Locoregionally advanced carcinoma of the oropharynx: conventional radiotherapy vs. accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy vs. concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy--a multicenter randomized trial

Unveiling the Mechanisms Underlying the Immunotherapeutic Potential of Gene-miRNA and Drugs in Head and Neck Cancer

Head and neck cancer ranks as the sixth-most common malignancy worldwide, characterized by high mortality and recurrence rates. Research studies indicate that molecular diagnostics play a crucial role in the early detection and prognostic evaluation of these diseases. This study aimed to identify potential biomarkers for head and neck cancer and elucidate their interactions with miRNAs and possible therapeutic drugs. Four drivers, namely, FN1, IL1A, COL1A1, and MMP9, were identified using network biology and machine learning approaches. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) showed that these genes were significantly involved in different biological processes and pathways, including coagulation, UV-response-down, apoptosis, NOTCH signaling, Wnt-beta catenin, and other signal pathways. The diagnostic value of these hub genes was validated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The top interactive miRNAs, including miR-128-3p, miR-218-5p, miR-214-3p, miR-124-3p, miR-129-2-3p, and miR-1-3p, targeted the key genes. Furthermore, the interaction between the key genes and drugs was also identified. In summary, the key genes and miRNAs or drugs reported in this study might provide valuable information for potential biomarkers to increase the prognosis and diagnosis of head and neck cancer.

Chemoradiation with Cisplatin vs. Carboplatin for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (SCCHN)

Cisplatin is the standard for the chemoradiation of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). Many patients cannot receive cisplatin due to impaired renal function. This study investigated carboplatin as an alternative option. In total, 131 patients assigned to two courses of cisplatin (20 mg/m²/d1--5 or 25 mg/m²/d1-4) were matched to 45 patients not suitable for cisplatin and receiving carboplatin (AUC 1.0/d1-5 or AUC 1.5/d1-4). The endpoints included loco-regional control (LRC), metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), toxicities, and the completion of chemotherapy. The patients in the carboplatin group were significantly older and had more G3 tumors. Otherwise, the baseline characteristics were balanced. The LRC rates at 2 and 3 years were 77% and 76% in the cisplatin group vs. 69% and 65% in the carboplatin group (p = 0.21). The MFS rates were 83% and 78% vs. 78% and 74% (p = 0.34) and the OS rates 83% and 79% vs. 83% and 75% (p = 0.64), respectively. The outcomes were not significantly different in the subgroups receiving definitive or adjuvant chemoradiation. No significant differences were found regarding toxicities. Non-significantly more patients in the carboplatin group completed their chemotherapy (78% vs. 66%, p = 0.15). Carboplatin was associated with similar outcomes and toxicities as cisplatin, although these patients had worse renal function, more aggressive tumors, and were older. Given the limitations of this study, carboplatin appears an option for patients not suitable for cisplatin.

Dose Escalation of Oropharyngeal Cancer: Long-Time Follow-Up and Side Effects

Previous studies on dose-escalated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer have shown mixed results, and it is not established which patients would benefit from dose escalation. Further, while dose escalation does not appear to increase late toxicity, this needs to be confirmed with longer follow-up. In this study, we analysed treatment outcome and toxicity in 215 patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (>72 Gy, EQD2, α/β = 10 Gy, boost by brachytherapy or simultaneous integrated boost) and a matched cohort of 215 patients treated with standard dose external-beam radiotherapy (68 Gy) between 2011 and 2018 at our institution. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 77.8% (72.4-83.6) and 73.7% (67.8-80.1) in the dose-escalated and standard dose group, respectively (p = 0.24). Median follow-up was 78.1 (49.2-98.4) and 60.2 (38.9-89.4) months in the dose-escalated and standard dose groups, respectively. Grade ≥3 osteoradionecrosis (ORN) and late dysphagia were more common in the dose-escalated group compared to the standard dose group, with 19 (8.8%) vs. 4 (1.9%) patients developing grade ≥3 ORN (p = 0.001), and 39 (18.1%) vs. 21 (9.8%) patients developing grade ≥3 dysphagia (p = 0.01). No predictive factors to help select patients for dose-escalated radiotherapy were found. However, the remarkably good OS in the dose-escalated cohort, despite a predominance of advanced tumour stages, encourages further attempts to identify such factors.

Dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer: a comparison of simultaneous integrated boost and brachytherapy boost

BACKGROUND

Local recurrence is the most common pattern of failure in head and neck cancer. It can therefore be hypothesised that some of these patients would benefit from an intensified local treatment, such as radiation dose escalation of the primary tumour. This study compares treatment and toxicity outcomes from two different boost modalities in oropharyngeal cancer: simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and brachytherapy boost.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-four consecutive patients treated with > 72 Gy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 2011 and 2018 at our institution were retrospectively analysed. Data on side effects were collected from a local quality registry and supplemented with a review of medical records. Patients receiving a brachytherapy boost first had external beam radiotherapy consisting of 68 Gy in 2 Gy fractions to the gross tumour volume (GTV), and elective radiotherapy to the neck bilaterally. The brachytherapy boost was typically given using pulsed dose rate, 15 fractions and 0.56-0.66 Gy per fraction [total dose in EQD2 = 75.4-76.8 Gy (α/β = 10)]. The typical dose escalated radiotherapy with external beam radiotherapy only, was delivered using SIB with 74,8 Gy in 2.2 Gy fractions [EQD2 = 76.0 Gy (α/β = 10)] to the primary tumour, 68 Gy in 2 Gy fractions to GTV + 10 mm margin and elective radiotherapy to the neck bilaterally.

RESULTS

Dose escalation by SIB was given to 111 patients and brachytherapy boost to 134 patients. The most common type of cancer was base of tongue (55%), followed by tonsillar cancer (42%). The majority of patients had T3- or T4-tumours and 84% were HPV-positive. The 5-year OS was 72,4% (95% CI 66.9-78.3) and the median follow-up was 6.1 years. Comparing the two different dose escalation modalities we found no significant differences in OS or PFS and these results remained after a propensity-score matched analysis was performed. The analysis of grade ≥ 3 side effects showed no significant differences between the two different dose escalation techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant differences in survival or grade ≥ 3 side effects comparing simultaneous integrated boost and brachytherapy boost as alternative dose escalation modalities in the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer.

