- In p16+ OPSCC, does any efficacy endpoint favor cetuximab-RT over cisplatin-RT?
- Best answer:
- No
- Why:
- Neither OS, PFS, nor LRC improved with cetuximab:
- All favored cisplatin PubMed+1
- Neither OS, PFS, nor LRC improved with cetuximab:
- When to deviate:
- Only with absolute cisplatin ineligibility PMC:
- Discuss RT + cetuximab (Bonner) or altered-fractionation RT
- Only with absolute cisplatin ineligibility PMC:
- Pitfalls:
- Extrapolating the Bonner 2006 RT + cetuximab vs RT-alone result:
- To cisplatin-eligible patients is incorrect New England Journal of Medicine
- Bonner:
- 5-yr OS 45.6% with RT + cetuximab vs 36.4% RT alone:
- Not a comparison to cisplatin
- 5-yr OS 45.6% with RT + cetuximab vs 36.4% RT alone:
- Under-discussing ototoxicity / renal toxicity risks with cisplatin:
- Document shared decision-making when deviating
- Extrapolating the Bonner 2006 RT + cetuximab vs RT-alone result:
- Numbers:
RTOG – 1016 (NI trial, Lancet 2019):
5-yr OS: 84.6% cisplatin vs 77.9% cetuximab (non-inferiority failed; cetuximab inferior)
PFS and LRC: both significantly worse with cetuximab (PFS HR ≈ 1.72; LRF HR ≈2.05) Oral Cancer Foundation+1
- Best answer:
De-ESCALaTE HPV (Lancet 2019):
~ 2-yr OS: 97.5% cisplatin vs 89.4% cetuximab (HR ~ 5.0)
Recurrence: higher with cetuximab (HR ~ 3.4)
Severe toxicity rates overall similar — no compensatory safety win.

