Prospective randomized study of post-operative chemotherapy with levamisole and UFT for head and neck carcinoma

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searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.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.

Systematic review of postoperative therapy for resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Executive summary of the American Radium Society appropriate use criteria

BACKGROUND

The aims of this systematic review are to (a) evaluate the current literature on the impact of postoperative therapy for resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) on oncologic and non-oncologic outcomes and (b) identify the optimal evidence-based postoperative therapy recommendations for commonly encountered clinical scenarios.

METHODS

An analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Prospective studies and methodology-based systematic reviews and meta-analyses of postoperative therapy for SCCHN were identified by searching Medline (OVID) and EMBASE (Elsevier) using controlled vocabulary terms (ie, National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings [MeSH], EMTREE). Study screening and selection was performed with Covidence software and full-text review. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriate use of postoperative therapy, and the modified Delphi method was used to come to consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 5660 studies were identified and screened using the title and abstract, leading to 201 studies assessed for relevance using full-text review. After limitation to the eligibility criteria, 101 studies from 1977 to 2020 were identified, including 77 with oncologic endpoints and 24 with function and quality of life endpoints. All studies reported staging prior to the implementation of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC-8).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective clinical studies and systematic reviews identified through the PRISMA systematic review provided good evidence for consensus statements regarding the appropriate use of postoperative therapy for resected SCCHN. Further research is needed in domains where consensus by the expert panel could not be achieved for the appropriateness of specific postoperative therapeutic interventions.

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early-stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. This is an update of a review originally published in 2007 and first updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease-free survival and locoregional control and reduced recurrence. To determine the implication of treatment modalities in terms of morbidity, quality of life, costs, hospital days of treatment, complications and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 December 2017) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 December 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the 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, or where separate data could be extracted for these participants, and that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We collected adverse events data from included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 12 (2300 participants; 2148 with cancers of the oral cavity). We assessed four trials at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear. None of the included trials compared different surgical approaches for the excision of the primary tumour. We grouped the trials into seven main comparisons.Future research may change the findings as there is only very low-certainty evidence available for all results.Five trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic (delayed) ND in participants with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate in most cases. Four of these trials reported overall and disease-free survival. The meta-analyses of two trials found no evidence of either intervention leading to greater overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.72; 571 participants), or disease-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.11; 571 participants), but one trial found a benefit for elective supraomohyoid ND compared to therapeutic ND in overall survival (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 67 participants) and disease-free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; 67 participants). Four individual trials assessed locoregional recurrence, but could not be meta-analysed; one trial favoured elective ND over therapeutic delayed ND, while the others were inconclusive.Two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND, but we were unable to pool the data for two outcomes. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival or disease-free survival. A single trial found no evidence of a difference in recurrence.One trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.One trial comparing positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (either before or after chemoradiotherapy), showed no evidence of a difference in mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; 564 participants). The trial did not provide usable data for the other outcomes.Three single trials compared: surgery plus adjunctive radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy; supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND; and super selective ND versus selective ND. There were no useable data from these trials.The reporting of adverse events was poor. Four trials measured adverse events. Only one of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Twelve randomised controlled trials evaluated ND surgery in people with oral cavity cancers; however, the evidence available for all comparisons and outcomes is very low certainty, therefore we cannot rely on the findings. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about elective ND of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour compared to therapeutic (delayed) ND. Two trials combined in meta-analysis suggested there is no difference between these interventions, while one trial (which evaluated elective supraomohyoid ND) found that it may be associated with increased overall and disease-free survival. One trial found elective ND reduced locoregional recurrence, while three were inconclusive. There is no evidence that radical ND increases overall or disease-free survival compared to more conservative ND surgery, or that there is a difference in mortality between PET-CT surveillance following chemoradiotherapy versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy). Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of people undergoing different surgical treatments.