A Comparison of the Toxicities in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Treated With Concomitant Boost Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Chemoradiation

PURPOSE

To compare the objective and patient-reported toxicities of concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT) and concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

In this prospective study, 46 patients with histologically proven stage III-IVA head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to receive either concurrent chemoradiation to a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions over 6.5 weeks with concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2 IV weekly; control arm) or accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost radiotherapy (study arm) to a dose of 67.5 Gy in 40 fractions in five weeks. Acute toxicity was evaluated using RTOG toxicity criteria. The assessment was done weekly after initiation of treatment, at the first follow-up (six weeks), and at three months. The four main patient-reported symptoms of pain, hoarseness of voice, dryness of mouth, and loss of taste were also compared between the two groups to assess patient quality of life during treatment.

RESULTS

The mean treatment duration was 37 days in the CBRT arm and 49 days in the CRT arm. Treatment-related interruptions were less in the study group,17.3% in the study, and 27.2% in the control with insignificant P-value. Grade III laryngeal toxicity was significantly higher in the study group (P=0.029). Other acute grade I-III toxicities (pharyngeal, skin, mucositis, and salivary) were comparable in both CRT and CBRT arms. Grade IV toxicities were seen only in the CBRT arm but were resolved at the first follow-up. Haematological toxicities and renal toxicities were significantly higher in the CRT arm, with significant P-values of 0.0004 and 0.018, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, concomitant boost radiotherapy is well tolerated with acceptable local toxicity and minimal systemic toxicity as compared to conventional chemoradiation. It is a feasible option for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer not fit for concurrent chemoradiation.

Volumetric and Dosimetric Inconstancy of Parotid Glands and Tumor in Head and Neck Cancer during IMRT

The treatment of head and neck cancer using external beam radiotherapy is commonly done with three field techniques, which involves bilateral parallel opposed beams and one anterior lower neck field. Conventional treatment is based on 2D fluoroscopic images where there is no facility to shield the organs at risk like parotid. The most common side effect of such conventional radiotherapy treatment is xerostomia. The incidence of radiotherapy-related xerostomia varies depending on the specific radiotherapy technique used and the dose delivered to the parotid glands. Dosimetric variation in the tumor and normal tissue including parotid glands due to volume shrinkage during intensity modulated radiotherapy is the leading challenges in radiotherapy delivery in head and neck malignancy in terms of acute and late radiation related toxicities. Therefore if the planning target volume and normal tissue anatomy are changing with time during intensity modulated radiotherapy, it would be beneficial and acceptable to adapt our treatment delivery to minimize normal tissue toxicities where it really matters.

Delineation of Oral Mucosa as a Pseudo-Organ-at-Risk May Lead to a Decrease in the Incidence of Oral Mucositis: A Dosimetric Analysis of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Plans in Head and Neck Cancers

Introduction

Oral mucositis is a common and potentially serious complication of radiation in head and neck cancer treatment. Severe mucositis causes pain, difficulty in chewing and swallowing that can cause treatment breaks and can cause treatment failures leading to local recurrence or a decrease in overall survival. The contouring of the planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) leaves some undefined regions on computed tomography imaging. The treatment planning system uses these regions as dumping sites for the dose in order to achieve the optimum plan. The present study was done to assess the dose going to these unspecified regions termed as pseudo-OARs and whether delineation of these structures and prescribing a dose constraint will reduce the dose to the oral mucosa without compromising the quality of the treatment plan.

Methods

Twenty patients of head and neck cancer were selected and were randomly placed in two arms. One was intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) arm I, which included the initial plans with which the patients were treated where the pseudo-OAR was not delineated and hence was not considered in the planning process. After giving treatment, the pseudo-OAR was delineated to see the dose dumped into the area outside the PTV. The other was IMRT arm II, where another virtual plan of the same patients of arm I was made wherein the delineation of the pseudo-OAR was done before planning and dose constraint prescribed. The pseudo-OAR consisted of anterior oral mucosa, part of mandible and maxilla, which was adjacent to the PTV in oropharynx and contralateral buccal mucosa patients. The dose constraint given to the pseudo-OAR was Dmean ≤30 Gy. Statistical significance was calculated by using a paired t-test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The dosimetric parameters of PTV were comparable in both the IMRT arms. The pre-specified objective was fulfilled with both the study arms. The dose homogeneity and conformity was also similar. The dosimetric parameters of other OARs were within the prescribed dose constraints. The Dmean value of the pseudo-OAR in arm I was 31.28 Gy ± 3.55 Gy and 7.87 Gy ± 9.11 Gy in arm II and the p-value was significant (p=0.001), whereas the Dmax in arm I was 61.82 Gy ± 5.91 Gy and 61.23 Gy ± 5.54 Gy in arm II (p=0.6). The dose to the pseudo-OAR in IMRT arm II was reduced drastically by 75%, which was statistically significant.

Conclusion

The delineation of oral mucosa as a pseudo-OAR should routinely be done. The dose constraints need to be optimized by clinical studies, which might probably decrease the incidence and severity of oral mucositis.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

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.

European white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a European White Paper document on oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in head and neck cancer (HNC). There are wide variations in the management of OD associated with HNC across Europe.

METHODS

Experts in the management of specific aspects of OD in HNC across Europe were delegated by their professional medical and multidisciplinary societies to contribute to this document. Evidence is based on systematic reviews, consensus-based position statements, and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Twenty-four sections on HNC-specific OD topics.

CONCLUSION

This European White Paper summarizes current best practice on management of OD in HNC, providing recommendations to support patients and health professionals. The body of literature and its level of evidence on diagnostics and treatment for OD in HNC remain poor. This is in the context of an expected increase in the prevalence of OD due to HNC in the near future. Contributing factors to increased prevalence include aging of our European population (including HNC patients) and an increase in human papillomavirus (HPV) related cancer, despite the introduction of HPV vaccination in various countries. We recommend timely implementation of OD screening in HNC patients while emphasizing the need for robust scientific research on the treatment of OD in HNC. Meanwhile, its management remains a challenge for European professional associations and policymakers.

Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): An update on 107 randomized trials and 19,805 patients, on behalf of MACH-NC Group

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in squamous cell Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) demonstrated that concomitant chemotherapy (CT) improved overall survival (OS) in patients without distant metastasis. We report the updated results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Published or unpublished randomized trials including patients with non-metastatic carcinoma randomized between 1965 and 2016 and comparing curative loco-regional treatment (LRT) to LRT + CT or adding another timing of CT to LRT + CT (main question), or comparing induction CT + radiotherapy to radiotherapy + concomitant (or alternating) CT (secondary question) were eligible. Individual patient data were collected and combined using a fixed-effect model. OS was the main endpoint.

RESULTS

For the main question, 101 trials (18951 patients, median follow-up of 6.5 years) were analyzed. For both questions, there were 16 new (2767 patients) and 11 updated trials. Around 90% of the patients had stage III or IV disease. Interaction between treatment effect on OS and the timing of CT was significant (p < 0.0001), the benefit being limited to concomitant CT (HR: 0.83, 95%CI [0.79; 0.86]; 5(10)-year absolute benefit of 6.5% (3.6%)). Efficacy decreased as patients age increased (p_trend = 0.03). OS was not increased by the addition of induction (HR = 0.96 [0.90; 1.01]) or adjuvant CT (1.02 [0.92; 1.13]). Efficacy of induction CT decreased with poorer performance status (p_trend = 0.03). For the secondary question, eight trials (1214 patients) confirmed the superiority of concomitant CT on OS (HR = 0.84 [0.74; 0.95], p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The update of MACH-NC confirms the benefit and superiority of the addition of concomitant CT for non-metastatic head and neck cancer.

Outcomes after salvage for HPV-positive recurrent oropharyngeal cancer treated with primary radiation

PURPOSE

HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) carries a favorable prognosis for patients, yet nearly 30% of patients will experience disease relapse. We sought to detail patterns of failure, associated salvage therapy, and outcomes for patients with recurrent HPV-positive OPSCC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a single institution retrospective study of patients with recurrent HPV-positive OPSCC irradiated from 2002 to 2014. The primary study outcome was overall survival (OS, calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method). Secondary aims included patterns of first failure with descriptive details of salvage therapy. Solitary recurrences were defined as initial presentation of recurrence in a single site (primary, neck or oligometastatic), and multi-site was defined as local and regional and/or multiple sites of distant recurrence. Survival outcomes were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 132 patients. The median follow-up was 59 months for surviving patients. Estimated 2-year and 5-year OS rates were 47% and 32%, respectively. Comparative 2-year and 5-year OS rates were 65% and 46% versus 19% and 9% for the solitary group and multi-site group, respectively (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with recurrent HPV-positive OPSCC experience 5-year survival of approximately 32%. However, patients with a "solitary" recurrence including disease at the primary site, neck or oligometastatic site have more favorable long-term outcomes.

Accelerated Hyperfractionated Radiotherapy versus Conventional Fractionation Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

The benefits of accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy (HART) and conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) in the treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) remain controversial. In this study, we analyzed the therapeutic effects of these two treatment regimens to explore whether HART can improve the overall survival (OS) rate and locoregional control (LRC) rate in patients with HNC.

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for eligible studies. The OS rate and LRC rate were considered as the efficacy outcomes. I² was used to test the heterogeneity among studies with a cutoff value of 50%. Potential publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's test. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the stability of the results. In this meta-analysis, all analyses were performed using R 3.5.3 software.

Results

Twelve qualified articles including a total of 2,935 patients were identified. HART had a significant beneficial effect on OS rate (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65–0.98). Compared with CFRT, HART demonstrated a significantly higher LRC rate (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71–0.96).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed that HART can significantly improve OS and LRC compared with CFRT in patients with HNC.

Altered Fractionation Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer: Clinical Issues and Pitfalls of “Evidence-Based Medicine”

The authors present a critical appraisal of the biological bases of altered fractionation and a brief overview of published randomized trials with conventional fractionation as the control arm, reviews and meta-analysis on altered fractionation radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. The major controversial issues emerging from these studies are reviewed and the limiting factors which so far have prevented the widespread use of altered fractionation regimens in current clinical practice are analyzed. Future perspectives regarding predictive biological assays for patient selection and the integration of altered fractionation regimens with radiochemotherapy protocols, biomodulators and novel radiotherapy techniques are also reviewed and summarized.

Impact of treatment expertise on the outcome of patients with head and neck cancer treated within 6 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of center expertise, in terms of number of patients treated, on the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis including data from 6 randomized trials in head and neck SCC conducted in Italy. We evaluated the association between OS or PFS and the number of patients recruited by the center.

RESULTS

The outcome of 903 patients who had received radiotherapy (RT) was analyzed (median follow-up 76 months). The hazard ratio (HR) comparing the third and the first quartiles of the distribution of number of patients per center showed an advantage in PFS (HR 0.59, range 0.53-0.65, P < .0001) and in OS (HR 0.70, 0.60-0.81, P < .0001) for centers with a higher number of patients recruited. A similar benefit was observed in PFS (HR 0.63, 0.60-0.66) and OS (HR 0.74, 0.69-0.79) considering the mean number of patients per year.

CONCLUSIONS

The PFS and OS were longer for patients treated in high-case-volume centers.

Altered fractionation radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer: a network meta-analysis

Objectives

A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs) to estimate the efficacy and safety of treatment with conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CF), conventional fractionation chemoradiotherapy (CF_CRT), hyperfractionated radiotherapy (HF), hyperfractionated chemoradiotherapy (HF_CRT), accelerated fractionation radiotherapy, accelerated fractionation chemoradiotherapy, accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy (HART) or accelerated hyperfractionated chemoradiotherapy (HACRT) to identify superior treatments to aid in clinical decisions.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials up to December 2016. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional control (LRC) were considered efficacy outcomes, whereas acute toxicity and late toxicity on skin and mucosa were considered safety outcomes. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank each treatment in each index.

