Search

Simple Summary: This study investigates the outcomes of cetuximab combination therapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer patients treated at a hospital in Southern Taiwan. A total of 67 patients were retrospectively analyzed, comparing two treatment regimens: CPF4, administered every four weeks during hospitalization, and CPF2, administered every two weeks as an outpatient procedure. The results showed a progression-free survival advantage for patients aged 46–60 years treated with CPF2, though no significant differences in overall survival were observed between CPF4 and CPF2 in any age group. CPF2 demonstrated practical benefits, including reduced hospitalization, lower infection risks, and improved patient convenience, making it a preferred choice for certain patients. These findings highlight the potential impact of age on treatment responses and the importance of balancing clinical outcomes with patient quality of life. Further large-scale studies are required to confirm these observations and refine treatment strategies. Background/Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of cetuximab combination therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer treated at a hospital in Southern Taiwan. Methods: This study analyzed a retrospective cohort of 67 patients who were treated between January 2020 and May 2024 with two cetuximab regimens, cetuximab combined with cisplatin and 5-Fu, which were administered every four weeks during hospitalization (CPF4) and every two weeks as outpatient treatment (CPF2), respectively. The clinical outcomes, including overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS), were compared across the treatment regimens and age groups using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: The median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% confidence interval, 7.8–14.5), with CPF2 showing a potential PFS advantage in patients aged 46–60 years (p = 0.049). No significant differences in overall survival were observed between CPF2 and CPF4. CPF2, which was administered in an outpatient setting, was associated with improved convenience, reduced hospitalization, and potentially lower risks of hospital-acquired infections. Conclusions: CPF2 exhibits practical advantages and comparable effectiveness, making it the preferred treatment regimen for eligible patients. Further studies with larger populations and molecular stratifications are needed to confirm these findings and develop better treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]