Here we are, over 20 years since the publication of the Intergroup trial, and where do we stand with cisplatin scheduling? In the postoperative setting, the JCOG 1008 study should shut the door on bolus cisplatin for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. For definitive treatment, ConCERT, while it has many intrinsic flaws, makes a very reasonable argument that weekly cisplatin is at least as good, if not better, in both tolerability and even efficacy. This result is echoed by what we know from HN009 for HPV+ patients, and the two Indian randomized studies using 40 mg/m2 in HPV-negative patients. I deeply appreciate the history of bolus cisplatin, and it has improved the survival of many, many patients over the years. For certain patients, it may still be the right choice, especially if delivered for 2 cycles with accelerated radiotherapy to minimize its serious complications. But for the vast majority of patients, I see no reason to cling to the past. Acute renal failure can translate to some degree of chronic renal insufficiency, and the hearing loss and tinnitus can be very damaging to quality-of-life, even at grade 2… these are the side effects last for life. Both the JCOG and ConCERT trials show the difference in toxicity (and maybe efficacy) in the HPV-negative patient, and it’s a huge stretch to think that bolus cisplatin would be “better" for HPV positive patients, especially with the early results from HN009. It’s time to move past the bolus versus weekly question, and hopefully it’s done after HN009 is reported. Now we really need to focus on (a) the optimal systemic therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients, (b) improving the efficacy of systemic therapy/radiosensitization for non-favorable HPV positive patients (!), and (c) minimizing the side effects of systemic treatment for favorable HPV-positive patients.