1
|
Parmar A, Macluskey M, Mc Goldrick N, Conway DI, Glenny AM, Clarkson JE, Worthington HV, Chan KK. Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 12:CD006386. [PMID: 34929047 PMCID: PMC8687638 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006386.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting. SEARCH METHODS An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary. MAIN RESULTS We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias. For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ambika Parmar
- Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | - David I Conway
- Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Janet E Clarkson
- Division of Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Helen V Worthington
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Kelvin Kw Chan
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lang P, Contreras J, Kalman N, Paterson C, Bahig H, Billfalk-Kelly A, Brennan S, Rock K, Read N, Venkatesan V, Sathya J, Mendez LC, MacNeil SD, Nichols AC, Fung K, Mendez A, Winquist E, Kuruvilla S, Stewart P, Warner A, Mitchell S, Theurer JA, Palma DA. Preservation of swallowing in resected oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: examining radiation volume effects (PRESERVE): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:196. [PMID: 32795322 PMCID: PMC7427897 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01636-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with resected oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) are often treated with adjuvant radiation (RT) ± concomitant chemotherapy based on pathological findings. Standard RT volumes include all surgically dissected areas, including the tumour bed and dissected neck. RT has significant acute and long-term toxicities including odynophagia, dysphagia, dermatitis and fibrosis. The goal of this study is to assess the rate of regional failure with omission of radiation to the surgically dissected pathologically node negative (pN0) hemi-neck(s) compared to historical control, and to compare oncologic outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life (QoL) profiles between standard RT volumes and omission of RT to the pN0 neck. METHODS This is a multicentre phase II study randomizing 90 patients with T1-4 N0-2 OCSCC with at least one pN0 hemi-neck in a 1:2 ratio between standard RT volumes and omission of RT to the pN0 hemi-neck(s). Patients will be stratified based on overall nodal status (nodal involvement vs. no nodal involvement) and use of concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is regional failure in the pN0 hemi-neck(s); we hypothesize that a 2-year regional recurrence of 20% or less will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include overall and progression-free survival, local recurrence, rate of salvage therapy, toxicity and QoL. DISCUSSION This study will provide an assessment of omission of RT to the dissected pN0 hemi-neck(s) on oncologic outcomes, QoL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03997643 . Date of registration: June 25, 2019, Current version: 2.0 on July 11 2020.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pencilla Lang
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada.
| | - Jessika Contreras
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Noah Kalman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
| | | | - Houda Bahig
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Sinead Brennan
- Saint Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Kathy Rock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Nancy Read
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Varagur Venkatesan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Jinka Sathya
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Lucas C Mendez
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - S Danielle MacNeil
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Anthony C Nichols
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kevin Fung
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Adrian Mendez
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eric Winquist
- Department of Medical Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sara Kuruvilla
- Department of Medical Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul Stewart
- Department of Medical Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Warner
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Sylvia Mitchell
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Julie A Theurer
- School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - David A Palma
- Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd. E, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ivaldi E, Di Mario D, Paderno A, Piazza C, Bossi P, Iacovelli NA, Incandela F, Locati L, Fallai C, Orlandi E. Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for early oral cavity cancer (pT1-2,N0-1): A review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2019; 143:67-75. [DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2018] [Revised: 06/20/2019] [Accepted: 08/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
|
4
|
