Survival outcomes for postoperative chemoradiation in intermediate-risk oral tongue cancers

Effect of Prognostic Factors of Postoperative Radiotherapy in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A SEER-Based Study

Objective: The treatment of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is dominated by surgery and radiochemotherapy, but its prognosis is still unsatisfactory, with around five tenths of 5-year survival. This study aimed to assess the prognosis of OSCC patients treated with surgery with and without postoperative radiotherapy. Study Design: Retrospective study. Methods: The clinicopathological information and follow-up datasets on patients with OSCC (T1-4 and/or N+) registered from 2010 to 2015 were downloaded from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Totally 7231 enrolled subjects were divided into a case group (surgery alone, n = 4167) and a control group (surgery combined with postoperative radiotherapy, n = 3064). One-to-one matching was performed by propensity score matching to make the baseline data comparable between the 2 subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) of various clinicopathological features. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to plot the survival curves. Results: The majority of patients in case group were tumor stage I (n = 2569, 61.7%), whereas most patients in control group were stages III to IV (n = 2360, 77.1%). In the case group, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS; 76%, 59.5%, 53.7%) were significantly lower than those of the control group (85.1%, 64.1%, 55.8%; P < .0001). Similarly, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) of the case group (80.2%, 66.6%, 63.3%) were significantly lower than those of the control group (87.2%, 69.3%, 63.9%, respectively; P < .0001). Cox multivariate analysis indicated that age, differentiation, clinical stage, and tumor-node-metastasis stage affected the prognosis of OSCC patients, while postoperative radiotherapy was a protective factor (OS: HR = 0.649, P < .001; CSS: HR = 0.702, P < .001). Conclusions: Postoperative radiation was an independent protective factor, hence, the combination of surgery plus radiotherapy is more beneficial for the survival of patients with OSCC, particularly for advanced cases.

Adding Concomitant Chemotherapy to Postoperative Radiotherapy in Oral Cavity Carcinoma with Minor Risk Factors: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

When presenting with major pathological risk factors, adjuvant radio-chemotherapy for oral cavity cancers (OCC) is recommended, but the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy (POCRT) when only minor pathological risk factors are present is controversial. A systematic review following the PICO-PRISMA methodology (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021267498) was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Studies assessing outcomes of POCRT in patients with solely minor risk factors (perineural invasion or lymph vascular invasion; pN1 single; DOI ≥ 5 mm; close margin < 2−5 mm; node-positive level IV or V; pT3 or pT4; multiple lymph nodes without ENE) were evaluated. A meta-analysis technique with a single-arm study was performed. Radiotherapy was combined with chemotherapy in all studies. One study only included patients treated with POCRT. In the other 12 studies, patients were treated with only PORT (12,883 patients) and with POCRT (10,663 patients). Among the patients treated with POCRT, the pooled 3 year OS rate was 72.9% (95%CI: 65.5−79.2%); the pooled 3 year DFS was 70.9% (95%CI: 48.8−86.2%); and the pooled LRFS was 69.8% (95%CI: 46.1−86.1%). Results are in favor of POCRT in terms of OS but not significant for DFS and LRFS, probably due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and a combination of different prognostic factors.

What has the National Cancer Database taught us about oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma?

The wealth of data in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) has allowed numerous studies investigating patient, disease, and treatment-related factors in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC); however, to date, no summation of these studies has been performed. The aim of this study was to provide a concise review of the NCDB studies on OCSCC, with the hopes of providing a framework for future, novel studies aimed at enhancing our understanding of clinical parameters related to OCSCC. Two databases were searched, and 27 studies published between 2002 and 2020 were included. The average sample size was 13,776 patients (range 356-50,896 patients). Four areas of research focus were identified: demographic and socioeconomic status, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. This review highlights the impact of age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on the prognosis and management of OCSCC, describes the prognostic factors, and details the modalities and indications for neck dissection and adjuvant therapy in OCSCC. In conclusion, the NCDB is a very valuable resource for clinicians and researchers involved in the management of OCSCC, offering an incomparable perspective on a large dataset of patients. Future developments regarding hospital information management, review of data accuracy and completeness, and wider accessibility will help clinicians to improve the care of patients affected by OCSCC.

