A single-institution, randomized, pilot study evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin and methadone for patients undergoing chemoradiation for head and neck squamous cell cancer

Prophylactic gabapentin during head and neck cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This review was designed to compile the currently available evidence on the prophylactic use of gabapentin in the head and neck cancer patient population.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify articles related to the use of prophylactic gabapentin in patients undergoing head and neck cancer therapy. Candidate studies were screened for inclusion and a subsequent bias assessment was conducted by multiple reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted in cases in which the studies used compatible outcome measures.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for bias. Among the four small studies that examined pain prevention, 2 were positive and 2 were inconclusive. Three of the four studies examiniRDng opioid use noted less need for opioids in the treatment arm. Meta-analysis of the pertinent studies showed no difference in feeding tube placement (RD = 0.64%, 95%CI: (- 25.8%, 27.1%), p = 0.962) but substantially less weight loss among those in the treatment arm (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic gabapentin appears to be a promising treatment option for preventing pain, reducing opioids, and reducing weight loss in patients undergoing head and neck cancer therapy. However, the studies on the treatment to date are small and several have a substantial risk of bias.

Efficacy of Prophylactic High-Dose Gabapentin and Venlafaxine on Reducing Oral Mucositis Pain Among Patients Treated With Chemoradiation for Head and Neck Cancer: A Single-Institution, Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Given the paucity of level 1 evidence, the optimal regimen to control oral mucositis pain remains unclear. Although national guidelines allow consideration of prophylactic gabapentin, prior trials showed improved pain control with venlafaxine among patients with diabetic neuropathy. We sought to investigate the role of prophylactic high-dose gabapentin with venlafaxine to reduce oral mucositis pain among patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a single-institution, phase 2 randomized trial on nonmetastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with chemoradiation. Patients were randomized to either prophylactic gabapentin (3600 mg daily) with or without venlafaxine (150 mg daily). Primary endpoint was differences in pain levels at the end of chemoradiation. Secondary endpoint was toxicity profiles, quality of life changes, opioid use, and feeding tube placement. Differences between the 2 arms at multiple time points were evaluated using a generalized linear mixed regression model with Sidak correction.

RESULTS

Between May 2018 and March 2021, a total of 62 patients were enrolled and evaluable for analysis (n = 32 for the gabapentin alone arm, n = 30 for the gabapentin + venlafaxine arm). Over 90% of patients tolerated gabapentin well. Head and neck pain level showed a mean value of 45 (standard deviation, 23) and 43 (standard deviation, 21) for the gabapentin alone and the gabapentin + venlafaxine arms, respectively (P = .65). No statistically significant differences were observed in adverse events, opioid use, feeding tube placement, or quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of venlafaxine to prophylactic gabapentin did not result in improvements in pain control and quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer.

Risk of major adverse events associated with gabapentinoid and opioid combination therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The use of opioid-gabapentinoid combinations has increased, raising several safety concerns. However, meta-analysis studies focusing on this issue are limited. Objective: To evaluate the risk of central nervous system (CNS) depression, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, and mortality of combination therapy compared with those of opioid therapy and to explore the differences in the results according to study design and indications. Methods: Relevant studies were selected (published before 30 January 2022) by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. The pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the outcomes were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed according to study characteristics. Quality assessment was conducted using the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias in non-RCTs tool for non-randomized trials. Results: Adverse events were reported in 26 RCTs and 7 non-RCTs, and mortality was reported in 10 non-RCTs. Compared to opioid therapy, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, and respiratory depression in combination therapy significantly increased in non-RCTs (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.82-5.85; OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.51-6.50; OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.24, respectively), and a similar trend for dizziness and cognitive dysfunction was also identified in the RCT analysis, although the difference was not significant. Combination therapy for cancer pain was associated with the highest risk of sedation in subgroup analysis. Combination therapy significantly decreased the risk of GI adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, and constipation. The mortality risk associated with combination therapy was higher than that associated with opioid therapy (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.26-6.05). Conclusion: Opioid-gabapentinoid combination therapy could be associated with an increased risk of CNS depression and mortality, despite tolerable GI adverse events. These data suggest that combination therapy requires close monitoring of CNS depression, especially in cancer patients. Caution is needed in interpreting the clinical meanings owing to the lack of risk difference in respiratory depression in the RCT-only analysis and the absence of RCT or prospective studies investigating mortality.

