
    4. Guler OC,
    5. Selek U
    : Outcomes of aggressive concurrent radiochemotherapy in highly selected septuagenarians with stage IIIB non-small cell lung carcinoma: retrospective analysis of 89 patients. Lung Cancer 81(2): 226-230, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Machtay M,
    2. Bae K,
    3. Movsas B,
    4. Paulus R,
    5. Gore E,
    6. Komaki R,
    7. Albain K,
    8. Sause WT,
    9. Curran WJ
    : Higher biologically effective dose of radiotherapy is associated with improved outcomes for locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma treated with chemoradiation: an analysis of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(1): 425-434, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Praetorius NP,
    2. Mandal TK
    : Alternate delivery route for amifostine as a radio-/chemo-protecting agent. J Pharm Pharmacol 60(7): 809-815, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Mell LK,
    2. Malik R,
    3. Komaki R,
    4. Movsas B,
    5. Swann RS,
    6. Langer C,
    7. Antonadou D,
    8. Koukourakis M,
    9. Mundt AJ
    : Effect of amifostine on response rates in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated on randomized controlled trials: a meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68(1): 111-118, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Sasse AD,
    2. Clark LG,
    3. Sasse EC,
    4. Clark OA
    : Amifostine reduces side effects and improves complete response rate during radiotherapy: results of a meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64(3): 784-791, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Bourhis J,
    2. Blanchard P,
    3. Maillard E,
    4. Brizel DM,
    5. Movsas B,
    6. Buentzel J,
    7. Langendijk JA,
    8. Komaki R,
    9. Swan Leong S,
    10. Levendag P,
    11. Pignon JP
    : Effect of amifostine on survival among patients treated with radiotherapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Clin Oncol 29(18): 2590-2597, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Antonadou D,
    2. Throuvalas N,
    3. Petridis A,
    4. Bolanos N,
    5. Sagriotis A,
    6. Synodinou M
    : Effect of amifostine on toxicities associated with radiochemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J of Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57(2): 402-408, 2003.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Movsas B,
    2. Scott C,
    3. Langer C,
    4. Werner-Wasik M,
    5. Nicolaou N,
    6. Komaki R,
    7. Machtay M,
    8. Smith C,
    9. Axelrod R,
    10. Sarna L,
    11. Wasserman T,
    12. Byhardt R
    : Randomized trial of amifostine in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiation: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 98-01. J Clin Oncol 23(10): 2145-2154, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Leong SS,
    2. Tan EH,
    3. Fong KW,
    4. Wilder-Smith E,
    5. Ong YK,
    6. Tai BC,
    7. Chew L,
    8. Lim SH,
    9. Wee J,
    10. Lee KM,
    11. Foo KF,
    12. Ang P,
    13. Ang PT
    : Randomized double-blind trial of combined modality treatment with or without amifostine in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J of Clin Oncol 21(9): 1767-1774, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Komaki R,
    2. Lee JS,
    3. Milas L,
    4. Lee HK,
    5. Fossella FV,
    6. Herbst RS,
    7. Allen PK,
    8. Liao Z,
    9. Stevens CW,
    10. Lu C,
    11. Zinner RG,
    12. Papadimitrakopoulou VA,
    13. Kies MS,
    14. Blumenschien GR,
    15. Pisters KM,
    16. Glisson BS,
    17. Kurie J,
    18. Kaplan B,
    19. Garza VP,
    20. Mooring D,
    21. Tucker SL,
    22. Cox JD
    : Effects of amifostine on acute toxicity from concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer: Report of a randomized comparative trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(5): 1369-1377, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Komaki R,
    2. Lee JS,
    3. Kaplan B,
    4. Allen P,
    5. Kelly JF,
    6. Liao Z,
    7. Stevens CW,
    8. Fosselle FV,
    9. Zinner R,
    10. Papadimitrakopoulou V,
    11. Khuri F,
    12. Glisson B,
    13. Pisters K,
    14. Kurie J,
    15. Herbst R,
    16. Milas L,
    17. Ro J,
    18. Thames HD,
    19. Hong WK,
    20. Cox JD
    : Randomized phase III study of chemoradiation with or without amifostine for patients with favorable performance status inoperable stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary results. Semin Radiat Oncol 12(1 Suppl 1): 46-49, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Senzer N
    : A phase III randomized evaluation of amifostine in stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving concurrent carboplatin, paclitaxel, and radiation therapy followed by gemcitabine and cisplatin intensification: preliminary findings. Semin Oncol 29(6 Suppl 19): 38-41, 2002.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Antonadou D,
    2. Coliarakis N,
    3. Synodinou M,
    4. Athanassiou H,
    5. Kouveli A,
    6. Verigos C,
    7. Georgakopoulos G,
    8. Panoussaki K,
    9. Karageorgis P,
    10. Throuvalas N
    : Randomised phase III trial of radiation treatment +_ Amifostine in patients with advanced-stage lung cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 51(4): 915-922, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Gridelli C,
    2. Guida C,
    3. Barletta E,
    4. Gatani T,
    5. Fiore F,
    6. Barzelloni ML,
    7. Rossi A,
    8. de Bellis M,
    9. D'Aniello R,
    10. Scognamiglio F
    , Thoracic radiotherapy and daily vinorelbine as radiosensitizer in locally advanced non small cell lung cancer: A phase I study. Lung Cancer 29(2): 131-137, 2000.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Koukourakis MI,
    2. Patlakas G,
    3. Froudarakis ME,
    4. Kyrgias G,
    5. Skarlatos J,
    6. Abatzoglou I,
    7. Bougioukas G,
    8. Bouros D