Machine Learning-Guided Adjuvant Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

Postoperative chemoradiation is the standard of care for cancers with positive margins or extracapsular extension, but the benefit of chemotherapy is unclear for patients with other intermediate risk features.

Objective

To evaluate whether machine learning models could identify patients with intermediate-risk head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who would benefit from chemoradiation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016. Patients had resected disease and underwent adjuvant radiotherapy. Analysis was performed from October 1, 2019, through September 1, 2020. Patients were selected from the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based registry that captures data from more than 70% of newly diagnosed cancers in the United States. Three machine learning survival models were trained using 80% of the cohort, with the remaining 20% used to assess model performance.

Exposures

Receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation or radiation alone.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients who received treatment recommended by machine learning models were compared with those who did not. Overall survival for treatment according to model recommendations was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included frequency of recommendation for chemotherapy and chemotherapy benefit in patients recommended for chemoradiation vs radiation alone.

Results

A total of 33 527 patients (24 189 [72%] men; 28 036 [84%] aged ≤70 years) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up in the validation data set was 43.2 (interquartile range, 19.8-65.5) months. DeepSurv, neural multitask logistic regression, and survival forest models recommended chemoradiation for 17 589 (52%), 15 917 (47%), and 14 912 patients (44%), respectively. Treatment according to model recommendations was associated with a survival benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.85; P < .001) for DeepSurv, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.90; P < .001) for neural multitask logistic regression, and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P = .01) for random survival forest models. No survival benefit for chemotherapy was seen for patients recommended to receive radiotherapy alone.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that machine learning models may identify patients with intermediate risk who could benefit from chemoradiation. These models predicted that approximately half of such patients have no added benefit from chemotherapy.

Patterns of care and survival impact of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer with intermediate-risk features

BACKGROUND

Survival outcomes for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (aCRT) and adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) were compared in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) with intermediate-risk features.

METHODS

We identified 2164 patients with OPSCC in the National Cancer Database without positive margins or extracapsular extension and with at least one intermediate-risk feature: pT3-T4 disease, ≥two positive lymph nodes, level IV/V nodal disease, and/or lymphovascular invasion. We assessed predictors of aCRT use and covariables impacting overall survival.

RESULTS

aCRT was commonly used for both human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive (62.0%) and HPV-negative (64.3%) patients with OPSCC. Higher N stage, level IV/V neck disease, and younger age strongly predicted aCRT utilization. There was no significant survival benefit associated with aCRT vs aRT in HPV-positive (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.38; P = .71) or HPV-negative (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51-1.10; P = .15) disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high rates of utilization, aCRT is not associated with better survival vs aRT for OPSCC with intermediate-risk features, including HPV-negative tumors.

Survival benefit of post-operative chemotherapy for intermediate-risk advanced stage head and neck cancer differs with patient age

OBJECTIVES

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines state that surgical patients with advanced-stage head and neck cancer (HNC) and risk factors other than extranodal extension (ENE) or positive margins should consider post-operative chemoradiation (POCRT). The goal of our study was to determine if POCRT is associated with overall survival (OS) compared with post-operative radiation therapy (PORT) and whether this varies with patient age.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 5319 adult patients with stage III-IV HNC who received primary surgical treatment with POCRT or PORT in the National Cancer Database (2010-2013). Patients with distant metastases, ENE, and positive margins were excluded. Intermediate risk features included pT3-T4, pN2-N3 disease, and lymphovascular invasion. Our main outcome was overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis included chi-squared tests and Cox proportional hazards regressions.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis for non-oropharyngeal cancer patients <70 years, POCRT was associated with improved OS for T1-4N2-3 disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.58-0.93) but was not associated with OS for T3-4N0-1 disease (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.71-1.19). For patients ≥70 years, POCRT was not associated with improved OS for patients with T1-4N2-3 disease (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.79-1.86) or T3-4N0-1 disease (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65). For oropharyngeal cancer patients with HPV-positive disease, POCRT was associated with decreased OS (HR, 9.52; 95% CI, 2.38-38.08).

CONCLUSION

Chemoradiation may offer a survival benefit for non-oropharyngeal intermediate-risk advanced-stage HNC patients <70 years of age with T1-4N2-3 disease, but may not benefit those ≥70 years of age or those with T3-4N0-1 disease.