Pharmacological Management of Neuropathic Pain after Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: Neuropathic pain (NP) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients represents a treatment challenge. Most studies investigating drugs against NP are conducted in patients suffering with diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, while data are limited in cancer pain management. Additionally, regarding cancer therapy-related NP, most of the studies do not focus on HNC patients. The aim of this review is to identify the studies on systematically administered medication for NP management that included HNC patients under radiotherapy. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov on 30 October 2021. The medical subject heading (MeSH) terms were (“head and neck cancer” OR “tumor”) AND “neuropathic pain” AND “medication” AND “radiotherapy.” The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used for quality assessment. Results: The search identified 432 articles. Three more articles were identified after searching the reference lists of the retrieved articles. A total of 10 articles met the eligibility inclusion criteria and were included in this review; 6 on gabapentin, 1 on pregabalin, 1 on nortriptyline, 1 on methadone, and 1 on ketamine. Statistically significant results in pain reduction compared to placebo or standard pain medication were found in the studies on pregabalin (p = 0.003), methadone (p = 0.03), ketamine (p = 0.012), and in two out of six gabapentin studies (p < 0.004). Two of the studies (both concerning gabapentin) had no comparison arm. Conclusions: Treatments including pregabalin, methadone, ketamine, and gabapentin were found to provide pain relief against HNC NP. While there is a plethora of pharmacological treatments available for the management of NP, only a few studies have been conducted regarding the pharmacological management of therapy-related NP in HNC patients. More studies should be conducted regarding the pharmacological approaches in HNC therapy-related NP so that specific treatment algorithms can be developed.

Effectiveness of gabapentin in reducing opioid requirements after radiation in head and neck cancer in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin has been shown to reduce opioid use in head and neck cancer patients. Here, we examine the efficacy of prophylactic gabapentin at reducing opioid use in these patients at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients receiving radiation was performed, using patients from our previous study as controls. Risk factors for opioid use at 3 and 6 months were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 53/185 patients were treated with gabapentin, 39.6% of which took opioids at 3 months vs. 58.3% in the non-gabapentin cohort (p = 0.021). Gabapentin was independently associated with less opioid use on multivariate analysis at 3 months (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.9). Gastrostomy tube dependence and pretreatment opioid use were associated with chronic opioid use despite gabapentin.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin is effective at expediting opioid tapering in head and neck cancer patients who are not gastrostomy tube dependent or taking opioids pretreatment.

Disadvantaged Subgroups Within the Global Head and Neck Cancer Population: How Can We Optimize Care?

Within the global head and neck cancer population, there are subgroups of patients with poorer cancer outcomes independent from tumor characteristics. In this article, we review three such groups. The first group comprises patients with nasopharyngeal cancer in low- and middle-income countries where access to high-volume, well-resourced radiotherapy centers is limited. We discuss a recent study that is aiming to improve outcomes through the instigation of a comprehensive radiotherapy quality assurance program. The second group comprises patients with low socioeconomic status in a high-income country who experience substantial financial toxicity, defined as financial hardship for patients due to health care costs. We review causes and consequences of financial toxicity and discuss how it can be mitigated. The third group comprises older patients who may poorly tolerate and not benefit from intensive standard-of-care treatment. We discuss the role of geriatric assessment, particularly in relation to the use of chemotherapy. Through better recognition and understanding of disadvantaged groups within the global head and neck cancer population, we will be better placed to instigate the necessary changes to improve outcomes and quality of life for patients with head and neck cancer.