    : Hypofractionated accelerated radiochemotherapy with cytoprotection (Chemo-HypoARC) for inoperable non-small cell lung carcinoma. Anticancer Res 27(5b): 3625-3631, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Koukourakis MI,
    2. Romanidis K,
    3. Froudarakis M,
    4. Kyrgias G,
    5. Koukourakis GV,
    6. Retalis G,
    7. Bahlitzanakis N
    : Concurrent administration of Docetaxel and Stealth liposomal doxorubicin with radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: excellent tolerance using subcutaneous amifostine for cytoprotection. Br J Cancer 87(4): 385-392, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Lawrence YR,
    2. Paulus R,
    3. Langer C,
    4. Werner-Wasik M,
    5. Buyyounouski MK,
    6. Komaki R,
    7. Machtay M,
    8. Smith C,
    9. Axelrod RS,
    10. Wasserman T,
    11. Bradley JD,
    12. Movsas B
    : The addition of amifostine to carboplatin and paclitaxel based chemoradiation in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Long-term follow-up of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) randomized trial 9801. Lung Cancer 80(3): 298-305, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Tannehill SP,
    2. Mahta MP,
    3. Larson M,
    4. Storer B,
    5. Pellet J,
    6. Kinsella TJ,
    7. Schiller JH
    : Effect of amifostine on toxicities associated with sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy for unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 15(8): 2850-2857, 1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  21. ↵
    1. Tsoutsou PG,
    2. Froudarakis ME,
    3. Bouros D,
    4. Koukourakis MI
    : Hypofractionated/accelerated radiotherapy with cytoprotection (HypoARC) combined with vinorelbine and liposomal doxorubicin for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Anticancer Res 28(2b): 1349-1354, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Werner-Wasik M,
    2. Axelrod RS,
    3. Friedland DP,
    4. Hauck W,
    5. Rose LJ,
    6. Chapman AE,
    7. Grubbs S,
    8. DeShields M,
    9. Curran WJ
    : Phase II: Trial of twice weekly amifostine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 12(1): 34-39, 2002.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Kaplan EL,
    2. Meier P
    : Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53(282): 457-481, 1958.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Green S
    , Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. March 2011 (cited 26/11/2014); Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
  24. ↵
    1. Koukourakis MI,
    2. Kyrias G,
    3. Kakolyris S,
    4. Kouroussis C,
    5. Frangiadaki C,
    6. Giatromanolaki A,
    7. Retalis G,
    8. Georgoulias V
    : Subcutaneous administration of amifostine during fractionated radiotherapy: A randomised phase II study. J Clin Oncol 18(11): 2226-2233, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Rusu P,
    2. Ciuleanu TE,
    3. Cernea D,
    4. Pelau D,
    5. Gaal V,
    6. Cebotaru C,
    7. Guttman T,
    8. Todor N,
    9. Ghilezan N
    : Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with vinorelbine and a platinum compound followed by consolidation chemotherapy for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary results of a phase II study. J buon 12(1): 33-39, 2007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Komaki R,
    2. Chang JY,
    3. Wu X,
    4. Allen PK,
    5. Milas L,
    6. Liao Z,
    7. Fossella FV,
    8. Travis E,
    9. Spitz MR
    : Mutagen sensitivity may predict lung protection by amifostine for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy. Semin Oncol 32(2 Suppl 3): 92-98, 2005.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Rubenstein EB,
    2. Peterson DE,
    3. Schubert M,
    4. Keefe D,
    5. McGuire D,
    6. Epstein J,
    7. Elting LS,
    8. Fox PC,
    9. Cooksley C,
    10. Sonis ST
    : Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis. Cancer 100(9 Suppl): 2026-2046, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Hensley ML,
    2. Hagerty KL,
    3. Kewalramani T,
    4. Green DM,
    5. Meropol NJ,
    6. Wasserman TH,
    7. Cohen GI,
    8. Emami B,
    9. Gradishar WJ,
    10. Mitchell RB,
    11. Thigpen JT,
    12. Trotti A 3rd.,
    13. von Hoff D,
    14. Schuchter LM
    : American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 clinical practice guideline update: use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants. J Clin Oncol 27(1): 127-145, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Mehta V
    : Radiation pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis in non-small-cell lung cancer: pulmonary function, prediction, and prevention. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2005. 63(1): 5-24, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Zhang XJ,
    2. Sun JG,
    3. Sun J,
    4. Ming H,
    5. Wang XX,
    6. Wu L,
    7. Chen ZT
    : Prediction of radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 138(12): 2103-2116, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Block KI,
    2. Gyllenhaal C
    : Commentary: The pharmacological antioxidant amifostine - Implications of recent research for integrative cancer care. Integr Cancer Ther 4(4): 329-351, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Kouloulias VE,
    2. Kouvaris JR,
    3. Kokakis JD,
    4. Kostakopoulos A,
    5. Mallas E,
    6. Metafa A,
    7. Vlahos LJ
    : Impact on cytoprotective efficacy of intermediate interval between amifostine administration and radiotherapy: a retrospective analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59(4): 1148-1156, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network
    , NCCN Clincial Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Version 1.2015. NCCN Clincial Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) 2014 (cited 18/11/2014); Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf.