Results

Data from 72 trials with 21,868 participants were included in the analysis. Concerning OS, all treatments were associated with a significant advantage compared to CF alone, with HR effect sizes ranging from 0.64 to 0.83, and HACRT was significantly more effective than all the other treatments. The network comparisons of both HACRT vs HART and HF_CRT vs HF demonstrated a higher OS benefit, with an HR of 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.64–0.95) and 0.78 (95% CrI: 0.61–0.99), respectively. The results of SUCRA indicated that HACRT had the best ranking for OS and LRC, HF_CRT for DFS, HART for acute and late skin toxicity, CF_CRT for acute mucosal toxicity and HF_CRT for late mucosal toxicity.

Conclusion

The NMA results support the notion that HACRT is the preferable treatment modality for HNCs because it has better rankings in all three efficacy indexes, although it does present a high risk of acute mucosal toxicity.

Long-Term Results of Conventional Radiotherapy versus Accelerated Hyperfractionated Radiotherapy versus Concomitant Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in Locoregionally Advanced Carcinoma of the Oropharynx

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

To compare conventional fractionation (CF) radiation therapy (RT), arm A, versus a split-course accelerated hyperfractionated schedule (S-AHF), arm B, versus CFRT plus concomitant chemotherapy (CT), arm C, in terms of five-year survival and toxicity for squamous cell tumors of the oropharynx.

METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN

Between January 1993 and June 1998, 192 previously untreated patients with stage III and IV oropharyngeal carcinoma (excluding T1N1 and T2N1) were enrolled in a multicenter randomized phase III trial (ORO 93-01). In arms A and C, 66 to 70 Gy in 33 to 35 fractions was administered five days a week for six and a half to seven weeks. In arm B, the dose delivered was 64 to 67.2 Gy in two fractions of 1.6 Gy every day, five days a week, with a planned two-week split at 38.4 Gy. In arm C the CT regimen consisted of three cycles of carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CBDCA 75 mg/m2 on days 1 to 4 and 5-FU 1000 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 4 every 28 days).

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found in five-year overall survival (P = 0.39): 21% for arm A, 21% for arm B, and 40% for arm C. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of five-year relapse-free survival: 15% for arm A, 17% for arm B, and 36% for arm C. There was a slight trend towards better five-year locoregional control (P = 0.07) for the combined arm: patients without locoregional relapse were 48% in arm C, 21% in arm A and 18% in arm B. Locoregional control was significantly better when arm C was compared with arms A and B combined (P = 0.02; arm A+B 20%; arm C 48%). Distant metastases were fairly balanced in the three arms (A: 14; B: 9; C: 11), with a tendency towards more frequent isolated distant metastasis development in arm C (8 of 11 [72%] versus 7 of 23 [30%] in arms A+B). Five-year second-tumor-free survival was 85%. The 13 second tumors were equally distributed and were mainly correlated with tobacco and alcohol consumption (five lung, two esophagus, two oral cavity, one larynx, one pancreas, one hepatocarcinoma, one myeloma). Arm C showed slightly more G3+ late side effects involving subcutaneous tissues and mucosa, although significant late sequelae were relatively uncommon and the mucosal side effects were mostly transient. The occurrence of persistent G3 xerostomia was comparable in the three treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained with the combination of CT and RT compared with RT alone did not reach statistical significance, but combined treatment almost doubled the five-year overall survival, relapse-free survival and locoregional control rate. Patients with advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the oropharynx who are medically suitable for the combined approach should be treated with a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The occurrence of second tumors is relatively common in these patients and may contribute substantially to the causes of death.

Radiochemotherapy with Cisplatin and Oral Tegafur in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Long-Term Results of a Phase II Study

Aims and Background

To evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of an original concurrent radiochemotherapy regimen in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Methods

Sixty-four patients with stage III or IV squamous cell carcinoma arising from a head and neck mucosal site were eligible. Simultaneous radiochemotherapy consisted of two courses of continuous infusional cisplatin (20 mg/m2/d, days 1–4 and 29–32) and oral tegafur (1200 mg/d, days 1–14 and 29–43), together with conventional radiation therapy up to a total dose of 70–75 Gy over nine weeks.

Results

All the patients were evaluated for toxicity and response. Acute mucositis was the most prevalent complication. Grade 3 toxicities were mucositis (44%), skin toxicity (10%), leukopenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (1%). No toxic death was observed. Complete response to treatment was observed in 72% of patients. With a median follow-up of 48.5 months (range, 27–84), 5-year actuarial rate of local-regional control, disease-free survival, overall survival and disease-specific survival were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40–70%), 55% (95% CI, 45–65%), 51% (95% CI, 43–59%) and 61% (95% CI, 53–69%), respectively.

Conclusions

Response, local-regional control and survival rates are equivalent to those reported from other concomitant radiochemotherapy combinations. However, the regimen offers the advantage of its tolerance and toxicity profile.

Weight Loss and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement during Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Oropharynx Do Not Negatively Impact Outcomes

Objectives

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard of care in locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer (LA-OPC). This treatment regimen results in significant acute toxicities. This study investigates the effect of treatment-related toxicity on patient outcomes.

Methods

Patient information was retrospectively collected for patients treated for LA-OPC between 2007 and 2014. Factors analyzed included age, gender, pretreatment ECOG performance status, smoking history, patient BMI prior to and following treatment, tumor histology, disease stage, disease recurrence, incidence, and timing of feeding tube placement, radiation dose received, chemotherapy regimen used and if it was completed, and patient survival. All statistical analysis was provided through the University of Nebraska Medical Center Department of Biostatistics.

Results

74 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 3.4 years and a median age of 58.5. Most patients were male (87.8%) and had squamous cell histology (98.7%). Most patients underwent chemoradiotherapy alone (98.6%) and received concurrent cisplatin (78.4%) with approximately half (53.4%) receiving all planned chemotherapy. Upon multivariate analysis, both disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were improved by lower pretreatment BMI, increased weight lost during treatment, and lack of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement prior to treatment initiation. Neither DFS nor OS was impacted by placement of a PEG tube during active treatment.