Referral Patterns of Outpatient Palliative Care among the Head and Neck Cancer Population

Introduction Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) experience unique physical and psychosocial challenges that impact their health and quality of life. Early implementation of palliative care has been shown to improve various health care outcomes.

Objective The aim of the present study was to evaluate the patterns of referral of patients with HNC to outpatient palliative care as they relate to utilization of resources and end-of-life discussions.

Methods We performed a retrospective review of 245 patients with HNC referred to outpatient palliative care services at two Louisiana tertiary care centers from June 1, 2014, to October 1, 2019. The control group consisted of those that were referred but did not follow-up. Reasons for referral were obtained, and outcome measures such as emergency department (ED) visits, hospital readmissions, and advance care planning (ACP) documentation were assessed according to predictive variables.

Results There were 177 patients in the treatment group and 68 in the control group. Patients were more likely to follow up to outpatient palliative care services if referred for pain management. Hospital system, prior inpatient palliative care, and number of outpatient visits were associated with an increased likelihood for ED visits and hospital readmissions. Those in the palliative care treatment group were also more likely to have ACP discussions.

Conclusion Early implementation of outpatient palliative care among patients with HNC can initiate ACP discussions. However, there are discrepancies in referral reasons to palliative care and continued existing barriers to its effective utilization.

Randomized Phase 3, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study of Prophylactic Gabapentin for the Reduction of Oral Mucositis Pain During the Treatment of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether prophylactic gabapentin usage in patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (chemoRT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) improves treatment-related oral mucositis pain, opioid use, and feeding tube (FT) placement.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This double-blind, randomized phase 3 study for patients with locally advanced OPC undergoing chemoRT randomly allocated patients to prophylactic gabapentin (600 mg thrice daily) or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in Patient-Reported Oral Mucositis Symptom (PROMS) scores over the entire treatment period (baseline to 6 weeks post-radiation therapy [RT] follow-up) with higher scores indicating worse outcomes. Opioid requirements, FT placement, and other patient-reported quality of life (QOL) metrics (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck [FACT-HN] and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]) were assessed. Lower scores suggested poorer QOL with the FACT-HN questionnaire, and higher scores suggested worse outcomes with the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, weekly during RT, and at 6 weeks post-RT follow-up. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to detect differences in PROMS scores and change in opioid use from baseline. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare averages for the other secondary endpoints. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Treatment arms were well balanced overall, including T and N staging and dosimetric variables. There were 58 patients analyzed. No significant difference was found in PROMS scores (mean 29.1, standard deviation [SD] 22.5 vs 20.1, SD 16.8 for gabapentin vs placebo, respectively, P = .11). The FACT-HN functional well-being index had a significant decrease in scores from baseline to follow-up in the gabapentin arm (median -6, interquartile range [IQR] -10.0 to -0.5 vs -1, IQR -5.5 to 3.0, P = .03). PRO-CTCAE scores increased significantly at follow-up for gabapentin (median 6.5, IQR 3.5-11.8 vs 1, IQR -2.0 to 6.0, P = .01). There was no significant difference in average or change in opioid use. FT placement was significantly higher in the gabapentin arm (62.1% vs 20.7%, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that prophylactic gabapentin is not effective in improving treatment-related oral mucositis symptoms in a select population of patients with OPC undergoing definitive chemoRT.

Overcoming Barriers to Radiation Oncology Access in Low-Resource Settings in the United States

Providing high-quality radiation therapy in medically underserved, low-resource environments can be challenging in the United States. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology 2020 Annual Meeting, the American Society for Radiation Oncology Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion hosted 4 radiation oncologists from both academic and community practices in an educational session. Speakers discussed creative ways to overcome barriers to equitable cancer care and outcomes for their vulnerable patient populations in both rural and urban settings. Successful tactics have included applying for state-sponsored grants, lobbying hospital leadership for equipment upgrades, implementing quality improvement programs specifically targeting the needs of the patient population, studying novel hypofractionation schedules, monitoring toxicities using wearable devices, and expanding transportation options.

