Development of surgical quality-control mechanisms in large-scale prospective trials: head and neck intergroup report

Eugene Nicholas Myers' Lecture on Head and Neck Cancer, 2020: The Surgeon as a Prognostic Factor in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery

This paper is a transcript of the 29 th Eugene N. Myers, MD International Lecture on Head and Neck Cancer presented at the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) in 2020. By the end of the 19 th century, the survival rate in treated patients was 10%. With the improvements in surgical techniques, currently, about two thirds of patients survive for > 5 years. Teamwork and progress in surgical reconstruction have led to advancements in ablative surgery; the associated adjuvant treatments have further improved the prognosis in the last 30 years. However, prospective trials are lacking; most of the accumulated knowledge is based on retrospective series and some real-world data analyses. Current knowledge on prognostic factors plays a central role in an efficient treatment decision-making process. Although the influence of most tumor- and patient-related prognostic factors in head and neck cancer cannot be changed by medical interventions, some environmental factors-including treatment, decision-making, and quality-can be modified. Ideally, treatment strategy decisions should be taken in dedicated multidisciplinary team meetings. However, evidence suggests that surgeons and hospital volume and specialization play major roles in patient survival after initial or salvage head and neck cancer treatment. The metrics of surgical quality assurance (surgical margins and nodal yield) in neck dissection have a significant impact on survival in head and neck cancer patients and can be influenced by the surgeon's expertise. Strategies proposed to improve surgical quality include continuous performance measurement, feedback, and dissemination of best practice measures.

Quality assurance in clinical trials

From the literature that was initially searched by electronic databases using the keywords quality, quality control and quality assurance in combination with clinical trials, surgery, pathology, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and data management, a comprehensive review is given on what quality assurance means, the various methods used for quality assurance in different aspects of clinical trials and the impact of this quality assurance on outcome and every day practice.

The importance of quality assurance in surgical oncology

AIMS

The aims were to review the existing methods of quality assurance in surgical oncology and to determine a relationship between surgery-related factors and the variety in outcomes in the treatment of solid cancers.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed by searching Medline and Cancerlit databases.

RESULTS

Wide variations were found in virtually all tumour types. Clear evidence was found that an improvement in the quality of the surgical procedure could have major implications for the prognosis and quality of life of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the need for strict quality control procedures in surgical oncology and might imply a considerable change in cancer treatment strategies, because the routine use of adjuvant therapies could be questioned.

Surgical reporting instrument designed to improve outcome data in head and neck cancer trials

Precise reporting of surgical staging and operative data in multi-institutional protocol studies could provide a number of benefits: 1) fewer cases would be discarded because of inadequate data, 2) staff review time would be reduced, 3) there would be assurance that participating surgeons were performing similar operations on similar tumors, 4) the resulting precision in stratification should improve the likelihood of achieving accurate comparison of the treatment options under study, and 5) by comparing the surgical parameters with local-regional control of disease, the specific factors that have a statistically significant correlation with outcome could be identified. This paper presents a computer-based, anatomically oriented reporting instrument that should improve the reliability of surgical data available to multi-institutional protocols.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: report on Intergroup Study 0034

To test the efficacy of sequential chemotherapy as an adjuvant to surgery and postoperative radiotherapy for patients with locally-advanced but operable squamous cell cancers of the head and neck region, a randomized clinical trial was conducted under the auspices of the Head and Neck Intergroup (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Southwest Oncology Group, Eastern Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Northern California Oncology Group, and Southeast Group). Eligible patients had completely resected tumors of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx. They were then randomized to receive either three cycles of cis-platinum and 5-FU chemotherapy followed by postoperative radiotherapy (CT/RT) or postoperative radiotherapy alone (RT). Patients were categorized as having either "low-risk" or "high-risk" treatment volumes depending on whether the surgical margin was greater than or equal to 5 mm, there was extracapsular nodal extension, and/or there was carcinoma-in-situ at the surgical margins. Radiation doses of 50-54 Gy were given to "low-risk" volumes and 60 Gy were given to "high-risk" volumes. A total of 442 analyzable patients were entered into this study with the mean-time-at-risk being 45.7 months at the time of the present analysis. The 4-year actuarial survival rate was 44% on the RT arm and 48% on the CT/RT arm (p = n.s.). Disease-free survival at 4 years was 38% on the RT arm compared to 46% on the CT/RT arm (p = n.s.). At 4 years the local/regional failure rate was 29% vs. 26% for the RT and CT/RT arms, respectively (p = n.s.). The incidence of first failure in the neck nodes was 10% on the RT arm compared to 5% on the CT/RT arm (p = 0.03 without adjusting for multiple testing) and the overall incidence of distant metastases was 23% on the RT arm compared to 15% on the CT/RT arm (p = 0.03). Treatment related toxicity is discussed in detail, but, in general, the chemotherapy was satisfactorily tolerated and did not affect the ability to deliver the subsequent radiotherapy. Implications for future clinical trials are discussed.