Conclusion

These data suggest that weight loss and PEG tube placement during chemoradiotherapy for LA-OPC, presumably due to treatment-associated mucositis and xerostomia, are not associated with worse outcomes.

Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials.

METHODS

For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

FINDINGS

Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90-0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3-4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (-0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74-0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (-0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5·8% (-11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of -5·1% (-13·0 to 2·8).

INTERPRETATION

This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested.

FUNDING

Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

A prospective comparison of common toxicity criteria adverse events Version 3 and 4 in assessing oral mucositis for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Oral mucositis is an expected complication of radiotherapy in the management of carcinoma of the head and neck. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 3 (V3) and related systems based on mucosal appearance have been used in clinical trials historically. More recently, Version 4 (V4) which is based on patient symptoms has been employed. This study compares the use of V3 and V4 in the grading of mucositis in patients undergoing radiotherapy with or without concurrent systemic therapy for carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx.

METHODS

Oral mucositis was graded prospectively in patients receiving radiotherapy with or without concurrent systemic therapy using both V3 and V4. Grading was recorded during and after completion of therapy.

RESULTS

Between November 2014 and November 2015, 555 measurements were taken from 73 patients. Mucositis scores were equal in both versions in 327 (59%) measurements. Significant differences between V3 and V4 were seen in patients receiving cetuximab-based concurrent therapy (p < 0.001) and beyond 8 weeks from the start of radiotherapy (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Differences in grading of mucositis scored by V3 and V4 are frequent. Relationships between biologically effective dose and rates of grade 3 mucositis have historically been based on mucosal appearances. It is not known whether the same relationships apply when mucositis is graded based on symptomatic grading systems. Both V3 and V4 should be used in clinical trials to improve understanding of mucositis and its relationship to quality of life and late mucosal toxicity.

Differences in health related quality of life in the randomised ARTSCAN study; accelerated vs. conventional radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. A five year follow up

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Health related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed in the randomised, prospective ARTSCAN study comparing conventional radiotherapy (CF) with accelerated radiotherapy (AF) for head and neck cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

750 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (of any grade and stage) in the oral cavity, oro-, or hypopharynx or larynx (except T1-2, N0 glottic carcinoma) without distant metastases were randomised to either conventional fractionation (2 Gy/day, 5 days/week in 49 days, total dose 68 Gy) or accelerated fractionation (1.1+2.0 Gy/day, 5 days/week in 35 days, total dose 68 Gy). HRQoL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35 and HADS at baseline, at end of radiotherapy (eRT) and at 3 and 6 months and 1, 2 and 5 years after start of treatment.

RESULTS

The AF group reported HRQoL was significantly lower at eRT and at 3 months for most symptoms, scales and functions. Few significant differences were noted between the groups at 6 months and 5 years. Scores related to functional oral intake never reached baseline.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to CF, AF has a stronger adverse effect on HRQoL in the acute phase.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Conventionally Fractionated Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy versus Altered Fractionation Radiotherapy Alone in the Definitive Management of Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

AIMS

Treatment intensification either by using concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) or altered fractionation radiotherapy (AFRT) improves outcomes of locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The superiority of one approach over the other, however, remains to be firmly established. The aim of the present study was to compare outcomes of CCRT versus AFRT in the definitive non-surgical management of locoregionally advanced HNSCC for evidence-based decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of Medline via PubMed was conducted with no language, year, or publication status restrictions. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) were also searched electronically. Only randomised controlled trials assigning HNSCC patients randomly to conventionally fractionated CCRT or AFRT alone were included. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and pooled using the Cochrane methodology for meta-analysis and expressed as a hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Overall survival was the primary outcome of interest, whereas disease-free survival, locoregional control and toxicity were secondary end points.

RESULTS

Five randomised controlled trials (involving 1117 patients and 627 deaths) directly comparing conventionally fractionated CCRT with AFRT alone were included. The risk of bias in included studies was low for efficacy outcomes, but high for toxicity outcomes. The overall pooled hazard ratio of death was 0.73 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.86), which significantly favoured conventionally fractionated CCRT over AFRT alone (P < 0.0001). Similarly, disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval = 0.68-0.92; P = 0.002) and locoregional control (hazard ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = 0.59-0.84; P < 0.0001) were significantly improved with CCRT. There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe acute toxicity (dermatitis and mucositis) between the two approaches of treatment intensification. Late xerostomia was significantly increased with CCRT. Significant haematological toxicity and nephrotoxicity were seen exclusively with chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate quality evidence that conventionally fractionated CCRT improves survival outcomes compared with AFRT alone in the definitive radiotherapeutic management of locoregionally advanced HNSCC. No form of acceleration can potentially compensate fully for the lack of concurrent chemotherapy.

Mature results from a Swedish comparison study of conventional versus accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma - The ARTSCAN trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This report contains the mature five-year data from the Swedish ARTSCAN trial including information on the influence of p16 positivity (p16+) for oropharyngeal cancers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated squamous cell carcinoma without distant metastases of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx (except T1-2, N0 glottic cancers) and hypopharynx were included. Patients were randomised between accelerated fractionation (AF) (1.1Gy+2Gy per day, 5days/week for 4.5weeks, total dose 68Gy) and conventional fractionation (CF) (2Gy per day, 5days/week for 7weeks, total dose 68Gy). Human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated p16-expression was assessed retrospectively in tumour tissues from patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in loco-regional control (LRC) between AF and CF (log-rank test p=0.75). LRC at 5years was 65.5% for AF and 64.9% for CF. Overall survival (OS) was similar in both arms (p=0.99). The estimated cancer specific survival (CSS) at 5years was 62.2% (AF) and 63.3% (CF) (p=0.99). 206 specimens were analysed for p16 with 153 specimens (74%) identified as p16+. P16 status did not discriminate for response to AF vs. CF with regard to LRC, OS or CSS. Patients with p16+ tumours had a statistically significant better overall prognosis compared with p16- tumours.

CONCLUSION

This update confirms the results of the 2-year report. We failed to identify a positive effect resulting from AF with regards to LRC, OS and CSS. The addition of information on the HPV-associated p16 overexpression did not explain this lack of effect.