Irradiation of the Normal Murine Tongue Causes Upregulation and Activation of Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) Ion Channels

Signal transduction at sensory neurons occurs via transmembrane flux of cations, which is largely governed by the transient receptor potential (TRP) family of ion channels. It is unknown whether TRP channel activation contributes to the pain that accompanies radiation-induced oral mucositis. This study sought to characterize changes in TRP channel expression and function that occur in the locally irradiated tissues and afferent neurons of mice. Female CD-1 mice received single high-dose (27 Gy) tongue irradiation, or sham irradiation. Animals were euthanized either before overt glossitis developed (days 1 and 5 postirradiation), when glossitis was severe (day 11), or after mice had recovered (days 21 and 45). Tongue irradiation caused upregulation of the Trpv1 gene in trigeminal ganglia (TG) neurons. Other TRP genes (Trpv2, Trpv4, Trpa1, Trpm8) and Gfrα3 (which acts upstream of several TRP channels) were also upregulated in TGs and/or tongue tissue, in response to radiation. Ex vivo calcium imaging experiments demonstrated that the proportions of TG neurons responding to histamine (an activator of TRPV1, TRPV4 and TRPA1), TNF-α (an activator of TRPV1, TRPV2 and TRPV4), and capsaicin (a TRPV1 agonist), were increased as early as one day after tongue irradiation; these changes persisted for at least 21 days. In a subsequent experiment, we found that genetic deletion of TRPV1 mitigated weight loss (a surrogate marker of pain severity) in mice with severe glossitis. The results intimate that various TRP channels, and TRPV1 in particular, should be explored as analgesic targets for patients experiencing pain after oral irradiation.

Temporal Trends in Opioid Prescribing Patterns Among Oncologists in the Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

In the wake of the US opioid epidemic, there have been efforts to curb opioid prescribing. However, it is unknown whether these efforts have affected prescribing among oncologists, whose patients often require opioids for symptom management. We investigated temporal patterns in opioid prescribing for Medicare beneficiaries among oncologists and nononcologists.

METHODS

We queried the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber dataset for all physicians between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. We used population-averaged multivariable negative binomial regression to estimate the association between time and per-provider opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing rate, defined as the annual number of drug claims (original prescriptions and refills) per beneficiary, among oncologists and nononcologists on a national and state level.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, the national opioid-prescribing rate declined by 20.7% (P < .001) among oncologists and 22.8% (P < .001) among non oncologists. During this time frame, prescribing of gabapentin increased by 5.9% (P < .001) and 23.1% (P < .001) among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Among palliative care providers, opioid prescribe increased by 15.3% (P < .001). During the 5-year period, 43 states experienced a decrease (P < .05) in opioid prescribing among oncologists, and in 5 states, opioid prescribing decreased more among oncologists than nononcologists (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2013 and 2017, the opioid-prescribing rate statistically significantly decreased nationwide among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Given similar declines in opioid prescribing among oncologists and nononcologists, there is concern that opioid-prescribing guidelines intended for the noncancer population are being applied inappropriately to patients with cancer and cancer survivors.

Financial Counseling Is Associated with Reduced Financial Difficulty Scores in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated with Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity (FT) can be devastating to cancer patients, and solutions are urgently needed. We investigated the impact of financial counseling (FC) on FT in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS

Via a single-institution database, we reviewed the charts of HNC patients who underwent definitive or post-operative radiotherapy, from October 2013 to December 2020. Of these patients, 387 had provided baseline and post-treatment information regarding financial difficulty. In July 2018, a dedicated financial counselor was provided for radiation therapy patients and we subsequently examined the impact of FC on financial difficulty scores.