Systemic therapy in the curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence and make recommendations regarding use of systemically administered drugs in combination or in sequence with radiation (RT) and/or surgery for cure and/or organ preservation in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic (Stage III to IVB) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN).

METHOD

Recognizing the Meta-analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) group reports have de facto guided practice since 2000, we searched for systematic reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published from January 2000 to February 2015 in reference to 4 research questions. A search was also conducted for randomized trials (RCTs) up to February 2015 not included in the meta-analyses.

RESULT

The MACH-NC reports, 5 additional meta-analyses, and 30 RCTs not included by MACH-NC were identified. For chemotherapy, MACH-NC findings showing improved overall survival with concomitant chemoRT did not require modification. High-dose cisplatin was most commonly studied. We confirmed this benefit with cisplatin monotherapy in patients treated with with postoperative concurrent chemoRT. Other than cetuximab, no targeted agents and radiosensitizers studied in RCTs were shown effective. TPF induction chemotherapy was superior to PF for tumor response and larynx preservation but not survival. Larynx preservation was reported with both CRT and induction chemotherapy approaches.

CONCLUSION

ChemoRT with cisplatin at least 40 mg/m2 per week given as radical or postoperative adjuvant remains a standard treatment approach for LASCCHN that improves overall survival but increases toxicity. 5-FU plus platinum is supported by less data but may be a reasonable alternative for patients unsuitable for cisplatin. Of note, stratification of outcomes by HPV-status was not available but outcomes for oropharynx cancer appeared similar to other subsites in chemoRT RCTs. No RCTs have yet demonstrated superiority or non-inferiority of cetuximab-RT to CRT. In view of this, cetuximab-RT is suggested only for patients not candidates for CRT. Taxane-based triplet induction chemotherapy is superior to doublets for rapid tumour downsizing and for larynx preservation, but does not improve overall survival and should be used with primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Further investigation of induction approaches for larynx preservation may be warranted.

Head and neck cancer: metronomic chemotherapy

In the era of personalized medicine, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) represents a critical oncologic topic. Conventional chemotherapy regimens consist of drugs administration in cycles near or at the maximum tolerated dose (MDT), followed by a long drug-free period to permit the patient to recover from acute toxicities. Despite this strategy is successful in controlling the cancer process at the beginning, a significant number of HNSCC patients tend to recurred or progress, especially those patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The repertoire of drugs directed against tumor cells has greatly increased and metronomic chemotherapy (MC) could be an effective treatment option.

It is the purpose of this article to review the concept of MC and describe its potential use in HNSCC. We provide an update of ongoing progress and current challenges related to this issue.

Feasibility and toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy using S-1 granules for local advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

S-1 granulated powder has recently been released to the market as an additional format to that of the capsule. Patients who previously found it difficult to swallow the capsules are now able to take S-1 in powder form. This study evaluated the feasibility of S-1 granulated powder as adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer. S-1 was orally administered for 2  weeks, followed by 1  week of rest (one course) for 12  months (16 courses). Twenty-four stage III and IV head and neck cancer patients were enrolled in this study. In total, 10 (47.6%) of the patients follow the planned schedule and dose. Severe adverse events were observed in 22 patients (91.7%), whereas no grade 4 adverse events were observed. S-1 granulated powder should be presented as an additional option for the treatment of head and neck cancer, especially for patients experiencing difficulty in swallowing oral medications.

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). 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 surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries.

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.

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.

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

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.

Effect of liniment levamisole on cellular immune functions of patients with chronic hepatitis B

AIM

To explore the effects of liniment levamisole on cellular immune functions of patients with chronic hepatitis B.

METHODS

The levels of T lymphocyte subsets and mIL-2R in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were measured by biotin-streptavidin (BSA) technique in patients with chronic hepatitis B before and after the treatment with liniment levamisole.

RESULTS

After one course of treatment with liniment levamisole, the levels of CD3(+), CD4(+), and the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) increased as compared to those before the treatment but the level of CD8(+) decreased. The total expression level of mIL-2R in PBMCs increased before and after the treatment with liniment levamisole.