The DAHANCA 6 randomized trial: Effect of 6 vs 5 weekly fractions of radiotherapy in patients with glottic squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

The DAHANCA 6 trial evaluated tumor response and morbidity after moderate accelerated radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionated radiotherapy in patients treated for glottic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Further, the failure pattern and incidence of new primary tumors were explored.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Six hundred and ninety-four patients with non-metastatic glottic SCC were randomized between six or five weekly fractions (fx/w) of radiotherapy to the same total dose. The median treatment time was 38 and 46days, respectively. The primary endpoint was loco-regional failure.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 14.5years. Of the 177 failures, 167 involved T-site. The cumulative incidence of loco-regional failure (LRF) was 21.6% in the 6fx/w group and 29.3% in the 5fx/w group and the corresponding hazard rate (HR) of LRF was 0.72 (CI: 0.53-0.97, p=0.04). The effect of acceleration on LRF was especially evident in well differentiated tumors (HR=0.42 (CI: 0.23-0.75) and in T1-2 tumors (HR=0.60 (CI: 0.41-0.89)). The HR of laryngectomy was 0.72 (CI: 0.50-1.04) in the 6fx/w group compared to the 5fx/w group. The hazards of disease-specific death, event-free survival, and overall survival were comparable between the two groups. Significantly more patients experienced severe acute mucositis in the 6fx/w group but the incidence of late morbidity was comparable between the groups. New primary tumors occurred in 22.5% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Moderate accelerated radiotherapy significantly improved loco-regional control in patients with glottic SCC.

Conventional radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus accelerated radiotherapy in locoregionally advanced carcinoma of head and neck: Results of a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to report the results of a phase III, 3-arm, randomized trial comparing conventional radiotherapy (RT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and accelerated RT in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

METHODS

One hundred eighty-six of 750 planned patients were randomized to receive one of the following treatment plans: RT (66-70 Gy/2 Gy fraction/5 fractions weekly; CRT of weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m(2) ) with the same RT dose; or accelerated RT alone of 66 to 70 Gy/2 Gy fraction/6 fractions weekly were available for analysis. The primary endpoint was locoregional control at 5 years.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 54 months. Among the 3 arms, CRT showed superior locoregional control (49%; p = .049). RT had lower grade ≥3 mucositis and late toxicity.

CONCLUSION

CRT is associated with significantly better locoregional control as compared to RT and accelerated RT with higher but acceptable acute and late toxicities.

Treatment outcomes of external-beam radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the base of the tongue

PURPOSE

To evaluate definitive external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with base of the tongue (BOT) cancers.

METHODS

We reviewed results for 26 patients with BOT cancers who were treated with EBRT. Clinical stages T1, T2, T3, and T4a were observed for 10, 7, 4, and 5 patients, respectively, and stages N0, N1, N2a, N2b, N2c, and N3 were observed for 4, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 1 patients, respectively. More than half of the patients (n = 19) were stage IVA. Standard total delivered doses were 70 Gy to primary tumors and cervical lymph node (CLN) metastases and 40-46 Gy to elective nodal regions. Eleven patients with advanced loco-regional disease received concurrent or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Four T3 patients and one T2 patient received 2 or 3 cycles of concurrent intra-arterial cisplatin with EBRT (RADPLAT).

RESULTS

Three-year overall survival was 69 % (95 % CI 47-83 %), with a median follow-up period of 33 months. Three-year local control was 100, 86, 100, and 20 % for T1, T2, T3, and T4 patients, respectively. Three-year regional control was 100 % for N0, N1, and N2a, 83 % for N2b, 75 % for N2c, and 0 % for N3 patients. Treatment failed for 7 patients. All 5 patients undergoing RADPLAT achieved complete responses and did not develop local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

We achieved favorable outcomes for patients with T1-T3 BOT cancers by use of definitive EBRT with or without chemotherapy.

Impact of the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer in 2003-2004: Population-based study from the Province of Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) became the standard of care for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancers based on clinical trials but its effectiveness at the community level is not reported.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based comparative effectiveness study of all 571 patients with oropharyngeal cancer in Ontario Canada (2003-2004) that describes the patients and the treatments and compares concurrent CRT to radiotherapy (RT) alone.

RESULTS

When comparing the outcomes (CRT vs RT) for all patients or patients eligible for either treatment, for patients of centers with the "higher use" of CRT to patients of the 'lower use' centers and comparing all centers, we found no overall or disease-specific advantage to CRT over RT alone. There was also no difference in recurrence-free survival, pattern of recurrences, or distant control.

CONCLUSION

In Ontario (2003-2004), in daily clinical practice, the addition of concurrent CRT to RT had little impact on survival in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Radiotherapeutic management of locally advanced head and neck cancer

Head and neck cancer management has undergone several paradigm shifts for several relevant reasons. From the dismal experience with the use of radiotherapy as the sole modality in the treatment of this group of patients with advanced disease, radiotherapy has been evaluated as an adjuvant for the same group of patients who had undergone successful surgery. Although there is no level 1 evidence to support postoperative adjuvant radiation, several studies have demonstrated that adjuvant radiotherapy reduces the local failures and, thereby, improves survival. Predictors of recurrence after surgical resection are: positive margins of resection; extranodal spread in involved nodes; perineural invasion; and presence of two or more involved regional lymph nodes. Realization of the advantages of a combination of chemotherapy with radiotherapy has had a major impact on the management of these cancers. There is emerging evidence for the use of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the group with high-risk features. Multiple organ conservation strategies in the management of locally advanced head and neck cancers have evolved over the years. However, the meta-analyses of impact of chemotherapy in various settings reveal that concomitant chemoradiotherapy is superior to any of the other regimens. Increasing use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography scan images has resulted in better visualization of target volumes and critical structures. Delineation of these structures is of paramount importance and has resulted in a profound change in conformal treatment planning. Better understanding of the physical aspects of delivery of radiotherapy and the advent of modern treatment planning systems have led to the development of conformal techniques. Although the benefit of these techniques on survival have yet to be demonstrated, there is evidence to suggest that they reduce treatment-related toxicities significantly and facilitate dose escalation. Increased knowledge of radiobiology has led to the development of various altered fractionation regimens in the management of locally advanced head and neck cancers. Discovery of cell-cycle kinetics and signal transduction pathways has led to the unearthing of several potential targets for targeted therapy. The epidermal growth factor receptor gene has emerged as the most promising target. The role of biological radiation response modifiers is evolving. All of these approaches to improve the therapeutic gain would be incomplete without evaluating their effect on the quality of life of these patients.