RESULTS

Following the hiring of a dedicated financial counselor, there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients receiving FC (5.3% vs. 62.7%, p < 0.0001). Compared with baseline scores, patients who did not undergo FC had a significant increase in reported financial difficulty at the end of treatment (p = 0.002). On the other hand, there was no difference in pre- and post-treatment scores in patients who had received FC (p = 0.588). After adjusting for gender and nodal status with a multiple linear regression model, FC was significantly associated with change in financial difficulty (β = -0.204 ± 0.096, p = 0.035). On average, patients who received FC had a 0.2 units lower change in financial difficulty score as compared with those with the same gender and nodal stage but without FC.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing a dedicated financial counselor significantly increased the proportion of HNC receiving FC, resulting in the stabilization of financial difficulty scores post-treatment. Based on a multiple linear regression model, FC was independently associated with reduced financial difficulty. The employment of a financial counselor may be a viable, hospital-based approach to begin to address FT in HNC.

Intravenous fluids for pain management in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation

Background

Pain due to oral mucositis affects the majority of patients receiving chemoradiation (CRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC), and often results in dehydration. Anecdotally, intravenous (IV) fluids administered during treatment for the resultant dehydration was found to alleviate this pain. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effectiveness of IV fluids as a method pain management in this patient population.

Methods

Patients with oral mucositis pain, secondary to CRT for HNC, were given IV fluids according to standard clinic protocol. Patients were evaluated using orthostatic vital signs and prospectively surveyed pre- and post-IV fluid administration, which included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Difference in pain pre- and post-IV fluid administration was evaluated using a two-tailed paired Student’s t-test.

Results

Twenty-four patients with a total of 31 fluid administrations was available for analysis. Twenty-three patients were receiving or had recently completed CRT. One patient was receiving radiation alone. Six instances of fluid administration were excluded due to: refusal to complete the survey, concurrent pulmonary embolism, concurrent pain medication, and drug seeking behavior. Average pain score decreased from 6.5 [standard deviation (SD) 2.1] prior to IV fluids to 4.0 (SD 2.4) following fluid administration (P<0.001).

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first report directly correlating IV fluid administration with pain relief, even in the absence of orthostasis. Our findings indicate that in patients undergoing CRT for HNC, the use of IV fluids alone was effective in acutely and significantly reducing pain secondary to oral mucositis.

Narrative review of the management of oral mucositis during chemoradiation for head and neck cancer

Oral mucositis (OM) can be a significant problem for patients undergoing radiation or chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. In modern clinical trials, grade 3-4 OM can be seen in over 40% of patients and can cause a significant impact on their quality of life (QOL). Despite this fact, strategies for the prevention and treatment of OM vary widely, with options including both lifestyle modifications and pharmaceuticals. Here we evaluate and summarize the current clinical interventions for the management of radiation-induced OM. The majority of the current evidence focuses on reducing OM related pain. These agents are detailed over multiple clinical trials including treatment modalities such as: GC4419, doxepin mouthwash, diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid (DLA) mouthwash, gabapentin, and methadone. While several strategies have been employed to prevent radiation-induced OM, there is currently no strong evidence for the routine use of these agents in the clinic. After summarization of these treatments, we offer practical guidance for the treatment of OM in the clinic. We recommend a multiagent approach of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments including oral rinses, home humidification, escalating doses of gabapentin, doxepin or DLA mouthwash, over the counter analgesics, and lastly methadone. These interventions are tailored to address the expected increase of severity of symptoms during the course of head and neck radiotherapy.

Opioid therapy vs. multimodal analgesia in head and neck Cancer (OPTIMAL-HN): study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Background

Radiation-induced mucositis (RIM) pain confers substantial morbidity for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy alone (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), often reducing treatment compliance. However, no standard currently exists for the treatment of RIM, and high dose opioid therapy, with its associated side effects and increased risk for chronic opioid use, remains the cornerstone of HNC pain management. The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare multimodal analgesia using analgesic medications with different mechanisms of action, to the institutional standard of opioid analgesia alone, in order to ascertain the optimal analgesic regimen for the management of RIM pain in HNC patients.