CONCLUSION

Liniment levamisole may reinforce cellular immune functions of patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Concurrent and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Factorial Study

Purpose

To study the efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Patients and Methods

Patients with Ho's stage T3 or N2/N3 NPC or neck node ≥ 4 cm were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to have radiotherapy (RT) or CRT with uracil and tegafur and to have AC or no AC after RT/CRT. AC comprised alternating cisplatin, fluorouracil, vincristine, bleomycin, and methotrexate for six cycles. There were four treatment groups: A, RT; B, CRT; C, RT and AC; D, CRT and AC. For CRT versus RT, groups B and D were compared with groups A and C. For AC versus no AC, groups C and D were compared with groups A and B.

Results

Three-year failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) for CRT versus RT were 69.3% versus 57.8% and 86.5% versus 76.8%, respectively (P = .14 and .06; n = 110 v 109). Distant metastases rate (DMR) was significantly reduced with CRT (14.8% v 29.4%; P = .026). Locoregional failure rates (LRFR) were similar (20% v 27.6%; P = .39). Three-year FFS and OS for AC versus no AC were 62.5% versus 65% and 80.4% versus 83.1%, respectively (P = .83 and .69; n = 111 v 108). DMR and LRFR were not reduced with AC (P = .34 and .15, respectively). Cox model showed CRT to be a favorable prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio, 0.42; P = .009).

Conclusion

An improvement in OS with CRT was observed but did not achieve statistical significance. The improvement seemed to be associated with a significant reduction in DMR. AC did not improve outcome.

Postoperative chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in cancer of the oral cavity and the oropharynx--long-term results

Adjuvant chemotherapy has not yet been proven to have a survival benefit for patients with head and neck cancer. Studies dealing with this topic have had several faults like mingling tumor localizations and treatment modalities. To re-examine the role of postoperative chemotherapy in oral cavity cancer, a single-center study was conducted with the attempt to have higher homogeneity. 122 patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the lip, the oral cavity and the oropharynx have been treated with 100 mg/m2 cisplatin bolus infusion and 120-h continuous infusion of 1000 mg/m2 5-fluorouracil following radical surgery; 99 patients completed all 3 cycles. The disease-free and overall survival are reported and compared to a control group of 161 patients with cancer of the lip, the oral cavity and oropharynx treated only with surgery, and a treatment-dependent prognostic index. After a median follow-up of 79 months (range 5-18 years), the current 5-year overall survival of the chemotherapy group was 67% and the 5-year disease-free survival was 57% while the respective data for the control group are 46% and 40%. This difference is statistically significant. The comparison with the prognostic index confirmed this result. The chemotherapy group suffered from fewer local and more neck relapses and had a much longer relapse latency (29 months versus 8 months). The toxicity of the chemotherapy regimen was tolerable. In a homogeneous population with resectable oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil resulted in a high overall survival rate which was significantly better than in a comparable population treated only with surgery and better than the survival expectation calculated with the help of a prognostic index. A prospective randomized study of postoperative chemotherapy versus control, exclusively in patients with oral cancer, is warranted.

Clinical nodal stage is an independently significant predictor of distant failure in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of clinical nodal stage on distant metastasis (DM) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx (SCCL).

METHODS

Six hundred sixty-two previously untreated SCCL patients treated at a tertiary care cancer center from January 1984 to December 1998 were eligible for analysis. The end point of interest was development of DM following treatment. Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method; predictors of outcome were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis. The primary tumor site was glottic in 55%, supraglottic in 40%, and trans/sub glottic in 5%; 40% had locoregionally advanced (stage III/IV) tumors. At initial presentation, 25% of patients (12% N1, 11% N2, and 2% N3) had clinically metastatic nodes.

