Amifostine does not prevent platinum-induced hearing loss associated with the treatment of children with hepatoblastoma: a report of the Intergroup Hepatoblastoma Study P9645 as a part of the Children's Oncology Group. Toxicity prevention with amifostine in pediatric osteosarcoma patients treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Randomized phase III trial of postoperative radiochemotherapy +/- amifostine in head and neck cancer. Is there evidence for radioprotection? Use of amifostine in the therapy of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents. Phase III multicenter randomized trial of amifostine as cytoprotectant in first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Randomized phase 2 study of concomitant chemoradiotherapy using weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel with or without daily subcutaneous amifostine in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. A randomized study of very accelerated radiotherapy with and without amifostine in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Prophylactic use of amifostine to prevent radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis and xerostomia in head-and-neck cancer. Radiochemotherapy with amifostine cytoprotection for head and neck cancer.
The current study was conducted to determine whether amifostine is effective in reducing the toxicities associated with the administration of platinum-containing regimens in children with hepatoblastoma (HB).
                Patients were enrolled on P9645 beginning in March of 1999. Patients who had stage I/II disease received treatment with 4 cycles of combined cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and vincristine (C5V) with or without amifostine. Patients who had stage III/IV disease were randomized to receive treatment with 6 cycles of either C5V with or without amifostine or carboplatin alternating with cisplatin (CC) with or without amifostine. Patients who were randomized to receive amifostine were given a dose of 740 mg/m2 intravenously over 15 minutes before each administration of a platinum agent.
                Eighty-two patients were considered in a special interim analysis of the incidence of toxicity. The disease outcome for patients who received amifostine was similar to the outcome for patients who did not receive amifostine (P=.22). The incidence of significant hearing loss (>40 dB) was similar for patients who did or did not receive amifostine (38% [14 of 37 patients] vs 38% [17 of 45 patients], respectively; P=.68). There were no differences in the incidence of renal or bone marrow toxicities evaluated. Patients who received amifostine had a higher incidence of hypocalcemia (5% vs 0.5%; P=.00006).
                Amifostine in the doses and schedule used in this study failed to significantly reduce the incidence of platinum-induced toxicities in patients with HB.
                Copyright (c) 2009 American Cancer Society. Amifostine has emerged as a pancytoprotectant shown protection against nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and ototoxicity in preclinical studies.
                We designed a prospective comparative randomized trial to evaluate the cytoprotective effects of amifostine in patients with osteosarcoma receiving cisplatin and doxorrubicin. Patients were evaluated for renal, hearing and cardiac toxicity.
                We included 28 patients, mean age was 11.6 years, five had metastatic disease. Fifteen patients received amifostine and 13 did not. 20% of patients receiving amifostine developed renal toxicity compared to 30% in the control group (p = 0.318). Grade 1 and 2 audiologic toxicity was present in 100% of the experimental group against 85% of the controls (p = 0.501). Grade 1 cardiac toxicity was present in 2 patients in the control group (p = 0.175). There were no statistical significant differences between the two groups for chemotherapy-related toxicity. Response to chemotherapy was significantly better in the amifostine group.
                amifostine did not reduce the ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity of our treatment regime. It was not well tolerated due to emesis. It is a selective cytoprotectant without reducing the effect of chemotherapy. Experimental and clinical data suggest a reduction of radiation-induced acute toxicity by amifostine (A). We investigated this issue in a randomized trial comparing radiochemotherapy (RT + CT) versus radiochemotherapy plus amifostine (RC + CT + A) in patients with head and neck cancer.
                56 patients with oro-/hypopharynx or larynx cancer (T1-2 N1-2 G3, T3-4 N0-2 G1-3) were randomized to receive RC + CT alone or RC + CT + A. Patients were irradiated up to 60 Gy (R0) or 70 Gy (R1/2) and received chemotherapy (70 mg/m(2) carboplatin, day 1-5 in week 1 and 5 of radiotherapy). 250 mg amifostine were applied daily before each radiotherapy session. Acute toxicity was evaluated according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). As for acute xerostomia, patients with laryngeal cancer were excluded from evaluation.
                50 patients were evaluable (25 patients in the RC + CT, 25 patients in the RC + CT + A group). Clinical characteristics were well balanced in both treatment groups. Amifostine provided reduction in acute xerostomia and mucositis but had no obvious influence on Karnofsky performance status, body weight, cutaneous side effects, and alopecia. The differences between both groups were statistically significant for acute xerostomia and nonsignificant, but with a trend for mucositis.