Methods

In this open-label, single-institution, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial, sixty-two patients with mucosal head and neck malignancies treated with curative-intent radiation will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by RT or CRT, between Arm 1: opioid analgesia alone as per the institutional standard, or Arm 2: multimodal analgesia using Pregabalin, Acetaminophen, and Naproxen, in addition to opioids, if required. The primary endpoint is the average 11-Numeric Rating Scale (11-NRS) score for pain during the last week of radiation treatment. Secondary endpoints include: average weekly opioid use, duration of opioid requirement, average daily 11-NRS score for pain, average weekly opioids dispensed, quality of life, hospitalizations for analgesic medication-induced complications, time to feeding tube insertion, weight loss, toxicity, treatment interruptions, and death within 3 months of completing RT treatment. Patients are eligible once analgesia is required for moderate 4/10 pain.

Discussion

This study will assess the efficacy and safety of multimodal analgesia and its impact on opioid requirements, clinical outcomes, and quality of life, as a potential new standard treatment for RIM pain in HNC patients undergoing definitive RT or CRT.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04221165. Date of registration: January 9, 2020. Appendix 2 reports the World Health Organization trial registration dataset.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00735-0.

Risk of Chronic Opioid Use After Radiation for Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Opioid addiction is a major public health concern. Chronic opioid use (COU) patterns after radiation for head and neck cancer (HNC) remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of COU and to identify its risk factors in patients with HNC undergoing curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Methods and Materials

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, queried from dates of inception until January 2020. COU was defined as persistent use of opioids ≥ 3 months after treatment completion. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² value.

Results

Seven retrospective studies, reporting on 1841 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 59.4 (range: 56.0-62.0) years with 1343 (72.9%) men and 498 (27.1%) women. Primary tumor locations included oropharynx (n = 891, 48.4%), oral cavity (n = 533, 29.0%), larynx (n = 93, 5.1%), hypopharynx (n = 32, 1.7%), and nasopharynx (n = 29, 1.6%). Eight hundred fifty-four (46.0%) patients had stage I/II and 952 (50.3%) had stage III-IV disease. Three hundred one (16.3%) patients had RT alone, 738 (40.1%) received CRT, and 594 (32.3%) underwent surgery followed by adjuvant RT/CRT. The proportion of patients with HNC who developed COU post-RT/CRT was 40.7% at 3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.6%-61.7%; I² = 97.1%) and 15.5% at 6 months (95% CI: 7.3%-29.7%; I² = 94.3%). Oropharyngeal malignancies had the highest rate of COU based on primary tumor location (46.6%; 95% CI: 30.8%-63.1%; P < .0001). High proportions of COU were found in patients with a history of psychiatric disorder(s) (61.7%), former/current alcohol abuse (53.9%), and opioid requirements before radiation treatment (51.6%; P = .035).

Conclusions

A significant proportion of patients who undergo RT for HNC suffer from COU. High-risk factors for COU include an oropharyngeal primary, history of psychiatric disorder, former/current alcohol abuse, and pre-treatment opioid use. New strategies to mitigate COU are needed.

Implications of Treatment Modality on Chronic Opioid Use Following Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer

Objective

To investigate the relationship between treatment modality and chronic opioid use in a large cohort of patients with head and neck cancer.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Single academic center.

Methods

There were 388 patients with head and neck cancer treated between January 2011 and December 2017 who met inclusion criteria. Clinical risk factors for opioid use at 3 and 6 months were determined with univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

The prevalence of opioid use was 43.0% at 3 months and 33.2% at 6 months. On multivariate analysis, primary chemoradiation (odds ratio [OR], 4.04; 95% CI, 1.91-8.55) and surgery with adjuvant chemoradiation (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.09-5.26) were associated with opioid use at 3 months. Additional risk factors at that time point included pretreatment opioid use (OR, 7.63; 95% CI, 4.09-14.21) and decreasing age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). At 6 months, primary chemoradiation (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.34-4.28), pretreatment opioid use (OR, 5.86; 95% CI, 3.30-10.38), current tobacco use (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.18-3.40), and psychiatric disorder (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.02-3.14) were associated with opioid use.

Conclusion

Of the patients who receive different treatment modalities, those receiving primary chemoradiation are independently at highest risk for chronic opioid use. Other risk factors include pretreatment opioid use, tobacco use, and a psychiatric disorder. In an effort to reduce their risk of chronic opioid use, preventative strategies should be especially directed to these patients.

Chronic Pain Management in Head and Neck Oncology

Pain is epidemic in patients with head and neck cancer. Providers involved in the care of patients with head and neck cancer should be able to describe the common pain syndromes experienced by these patients, identify patients at risk of pain, and provide multimodal treatment of chronic pain. Treatment of chronic pain encompasses analgesic medications; adjuvant pharmacotherapy, including antidepressants and anticonvulsants; interventional techniques; as well as integrative medicine.

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Treatment is complex for patients with head and neck (H&N) cancers with specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guiding treatment decision-making. Treatment planning for H&N cancers involves a multidisciplinary team of experts. This article describes supportive care recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers, as well as the rationale supporting a new section on imaging recommendations for patients with H&N cancers. This article also describes updates to treatment recommendations for patients with very advanced H&N cancers and salivary gland tumors, specifically systemic therapy recommendations.

Matched pair analysis to evaluate the impact of hospitalization during radiation therapy as an early marker of survival in head and neck cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Complications from radiotherapy (RT) alone or combined with surgery and/or chemotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) sometimes necessitate hospitalization. Our aim was to evaluate the frequency, cause, and survival outcomes associated with hospitalizations in patients undergoing RT for HNC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a retrospective single-institution database, we reviewed hospitalization records of HNC patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center with definitive or post-operative RT between 2003 and 2017. Patients who were admitted during treatment and within 90-days post-RT were identified. Multivariate analyses, Kaplan-Meier statistics, and analysis on propensity score matching were performed to obtain matched-pair, after matching baseline characteristics, such as age, gender, smoking, tumor staging, p16 status, and treatments received.

RESULTS

839 patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 34.8 months (Interquartile range [IQR] 15.6-64.8). 595 (71%) received definitive RT and 244 (29%) received adjuvant RT. Chemotherapy was used in 671 patients (80%). 171 patients (20%) had at least one hospitalization. Dehydration (40%) and fever (29%) were the most frequent causes of admission. Hospitalized patients had significantly worse overall survival (OS) (Hazards ratio [HR] 1.61, 95% CI 1.26-2.07, p < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.95, p = 0.02). 163 matched pairs had median follow-up of 58.6 months (IQR 37.6-85.0). Median OS was 34.5 months (IQR 13.3-58.0) for hospitalized versus 44.2 months (IQR 20.3-78.7) for non-hospitalized patients (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study reveals significantly worse OS and CSS for patients hospitalized during RT for HNC. Hospitalization may be an early marker for worse survival.

Opioid use in patients undergoing treatment for oral cavity cancer

OBJECTIVE

In the context of the opioid epidemic, there is value in examining the use of opioids in specific cancer patient cohorts. We analyzed opioid use in patients undergoing adjuvant therapy for oral cavity cancer to define the incidence of new persistent use beyond 3 months.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Comprehensive academic cancer center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective IRB-approved analysis of opioid use in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy with or with concurrent systemic therapy for surgically resected oral cavity cancer between 2003 and 2016. Factors associated with opioid use were evaluated by Chi-square test and one-way ANOVA. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 77 identified patients, 10 (13%) patients received opioid prescriptions at 3 months or greater following completion of radiotherapy. Patients who were opioid naive prior to surgery required significantly fewer opioid prescriptions than intermittent or chronic opioid users. No specific factors were associated with new persistent opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy for oral cavity cancer who required opioids for cancer treatment related pain are at minimal risk for new dependency. Judicious pain management should be applied for patients with a history of prior opioid use. Larger patient cohorts will be needed to identify patient, disease, and treatment characteristics associated with new persistent use given its limited incidence.