  34. ↵
    1. Werner-Wasik M,
    2. Yorke E,
    3. Deasy J,
    4. Nam J,
    5. Marks LB
    : Radiation dose-volume effects in the esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(3 Suppl): S86-93, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Marks LB,
    2. Bentzen SM,
    3. Deasy JO,
    4. Kong FM,
    5. Bradley JD,
    6. Vogelius IS,
    7. El Naqa I,
    8. Hubbs JL,
    9. Lebesque JV,
    10. Timmerman RD,
    11. Martel MK,
    12. Jackson A
    : Radiation dose-volume effects in the lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(3 Suppl): S70-76, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. National Cancer Registry Ireland
    , Cancer Factsheet Lung. National Cancer Registry Ireland 2013 16/12/13 (cited 18/11/2014); Available from: http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/factsheets/FACTSHEET_lung.pdf.
  37. ↵
    1. World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer
    , Cancer, Lung Cancer, Estimated Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. Cancer Fact Sheets 2014 (cited 2014 18/11/14); Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.
  38. ↵
    1. American College of Radiology
    , ACR Appropriateness Criteria Nonsurgical Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Poor Performance Status or Palliative Intent. ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2012 (cited 19/11/14); Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/AppCriteria/Oncology/NonsurgicalTreatmentForNSCLCPoorPerformanceStatusOrPalliativeIntent.pdf.
  39. ↵
    1. Koukourakis MI,
    2. Abatzoglou I,
    3. Sivridis L,
    4. Tsarkatsi M,
    5. Delidou H
    : Individualization of the subcutaneous amifostine dose during hypofractionated / accelerated radiotherapy. Anticancer Res 26(3b): 2437-2443, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Lawenda BD,
    2. Kelly KM,
    3. Ladas EJ,
    4. Sagar SM,
    5. Vickers A,
    6. Blumberg JB
    : Should supplemental antioxidant administration be avoided during chemotherapy and radiation therapy? J Natl Cancer Inst 100(11): 773-783, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Brizel DM,
    2. Overgaard J
    : Does amifostine have a role in chemoradiation treatment? Lancet Oncol 4(6): 378-381, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Dranitsaris G
    : A pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of using willingness to pay as a measure of value in cancer supportive care: an assessment of amifostine cytoprotection. Support Care Cancer 5(6): 489-499, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Bennett CL,
    2. Lane D,
    3. Stinson T,
    4. Glatzel M,
    5. Buntzel J
    : Economic analysis of amifostine as adjunctive support for patients with advanced head and neck cancer: preliminary results from a randomized phase II clinical trial from Germany. Cancer Invest 19(2): 107-113, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Touchette DR,
    2. Stevenson JG,
    3. Jensen G
    : Cost-effectiveness analysis of amifostine (Ethyol(registered trademark)) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Aging Pharmacother 13(2): 109-126, 2007.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 36 (1)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 36, Issue 1
January 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Potential of Amifostine for Chemoradiotherapy and Radiotherapy-associated Toxicity Reduction in Advanced NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
11 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Potential of Amifostine for Chemoradiotherapy and Radiotherapy-associated Toxicity Reduction in Advanced NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis
ANNEMARIE DEVINE, LAURE MARIGNOL
Anticancer Research Jan 2016, 36 (1) 5-12;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Potential of Amifostine for Chemoradiotherapy and Radiotherapy-associated Toxicity Reduction in Advanced NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis
ANNEMARIE DEVINE, LAURE MARIGNOL
Anticancer Research Jan 2016, 36 (1) 5-12;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Cytokine-based Cancer Immunotherapy: Challenges and Opportunities for IL-10
  • Proteolytic Enzyme Therapy in Complementary Oncology: A Systematic Review
  • Multimodal Treatment of Primary Advanced Ovarian Cancer
Show more Reviews

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • amifostine
  • non-small cell lung cancer
  • NSCLC
  • radiotherapy
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • toxicity
  • review
Anticancer Research

© 2023 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire