Veerasarn 2006.
Methods | Location: Thailand Number of centres: 5 Date of recruitment: February 1999 to September 2001 |
|
Participants | Inclusion criteria: histological proven squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck region; ECOG performance statue 0‐2; adequate bone marrow, liver and renal functions; age 18‐70 years; no prior definite/radical surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or biological response modifier; no evidence of distant metastasis; life expectancy ≥ 12 months; able to comply with a follow‐up schedule; weight loss ≤ 10% in previous 3 months Exclusion criteria: concomitant malignant disease in other parts of the body; active uncontrolled infection; pregnant or lactating women; medical or psychiatric illness that compromise the patient's ability to complete the study; concomitant use of chemotherapy Age: amifostine: mean 55 (23‐70); control: mean 52 (23 to 69) Gender: amifostine: 24 M, 8 F; control: 27 M, 8 F Cancer type: oral cavity, oropharynx, nasopharynx, larynx, hypopharynx Radiotherapy: standard fractionation (2 Gy, 5 days a week). Duration: 5 to 8 weeks. Definite RT = 70 Gy. Postoperative RT = 50 Gy. Amifostine group: definite RT = 15; postoperative RT = 17. Control group: definite RT = 18; postoperative RT = 17 Chemotherapy: none Number randomised: 67 (amifostine 32, control 35) Number evaluated: 62 (amifostine 32, control 30) |
|
Interventions |
Amifostine versus no intervention Amifostine: (Ethyol) (200 mg/m²) IV (3 to 5 min), 30 min before RT. 5 consecutive days a week for 5 to 7 weeks (during RT) Control: nothing |
|
Outcomes | Xerostomia: 1) questionnaire (6 questions) (RTOG/EORTC acute and late radiation morbidity scoring criteria) for xerostomia: dryness of mouth, oral comfort, quality of sleep, ability to speak, ability to chew and swallow and ability to wear dentures (average score 0 to 10: 0 = normal); 2) RTOG 0 to 4 scale ‐ grade 2 and above Salivary flow rates: unstimulated and stimulated whole saliva collection (mg/5 min) and scintigraphy Adverse effects: nausea, vomiting, hypotension Survival data: disease‐free survival Other oral symptoms: mucositis (RTOG grade 2‐3) Other oral signs: not reported Quality of life: not reported Patient satisfaction: not reported Cost data: not reported Timing of assessments: weekly during RT (for 6 weeks), then at end of RT and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after RT; survival at 24 months after RT |
|
Funding | Source of funding: unclear | |
Trial registration | Not registered or published | |
Sample size calculation presented | No | |
Notes | Information on randomisation, and numbers and SDs from correspondence | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Random number table |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Central allocation |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) patients/carers | High risk | Amifostine versus no intervention |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) outcome assessment | High risk | Xerostomia is subjective measure |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: "We excluded 5 cases in the control as they did not have salivary gland function, or had severe salivary gland impairment" Comment: we are assuming that there were no other dropouts (assessment made on 32 in amifostine, 30 in control) |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Xerostomia and adverse events reported |
Other bias | Low risk | No other sources of bias are apparent |