Müller von der Grün J, Tahtali A, Ghanaati S, Rödel C, Balermpas P. Diagnostic and treatment modalities for patients with cervical lymph node metastases of unknown primary site - current status and challenges. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:82. [PMID: 28486947 PMCID: PMC5424363 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0817-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2017] [Accepted: 05/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Purpose This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and elucidate open questions for future clinical trials concerning diagnostics and treatment modalities for cervical cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Methods A literature search for head and neck CUP was performed with focus on diagnostics and therapies as well as molecular markers. Results High level evidence on CUP is limited. However, it seems that a consensus exists regarding the optimal diagnostic procedures. The correct implementation of biomarkers for patient stratification and treatment remains unclear. An even greater dispute dominates about the ideal treatment with publications ranging from sole surgery to surgery with postoperative bilateral radiotherapy with inclusion of the mucosa and concomitant chemotherapy. Conclusions Cervical CUP represents a very heterogeneous malignant disease. On this account many aspects concerning treatment optimization remain unclear, despite a considerable number of publications in the past. Future research in form of prospective randomized trials is needed in order to better define patient stratification criteria and enable tailored treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jens Müller von der Grün
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Aykut Tahtali
- Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Shahram Ghanaati
- Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Claus Rödel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.,German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Panagiotis Balermpas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. .,German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. .,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Frankfurt, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Barry CP, Wong D, Clark JR, Shaw RJ, Gupta R, Magennis P, Triantafyllou A, Gao K, Brown JS. Postoperative radiotherapy for patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma with intermediate risk of recurrence: A case match study. Head Neck 2017; 39:1399-1404. [PMID: 28452199 DOI: 10.1002/hed.24780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2016] [Revised: 10/13/2016] [Accepted: 02/09/2017] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) on recurrence and survival in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) of intermediate recurrence risk. METHODS Intermediate risk patients, defined as pT1, pT2, pN0, or pN1 with at least one adverse pathological feature (eg, lymphovascular/perineural invasion), were identified from the head and neck databases of the Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit and the Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute. Patients who received surgery and PORT were case matched with patients treated by surgery alone based on pN, pT, margins, and pathological features. RESULTS Ninety patients were matched into 45 pairs. There was significant improvement (P = .039) in locoregional control with PORT (84%) compared with surgery alone (60%), which was concentrated in the pN1 subgroup (P = .036), but not the pN0 subgroup (P = .331). CONCLUSION PORT significantly improves locoregional control for intermediate risk OSCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Conor P Barry
- Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.,Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Chris O Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,National Maxillofacial Unit, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Dublin Dental University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Daniel Wong
- Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom
| | - Jonathan R Clark
- Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Chris O Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Richard J Shaw
- Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.,Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom
| | - Ruta Gupta
- National Maxillofacial Unit, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Patrick Magennis
- Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom
| | - Asterios Triantafyllou
- Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom
| | - Kan Gao
- Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Chris O Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - James S Brown
- Liverpool Head and Neck Cancer Unit, Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.,Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Arosio AD, Pignataro L, Gaini RM, Garavello W. Neck lymph node metastases from unknown primary. Cancer Treat Rev 2016; 53:1-9. [PMID: 28027480 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2016] [Revised: 11/23/2016] [Accepted: 11/29/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Metastatic cervical carcinoma from unknown primary is a metastatic disease in the lymph nodes of the neck without any evidence of a primary tumour after appropriate investigation. The condition is rare and definite evidence is lacking for both diagnosis and treatment. In this review of the literature, we tried to draw some clinical indications based on the few available studies. We ultimately came to the following conclusions: (1) a thorough and accurate diagnostic work-up should be systematically offered. It includes accurate inspection with fibroscopy, CT or MRI, fine needle aspiration, panendoscopy and positron emission tomography, (2) Patients with low-volume neck disease, N1 and N2a stage and without extracapsular extension on histopathological examination should receive single modality treatment. Radiotherapy and surgery may be similarly effective but, if possible, surgery (excisional biopsy, neck dissection and tonsillectomy) should be favoured because it consents a more precise staging, (3) patients with more advanced conditions require combined treatment in the form of either resection followed by adjuvant radiation (±chemotherapy) or primary chemoradiation (±post-therapy neck dissection).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Daniele Arosio
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Pignataro
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Renato Maria Gaini
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Werner Garavello