                According to our results, there is a radioprotective effect on salivary glands and a potential effect on oral mucosa by amifostine in postoperative radiotherapy combined with carboplatin. To improve the radio- and chemoprotective effects of amifostine in clinical practice, the application of a higher dose (> 250 mg) seems to be necessary. Amifostine protects normal tissue from the cytotoxic damage induced by radiation and chemotherapy. In this study, 39 consecutive newly diagnosed children with osteosarcoma were assessed; 20 received amifostine and 19 did not. The chemotherapy regimen included an induction phase of three cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m2), carboplatin (500 mg/m2), and doxorubicin (60 mg/m2), followed by surgery. Alternating cycles of cisplatin/ifosfamide (9 mg/m2), ifosfamide/doxorubicin, carboplatin/doxorubicin, and ifosfamide/carboplatin were administered every 3 weeks to complete 26 weeks of treatment. Amifostine was administered 15 minutes before the infusions of cisplatin and carboplatin in a total of 193 infusions. Side effects during infusions and renal, hearing, and bone marrow toxicities were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Hypotension was observed in 28 (14.5%) infusions. No patient required discontinuation of therapy. Fewer than two episodes of vomiting occurred in 130 (71%) infusions and two to five episodes occurred in 51 (28%) infusions, and no patient had grade 4 toxicity. There was no difference between the two groups regarding renal toxicity (creatinine clearance). Neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly less frequent in the amifostine group. No difference was observed in platelet and hearing toxicities. Amifostine was well tolerated in doses of 740 mg/m2 in children and adolescents, and myelotoxicity was less severe in the amifostine group. This was a pilot study for further evaluation in a larger randomized trial. A phase III multicenter randomized trial has been designed in order to address whether amifostine (WR-2721, Ethyol), an organic thiophosphate cytoprotector, can protect ovarian cancer patients from toxicity induced by carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin [area under the curve (AUC) 5 mg.min/ml] and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) with (arm A) or without (arm B) amifostine (910 mg/m(2)) every 21 days for six cycles.
                One-hundred and eighty-seven patients were accrued: 93 patients in arm A and 94 patients in arm B. There was no difference in terms of erythrocytopenia between the two arms; grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was higher in arm A (3.3% versus 0.6%; P = 0.0010). There was no significant reduction of grade 3-4 leukopenia in arm A (11.8% versus 13.8%). The incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia was lower in arm A (31.3% versus 37.9%; P = 0.03), as was the incidence of severe mucositis (4.7% versus 15.4% in arm A versus arm B, respectively; P <0.0001). Finally, amifostine appears to be protective against neurotoxicity (grade 3-4 neurotoxicity 3.7% versus 7.2%; P = 0.02). With a median follow-up of 24 months (range 2-41), time to progression was similar between the two groups.
                We showed that amifostine can exert some protection from the cumulative toxicity associated with this regimen. The results need to be confirmed in other randomized trials with this combination. A randomized phase 2 study was performed to investigate the efficacy/toxicity of combining concomitant boost radiation and weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel with or without amifostine in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).
                Patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced stage III or IV SCCHN received 4 weekly doses of carboplatin (area under the curve, 1.5) and paclitaxel (45 mg/m(2)) concurrently with concomitant boost radiation consisting of 72 grays in 42 fractions over 6 weeks (every day for 18 days, twice a day for 12 days) (grading determined according to the TNM staging system). All patients were randomized to subcutaneous daily amifostine at a dose of 500 mg (Arm A) or no amifostine (Arm B). Toxicity data were collected weekly, and saliva collection was performed with and without citric acid stimulation. To evaluate the correlation between serum cytokine levels and the severity of oral mucositis, we evaluated a subset (13 patients in Arm A and 11 patients in Arm B) of subjects at baseline and then on alternate weeks.
                Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, 29 in each arm. The majority of patients were men (90%), had stage IV disease (82%), and had the oropharynx as the primary tumor site (60%). Major toxicities encountered were similar in both arms and included grade 3 (as determined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) mucositis (75% in Arm A and 70% in Arm B) and grade 2 xerostomia (41% in both arms). The median number of amifostine doses delivered was 28, with skin toxicity (grade 3 in 11 patients) as the limiting factor. Saliva production showed no difference between the arms. The median follow-up was 34 months, and only 5 failures had been encountered (2 local and 3 distant) at the time of last follow-up, with an overall survival rate of 89%. Neck dissection was performed in 25 patients; 5 patients demonstrated persistent disease and 4 patients were alive without disease recurrence at the time of last follow-up. The median time to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy removal was 9.6 months in Arm A and 10.4 months in Arm B. Only 1 patient remained percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy-dependent at the time of last follow-up. A correlation was noted between levels of selected cytokines and mucositis severity, in which higher levels of proinflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-1, and IL-6) and lower levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-13) were noted. No changes in C-reactive protein levels were noted.
                Four weekly doses of carboplatin/paclitaxel with concomitant boost radiation was found to be a highly effective regimen in this patient population with advanced SCCHN. The overall survival rate was 89%. The time to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy removal was prolonged. Amifostine given subcutaneously did not improve the rates of xerostomia and mucositis with this fairly intensive chemoradiotherapy regimen.
                2009 American Cancer Society. The aim of this study was to assess whether amifostine could minimize acute mucositis induced by a very accelerated irradiation regimen in patients with advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
                Between May 1996 and February 1998, 26 patients with an inoperable nonmetastatic Stage IV HNSCC were entered in this study. The treatment consisted of very accelerated radiotherapy given 64 Gy in 3.5 weeks. The patients were randomized to receive or not 150 mg/m(2), amifostine (Ethyol, U.S. Bioscience) 15-30 min prior to each radiation session.
                Of the 13 patients who received amifostine, definitive interruption of amifostine occurred in 5 cases (38%), due to tolerance problems (vomiting, liver enzyme elevation, generalized erythema). The distribution of Grade 4 mucositis (WHO) was 1 case versus 8 cases, with and without amifostine, respectively. The mean duration of "at least Grade 3" mucositis (WHO) was 25.1 days versus 49.2 days with and without amifostine (p = 0.03). In the amifostine group, 11/13 of the patients required a feeding tube (nasogastric tube or medical gastrostomy), because of acute mucositis, whereas in the control group a feeding tube was necessary in all cases. The mean duration of the use of this feeding tube was 1 month versus 2.5 months with and without amifostine respectively (p < 0.01). Local-regional control was not different between both arms with a median follow-up of 15 months.
                Despite the limited number of patients, this pilot randomized study suggests that amifostine was able to markedly reduce the severity and duration of mucositis induced by very accelerated radiotherapy. However, the tolerance of this twice daily amifostine schedule was relatively poor. To determine the prophylactic properties of amifostine against acute and late toxicities from radiochemotherapy in patients with head-and-neck cancer.
                Fifty patients were randomized to receive conventional radiotherapy (RT) (2-Gy fractions, 5 days weekly, to a total of 60-74 Gy, depending on the tumor localization and TNM classification) and carboplatin (90 mg/m(2) infusion once per week before RT). Amifostine (300 mg/m(2)) was administered in the study group only 15-30 min before RT for 6-7.5 weeks. The primary study end point was the grading of acute and late nonhematologic toxicities (mucositis, dysphagia, xerostomia) induced by radiochemotherapy. Secondary end points included treatment duration, hematologic toxicity, and clinical outcome.
                The treatment duration was significantly shorter in the amifostine-treated group (p = 0.013), because treatment interruptions were more frequent in the control group. Acute toxicities (mucositis and dysphagia) were less severe in the amifostine-treated group. By Week 3, all in the control group experienced Grade 2 mucositis compared with only 9% in the amifostine-treated group (p <0.0001). By Week 5, 52.2% of the patients in the control group experienced Grade 4 mucositis compared with 4.5% in the amifostine-treated group (p = 0.0006). Similar results were obtained for dysphagia. At 3 months of follow-up, only 27% of patients in the study group experienced Grade 2 xerostomia compared with 73.9% in the control group (p = 0.0001). Eighteen months after cessation of therapy, the proportion of patients with Grade 2 xerostomia was 4.5% vs. 30.4% for each respective treatment group (p = 0.047). Cytoprotection with amifostine did not affect treatment outcome, with 90.9% complete responses in the amifostine-treated group compared with 78.3% in the control group (p = 0.414).
                Amifostine was effective in reducing mucositis and dysphagia resulting from radiochemotherapy in patients with head-and-neck cancer. Furthermore, amifostine reduced the severity of late xerostomia, a side effect of RT with long-lasting consequences. Amifostine treatment did not affect the clinical outcome. A randomized study was conducted to evaluate the protective activity of amifostine (A) against the dose-limiting toxicities of radiochemotherapy (RCT). Patients with head and neck cancer received radiotherapy (2 Gy/day 5 days a week up to 60 Gy) with carboplatin 70 mg/m2 on days 1-5 and 21-25 inclusive. Patients either received RCT alone (n = 14) or RCT + A at a dose of 500 mg prior to treatment with carboplatin (n = 25). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of grade 3/4 mucositis (P < 0.0001), acute grade 2 xerostomia (P < 0.0001) and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.012) in these patients who received A. The incidence of grade 2 late xerostomia at 12 months is 16.7% and the incidence of loss of taste is 0% in patients treated with A, as opposed to 54.5% and 63.6% in patients who received RCT alone. There were 18 (72%) complete responses (CR) and 6 (24%) partial responses (PR) in patients who received A, compared with 6 (43%) CR and 6 PR (43%) in patients treated with RCT alone. The disease-free survival at 12 months is 85.7% in the RCT + A arm and 78.6% in the RCT alone arm. The use of amifostine reduces the incidence and severity of acute and late toxicities associated with RCT whilst preserving antitumour activity.
At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma and hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules which underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and all studies had serious methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. For other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies no eligible studies were identified, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high quality research is needed.