RESULTS

DM were recorded in 67 patients (10%; lung, 45%; soft tissue, 13%; bone, 10%; multiple sites, 28%). The median time to DM was 18 months (range, 1-109). With a median follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year DMFS was 88%. Even after accounting for the type of index treatment, the only significant predictor of worse DMFS on multivariate analysis was a higher clinical N stage (P < 0.0001). The relative risk for DM was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.4; P = NS) for cN1, 3.2 (95% CI, 1.7-5.9; P < 0.0001) for cN2, and 7.5 (95% CI, 3.1-17.9; P < 0.0001) for cN3 disease compared with clinically N0 patients.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the index treatment modality, primary tumor site, or T stage, a higher clinical N stage at the time of presentation independently and significantly increases the risk of DM in patients with SCCL.

Phase I study of oral uracil and Tegafur plus leucovorin and pelvic radiation in patients with recurrent rectal cancer

Continuous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion during radiation therapy is superior to the application of bolus 5-FU schedules. As an oral therapy, that provides prolonged fluoropyrimidine exposure, uracil and Tegafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV) has shown favorable activity with only moderate toxicity in colorectal cancer. The present study was designed to evaluate the safety of UFT+LV combined with pelvic radiation to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) in recurrent rectal cancer. Patients with recurrent rectal cancer received escalating doses of UFT (starting at 250 mg/m /day with 50 mg/m /day increments between consecutive cohorts) and fixed doses of LV (90 mg). The UFT+LV combination was given 5 days per week simultaneously to a 5-week course of irradiation up to a total dose of 50.4 Gy, 1.8 Gy daily fractions followed by a boost of 5.4 or 9.0 Gy to the gross tumor volume. Nineteen patients were treated and 14 received the full chemotherapy with delivery of all planned radiotherapy. The MTD of UFT was 400 mg/m /day due to the occurrence of dose-limiting diarrhea and emesis. Toxicities were mild and manageable on the lower dose levels. Treatment was feasible mainly on an outpatient base. We conclude that combined chemoradiation with oral UFT+LV is feasible and well tolerated for recurrent rectal cancer patients undergoing pelvic radiation. The safety profile appears comparable to that of i.v. dosing without requiring any i.v. port systems. The recommended doses for further phase II chemoradiation trials are 350 mg/m /day UFT+90 mg LV.

Clinical studies of three oral prodrugs of 5-fluorouracil (capecitabine, UFT, S-1): a review

Although 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was first introduced in 1957, it remains an essential part of the treatment of a wide range of solid tumors. 5-FU has antitumor activity against epithelial malignancies arising in the gastrointestinal tract and breast as well as the head and neck, with single-agent response rates of only 10%-30%. Although 5-FU is still the most widely prescribed agent for the treatment of colorectal cancer, less than one-third of patients achieve objective responses. Recent research has focused on the biomodulation of 5-FU to improve the cytotoxicity and therapeutic effectiveness of this drug in the treatment of advanced disease. As all the anticancer agents, 5-FU leads to several toxicities. The toxicity profile of 5-FU is schedule dependent. Myelotoxicity is the major toxic effect in patients receiving bolus doses. Hand-foot syndrome (palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia), stomatitis, and neuro- and cardiotoxicities are associated with continuous infusions. Other adverse effects associated with both bolus-dose and continuous-infusion regimens include nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, alopecia, and dermatitis. All these reasons explain the need for more effective and less toxic fluoropyrimidines. In the first part of this review, we briefly present the metabolic pathways of 5-FU responsible for the efficacy and toxicity of this drug. This knowledge is also necessary to understand the target(s) of biomodulation. The second part is devoted to a review of the literature on three recent prodrugs of 5-FU, i.e., capecitabine, UFT (ftorafur [FTO] plus uracil), and S-1 (FTO plus 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine plus potassium oxonate). The pharmacological principles that have influenced the development of these new drugs and our current knowledge of the clinical pharmacology of these new agents, focusing on antitumor activity and toxicity, are presented. The literature was analyzed until March 2002. This review is intended to be as exhaustive as possible since it was conceived as a work tool for readers wanting to go further.