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Risk factors for and consequences of inadequate surgical margins in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118:642-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2014.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2014] [Revised: 06/21/2014] [Accepted: 08/06/2014] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
|
8
|
O'Hara J, Simo R, McQueen A, Andi K, Lester S, Giddings C, Repanos C, Moor J, Kelly C, Jennings C, Wilson J, Paleri V. Management of metastatic neck disease--summary of the 11th Evidence Based Management Day. Clin Otolaryngol 2014; 39:3-5. [PMID: 24575924 DOI: 10.1111/coa.12218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/14/2014] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- J O'Hara
- Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland and Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Troussier I, Barry B, Baglin AC, Leysalle A, Janot F, Baujat B, Fakhry N, Sun XS, Marcy PY, Dufour X, Bensadoun RJ, Thariat J. [Target volumes in cervical lympadenopathies of unknown primary: toward a selective customized approach? On behalf of REFCOR]. Cancer Radiother 2013; 17:686-94. [PMID: 24095636 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2013.07.132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2013] [Revised: 06/27/2013] [Accepted: 07/03/2013] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
The treatment of carcinomas of unknown primary revealed by cervical lymphadenopathy is based on neck dissection and nodal and pan-mucosal irradiation to control the neck and avoid the emergence of a metachronous primary. The aim of this review was to assess diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and criteria that may be used for a customized selective approach to avoid severe toxicities of pan-mucosal irradiation. A literature search was performed with the following keywords: cervical lymphadenopathy, unknown primary, upper aerodigestive tract, cancer, radiotherapy, squamous cell carcinoma, variants. The diagnostic workup includes a head and neck scanner or MRI, ((18)F)-FDG PET CT, a panendoscopy and tonsillectomy. Squamous cell carcinoma represents over two thirds of cases. The number of metastatic cervical nodes, nodal level, and histological variant (associated with HPV/EBV status) may determine the primary site origin and might be weighted for the determination of radiation target volumes on a multidisciplinary basis. A selective customized approach is relevant to decrease radiation toxicity only if neck and mucosal control is not impaired. Although no recommendation can yet be made in the absence of sufficient level of evidence, the relevance of systematic pan-mucosal irradiation appears questionable in a number of clinical situations. Accordingly, a customized selective redefinition of target volumes may be discussed and be prospectively evaluated in relation to the therapeutic index obtained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Troussier
- Service d'oncologie radiothérapie, PRC, CHU de la Milétrie, 2, rue de la Milétrie, BP 557, 86021 Poitiers cedex, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Brown J, Shaw R, Bekiroglu F, Rogers S. Systematic review of the current evidence in the use of postoperative radiotherapy for oral squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 50:481-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.08.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2011] [Accepted: 08/15/2011] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
11
|
Strojan P, Ferlito A, Langendijk JA, Corry J, Woolgar JA, Rinaldo A, Silver CE, Paleri V, Fagan JJ, Pellitteri PK, Haigentz M, Suárez C, Robbins KT, Rodrigo JP, Olsen KD, Hinni ML, Werner JA, Mondin V, Kowalski LP, Devaney KO, de Bree R, Takes RP, Wolf GT, Shaha AR, Genden EM, Barnes L. Contemporary management of lymph node metastases from an unknown primary to the neck: II. A review of therapeutic options. Head Neck 2011; 35:286-93. [DOI: 10.1002/hed.21899] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/01/2011] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
|
12
|
Furness S, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Pavitt S, Oliver R, Clarkson JE, Macluskey M, Chan KK, Conway DI. Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD006386. [PMID: 21491393 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006386.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 1st December 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Eighty-nine trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and data were extracted by two or more review authors. The primary outcome was total mortality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information or for clarification. MAIN RESULTS There is evidence of a small increase in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone (25 trials), hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00, P = 0.06). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (10 trials), HR of mortality 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, P = 0.03), and there is some evidence that this improvement may be greater with concomitant adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (4 trials), HR of mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03). In patients with unresectable tumours, there is evidence that concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy is associated with improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone (26 trials), HR of mortality 0.78 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.83, P < 0.00001). These findings are confirmed by sensitivity analyses based on studies assessed at low risk of bias. There is insufficient evidence to identify which agent(s) and/or regimen(s) are the most effective. The additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy may prolong survival by 8 to 20% and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by up to 16%. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by 10 to 22%. There is insufficient evidence as to which agent or regimen is most effective and the additional toxicity associated with chemotherapy given in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery cannot be quantified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan Furness
- Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Coupland III Building, Oxford Rd, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Glenny A, Furness S, Worthington HV, Conway DI, Oliver R, Clarkson JE, Macluskey M, Pavitt S, Chan KKW, Brocklehurst P, The CSROC Expert Panel. Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 2010:CD006387. [PMID: 21154367 PMCID: PMC10749265 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006387.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The management of advanced oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is problematic and has traditionally relied on surgery and radiotherapy, both of which are associated with substantial adverse effects. Radiotherapy has been in use since the 1950s and has traditionally been given as single daily doses. This method of dividing up the total dose, or fractionation, has been modified over the years and a variety of approaches have been developed with the aim of improving survival whilst maintaining acceptable toxicity. OBJECTIVES To determine which radiotherapy regimens for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and locoregional control. SEARCH STRATEGY The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 July 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 July 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 July 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more radiotherapy regimens, radiotherapy versus other treatment modality, or the addition of radiotherapy to other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN RESULTS 30 trials involving 6535 participants were included. Seventeen trials compared some form of altered fractionation (hyperfractionation/accelerated) radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy; three trials compared different altered fractionation regimens; one trial compared timing of radiotherapy, five trials evaluated neutron therapy and four trials evaluated the addition of pre-operative radiotherapy. Pooling trials of any altered fractionation radiotherapy compared to a conventional schedule showed a statistically significant reduction in total mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98). In addition, a statistically significant difference in favour of the altered fractionation was shown for the outcome of locoregional control (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). No statistically significant difference was shown for disease free survival.No statistically significant difference was shown for any other comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with an improvement in overall survival and locoregional control in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. More accurate methods of reporting adverse events are needed in order to truly assess the clinical performance of different radiotherapy regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne‐Marie Glenny
- School of Dentistry, The University of ManchesterCochrane Oral Health GroupCoupland III Building, Oxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - Susan Furness
- The University of ManchesterCochrane Oral Health Group, School of DentistryCoupland III Bldg, Oxford RdManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - Helen V Worthington
- School of Dentistry, The University of ManchesterCochrane Oral Health GroupCoupland III Building, Oxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - David I Conway
- University of GlasgowGlasgow Dental School378 Sauchiehall StreetGlasgowUKG2 3JZ
| | - Richard Oliver
- RED (Research and Education in Dentistry)10 Longbow Close, Harlescott LaneShrewsburyUKSY1 3GZ
| | - Jan E Clarkson
- Cochrane Oral Health Group, The University of ManchesterDental Health Services & Research Unit, University of Dundee, DundeeManchesterUK
| | - Michaelina Macluskey
- University of DundeeUnit of Oral Surgery and MedicineUniversity of Dundee Dental Hospital and SchoolPark PlaceDundeeScotlandUKDD1 4NR
| | - Sue Pavitt
- University of LeedsClinical Trials Research UnitClinical Trials Research House71‐75 Clarendon RoadLeedsUKLS2 9NP
| | - Kelvin KW Chan
- Princess Margaret Hospital610 University AvenueTorontoOntarioCanadaM5G 2M9
| | - Paul Brocklehurst
- School of Dentistry, The University of ManchesterCoupland III BuildingOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - The CSROC Expert Panel
- School of Dentistry, The University of ManchesterCochrane Oral Health GroupCoupland III Building, Oxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Furness S, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Pavitt S, Oliver R, Clarkson JE, Macluskey M, Chan KK, Conway DI. Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD006386. [PMID: 20824847 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006386.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 28th July 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other possible sources of bias. Data were extracted using a specially designed form and entered into the characteristics of included studies table and the analysis sections of the review. The proportion of participants in each trial with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are recorded in Additional Table 1. MAIN RESULTS There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone in 25 trials (hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery +/- radiotherapy alone in 10 trials (HR of mortality 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and there was an additional benefit of adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy in 4 of these trials (HR of mortality 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Concomitant chemoradiotherapy resulted in improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone in patients whose tumours were considered unresectable in 25 trials (HR of mortality 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). However, the additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy is associated with a 9% increase in survival and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a 16% increase in overall survival following surgery. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant chemoradiotherapy showed a 22% benefit in overall survival compared with radiotherapy alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan Furness
- Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Coupland III Bldg, Oxford Rd, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Langendijk JA, Ferlito A, Takes RP, Rodrigo JP, Suárez C, Strojan P, Haigentz M, Rinaldo A. Postoperative strategies after primary surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Oral Oncol 2010; 46:577-85. [PMID: 20400361 DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.03.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2010] [Revised: 03/29/2010] [Accepted: 03/29/2010] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
This review discusses the role of adjuvant treatment after curative surgery for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In general, patients with unfavourable prognostic factors have a high-risk of loco-regional recurrence and subsequent worse survival after surgery alone and are therefore considered proper candidates for adjuvant treatment by either postoperative radiotherapy alone or postoperative chemoradiation. Selection of the most optimal adjuvant treatment strategy should be based on the most important prognostic factors. In this review, the different treatment strategies will be discussed in general. More specifically, we will discuss the role of the interval between surgery and radiotherapy, the overall treatment time of radiation, the selection of target volumes for radiation and the value of adding concomitant chemotherapy to postoperative radiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen/University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Oliver RJ, Clarkson JE, Conway DI, Glenny A, Macluskey M, Pavitt S, Sloan P, Worthington HV. Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD006205. [PMID: 17943894 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006205.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral and oropharyngeal cancers can be managed by surgery alone or with any combination of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. Opinions on the surgical treatment, the optimal combinational therapy and the sequence of treatments in combinational therapy varies enormously. OBJECTIVES To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers lead to the best outcomes compared with other surgical, radiotherapy, chemotherapy or immunotherapy/biotherapy combinations. SEARCH STRATEGY Electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and the National Cancer Trials Database. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted. Date of the most recent searches: July 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials of surgery alone or in combination with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or immunotherapy/biotherapy for the treatment of primary oral or oropharyngeal cancer or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS A minimum of two review authors conducted data extraction. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes at different time intervals, and hazard ratios were extracted or calculated for disease-free survival, total mortality, and disease-related mortality. Additional information from trial authors was sought. Data on adverse events were collected from the trial reports. MAIN RESULTS Thirty-one trials satisfied the inclusion criteria, only 13 of which were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into 12 main comparisons. There were no trials that compared different surgical modalities of the primary tumour itself. However, there were a number of trials comparing different approaches to managing the cervical lymph nodes. The majority of treatment regimens under evaluation were surgery in combination with other modalities. As individual treatment regimens within each comparison varied, meta-analysis was inappropriate in most instances. Only two trials could be pooled, comparing concomitant radio/chemotherapy (with surgery) versus radiotherapy (with surgery). A statistically significant difference was shown for disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64 to 0.92) and total mortality (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.95) in favour of the concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (with surgery) arm. No other treatment regimens showed consistent statistically significant results across the outcomes measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is some evidence that concomitant radio/chemotherapy (with surgery) is more effective than radiotherapy (with surgery) and may benefit outcomes in patients with more advanced oral and oropharyngeal cancers. As these trials were based on head and neck studies, future studies should evaluate this treatment regimen specifically in oral and oropharyngeal cancers separately and also address tumour staging and its impact on outcomes. In general, future studies are encouraged to evaluate site-specific and stage-specific data for oral and oropharyngeal cancers. Future trials should include health-related quality of life assessment as an outcome measure. There is a need for a consolidated standardised approach to reporting adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R J Oliver
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|