Multicenter phase II trial of preoperative chemoradiotherapy with S-1 for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma

Purpose

We evaluated whether preoperative chemotherapy with S-1 and concurrent radiotherapy is feasible and efficacious in the treatment of advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods

Participants comprised 39 patients with oral carcinoma (stage III, n = 15; stage IVA, n = 24). All patients received a total radiation dose of 40 Gy, in once-daily 2-Gy fractions, and received S-1 at 65 mg/m²/day for 5 consecutive days, over 4 consecutive weeks with concurrent radiotherapy.

Results

Hematological toxicity was mild and reversible. The most common non-hematological toxicity was grade 3 mucositis, but this was transient and tolerable. Radical surgery was performed for 37 patients, with the remaining 2 patients declining the surgery. Postoperatively, local failure developed in 1 patient, and neck failure in 2 patients. Distant metastases were identified in 4 patients. At a median follow-up of 38.0 months (range 23–88 months), locoregional control, disease-specific survival, and overall survival rates at 3 years were 91.5, 83.8, and 83.8 %, respectively.

Conclusion

Concurrent administration of S-1 and radiotherapy combined with surgery offers a well-tolerated method of successfully treating advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma. The locoregional control rate remains high even at 3 years of follow-up, and no serious adverse effects have been encountered.

Hypopharyngeal dose is associated with severe late toxicity in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer: an RTOG analysis

PURPOSE

Concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) increases local tumor control but at the expense of increased toxicity. We recently showed that several clinical/pretreatment factors were associated with the occurrence of severe late toxicity. This study evaluated the potential relationship between radiation dose delivered to the pharyngeal wall and toxicity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was an analysis of long-term survivors from 3 previously reported Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials of CCRT for locally advanced SCCHN (RTOG trials 91-11, 97-03, and 99-14). Severe late toxicity was defined in this secondary analysis as chronic grade 3-4 pharyngeal/laryngeal toxicity and/or requirement for a feeding tube≥2 years after registration and/or potential treatment-related death (eg, pneumonia) within 3 years. Radiation dosimetry (2-dimensional) analysis was performed centrally at RTOG headquarters to estimate doses to 4 regions of interest along the pharyngeal wall (superior oropharynx, inferior oropharynx, superior hypopharynx, and inferior hypopharynx). Case-control analysis was performed with a multivariate logistic regression model that included pretreatment and treatment potential factors.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were evaluable for this analysis, 71 cases (patients with severe late toxicities) and 83 controls; thus, 46% of evaluable patients had a severe late toxicity. On multivariate analysis, significant variables correlated with the development of severe late toxicity, including older age (odds ratio, 1.062 per year; P=.0021) and radiation dose received by the inferior hypopharynx (odds ratio, 1.023 per Gy; P=.016). The subgroup of patients receiving ≤60 Gy to the inferior hypopharynx had a 40% rate of severe late toxicity compared with 56% for patients receiving >60 Gy. Oropharyngeal dose was not associated with this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe late toxicity following CCRT is common in long-term survivors. Age is the most significant factor, but hypopharyngeal dose also was associated.

Radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

Treatment for patients with head and neck cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach. Radiotherapy is employed as a primary treatment or as an adjuvant to surgery. Each specific subsite dictates the appropriate radiotherapy techniques, fields, dose, and fractionation scheme. Quality of life is also an important issue in the management of head and neck cancer. The radiation-related complications have a tremendous impact on the quality of life. Modern radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy, can offer precise radiation delivery and reduce the dose to the surrounding normal tissues without compromise of target coverage. In the future, efforts should be made in the exploration of novel strategies to improve treatment outcome in patients with head and neck cancer.

Perspectives on coping among patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiation

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe coping among patients with laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancer during definitive radiation with or without chemotherapy.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Qualitative content analysis conducted within a larger study.

SETTING

Two radiation oncology outpatient clinics in Baltimore, MD.

PARTICIPANTS

21 patients with oropharyngeal or laryngeal cancer.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

Interviews with open-ended questions were conducted during treatment. Questions covered topics such as coping during treatment, treatment-related issues, and resources.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Coping, treatment, and coping resources.

FINDINGS

Patients' self-assessments suggested they were coping or that coping was rough or upsetting. Issues that required coping varied over four time points. Physical side effects were problematic during and one month after treatment completion. Patients used coping to manage the uncertainties of physical and psychological aspects of their experience. Family and friend support was a common coping strategy used by patients, with the intensity of side effects corresponding with the support provided across time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings confirm previous research, but also provide new information about ways in which patients with head and neck cancer cope with their illness experience. Emergent themes provide insight into patients' feelings, issues, and assistance received with coping.

INTERPRETATION

Patients with head and neck cancer need education on the amount and severity of side effects and should be appraised of potential difficulties with scheduling, driving, and other logistic issues. Patients also should be informed of helpful types of support and coping strategies. Additional research is needed to expand the findings related to patients' coping with treatment and to explore the experiences of family and friends who provide social support.

Concurrent radiochemotherapy in locally-regionally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: analysis of treatment results and prognostic factors

BACKGROUND

Concurrent radiochemotherapy is a recommended treatment option for patients with locally advanced squamous cell head and neck carcinomas with recent data showing the most significant absolute overall and event-free survival benefit achieved in patients with oropharyngeal tumours. The aim of this study was to analyse the results of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy given with concomitant weekly cisplatin in patients with advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma and to identify prognostic factors influencing outcomes of this patients category.

METHODS

Sixty-five patients with stage III or IV squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx who underwent concurrent radiochemotherapy between January 2005 and December 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received radiotherapy to 70 Gy/35 fractions/2 Gy per fraction/5 fractions per week. Concurrent chemotherapy consisted of weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m(2)) started at the first day of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Median age was 57 years (range, 36 to 69 years) and 59 (90.8%) patients were male. Complete composite response was achieved in 47 patients (72.3%). Local and/or regional recurrence was the most frequent treatment failure present in 19 out of 25 patients (76.0%). At a median follow-up of 14 months (range, 5 to 72 months), 2-year local relapse-free, regional relapse-free, locoregional relapse-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 48.8%, 57.8%, 41.7%, 33.2% and 49.7%, respectively.On multivariate analysis the only significant factor for inferior regional relapse-free survival was the advanced N stage (p = 0.048). Higher overall stage was independent prognostic factor for poorer local relapse-free survival, locoregional relapse-free survival and disease-free survival (p = 0.022, p = 0.003 and p = 0.003, respectively). Pre-treatment haemoglobin concentration was an independent prognostic factor for local relapse-free survival, regional relapse-free survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival (p = 0.002, p = 0.021, p = 0.001, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor treatments results of this study suggested that introduction of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, use of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent radiochemotherapy, accelerated radiotherapy regimens, and molecular targeted therapies could positively influence treatment outcomes. The incorporation of reversal of anaemia should be also expected to provide further improvement in locoregional control and survival in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

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.

Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Several trials have studied the role of altered fractionation radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, but the effect of such treatment on survival is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was to assess whether this type of radiotherapy could improve survival.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified randomised trials comparing conventional radiotherapy with hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy, or both, in patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas and grouped trials into three pre-specified treatment categories: hyperfractionated, accelerated and accelerated with total dose reduction. Trials were eligible if they began recruitment after 1969 and ended before 1998.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We obtained updated individual patient data. Overall survival was the main outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures were local or regional control rates (or both), distant control rates and cause-specific mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials with 6515 patients. The median follow up was six years. Tumour sites were mostly oropharynx and larynx; 5221 (74%) patients had stage III-IV disease (UICC 2002). There was a significant survival benefit with altered fractionation radiotherapy, corresponding to an absolute benefit of 3.4% at five years (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.003). The benefit was significantly higher with hyperfractionated radiotherapy (8% at five years) than with accelerated radiotherapy (2% with accelerated fractionation without total dose reduction and 1.7% with total dose reduction at five years, P = 0.02). There was a benefit in locoregional control in favour of altered fractionation versus conventional radiotherapy (6.4% at five years; P < 0.0001), which was particularly efficient in reducing local failure, whereas the benefit on nodal control was less pronounced. The benefit was significantly higher in the youngest patients (under 50 year old) (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94), 0.95 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.09) for 51 to 60 year olds, 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.06) for 61 to 70 year olds, and 1.08 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.30) for those over 70 years old; test for trends P = 0.007).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Altered fractionation radiotherapy improves survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Comparison of the different types of altered radiotherapy suggests that hyperfractionation provides the greatest benefit. An update of this IPD meta-analysis (MARCH 2), which will increase the power of this analysis and allow for other comparisons, is currently in progress.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy

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.

Matched survival analysis in patients with locoregionally advanced resectable oropharyngeal carcinoma: platinum-based induction and concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus primary surgical resection

PURPOSE

The outcome of a prospective case series of 47 patients with newly diagnosed resectable locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with platinum-based induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC/CCRT) was compared with the outcome of 47 matched historical control patients treated with surgery and postoperative RT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 47 control patients with locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were identified from review of a prospectively compiled comprehensive computerized head-and-neck cancer database and were matched with a prospective case series of patients undergoing IC/CCRT by disease stage, nodal status, gender, and age (± 5 years). The IC/CCRT regimen consisted of one cycle of induction chemotherapy followed by conventionally fractionated RT to a total dose of 66-70 Gy concomitantly with two cycles of chemotherapy. Each cycle of chemotherapy consisted of cisplatinum, 100 mg/m(2), and a continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, 1,000 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days. The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Matched-pair survival was compared using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the overall survival or progression-free survival rates between the two groups. The matched analysis of survival did not show a statistically significant greater hazard ratio for overall death (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-2.80; p = .415) or progression (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.87; p = .301) for patients undergoing IC/CCRT.

CONCLUSION

Although the sample size was small and not randomized, this matched-pair comparison between a prospective case series and a historical cohort treated at the same institution showed that the efficacy of IC/CCRT with salvage surgery is as good as primary surgical resection and postoperative RT.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

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.

Treatment outcomes of locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer: a comparison between combined modality radio-chemotherapy and two variants of single modality altered fractionation radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes in patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer treated with radio-chemotherapy (RT-CT), accelerated fractionation radiotherapy (AccRT), or hypofractionated radiotherapy (HypoRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Subjects were 321 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal cancer, Stage III or IVA/B, treated between January 2001 and December 2005 at the BC Cancer Agency with RT-CT (n = 157), AccRT (n = 57), or HypoRT (n = 107). Outcomes examined were disease-specific survival (DSS), locoregional control (LRC), overall survival (OS), rate of G-tube use, and rate of hospitalization for acute complications.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 3.4 years. Three-year Kaplan-Meier DSS with RT-CT, AccRT, and HypoRT were 80%, 81%, and 74%, respectively (p = 0.219). Cox regression analysis identified treatment modality as a significant factor affecting DSS (p = 0.038). Compared with RT-CT, the hazard ratio (HR) for DSS was 1.0 with AccRT and 2.0 with HypoRT (p = 0.021). Kaplan-Meier pairwise comparisons found no significant difference in LRC and OS between RT-CT and AccRT. HypoRT was associated with significantly lower LRC (p = 0.005) and OS (p = 0.008) compared with RT-CT. There were significant differences in the rates of G-tube use (p < 0.001) and of hospitalization (p = 0.036) among the three treatment groups, with the most frequent rates observed in the RT-CT group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer, AccRT conferred DSS, LRC, and OS comparable to that of RT-CT. Patients treated with RT-CT experienced higher rates of treatment-related acute toxicities. HypoRT was associated with the least favorable outcomes.