Comparative effectiveness trial of transoral head and neck surgery followed by adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy versus primary radiochemotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer (TopROC)

Treatment of elderly patients with head and neck cancer in an aging society: Focus on geriatric assessment and surgical treatment

Previous studies of the treatment of elderly head and neck cancer (HNC) patients were very limited and sometimes controversial. Although conclusions differ across various reports, it is often concluded that advanced chronological age does not directly affect prognosis, but that comorbidities and declines in physical and cognitive functions promote the occurrence of adverse events, especially with surgical treatment. Geriatric assessment (GA) and its screening tools are keys to help us understand overall health status and problems, predict life expectancy and treatment tolerance, and to influence treatment choices and interventions to improve treatment compliance. In addition, personal beliefs and values play a large role in determining policies for HNC treatment for elderly patients, and a multidisciplinary approach is important to support this. In this review, past research on HNC in older adults is presented, and the current evidence is explained, focusing on the management of elderly HNC patients, with an emphasis on the existing reports on each treatment stage and modality, especially the surgical procedures.

Eugenol as a potential adjuvant therapy for gingival squamous cell carcinoma

Adoption of plant-derived compounds for the management of oral cancer is encouraged by the scientific community due to emerging chemoresistance and conventional treatments adverse effects. Considering that very few studies investigated eugenol clinical relevance for gingival carcinoma, we ought to explore its selectivity and performance according to aggressiveness level. For this purpose, non-oncogenic human oral epithelial cells (GMSM-K) were used together with the Tongue (SCC-9) and Gingival (Ca9-22) squamous cell carcinoma lines to assess key tumorigenesis processes. Overall, eugenol inhibited cell proliferation and colony formation while inducing cytotoxicity in cancer cells as compared to normal counterparts. The recorded effect was greater in gingival carcinoma and appears to be mediated through apoptosis induction and promotion of p21/p27/cyclin D1 modulation and subsequent Ca9-22 cell cycle arrest at the G0/G1 phase, in a p53-independent manner. At these levels, distinct genetic profiles were uncovered for both cell lines by QPCR array. Moreover, it seems that our active component limited Ca9-22 and SCC-9 cell migration respectively through MMP1/3 downregulation and stimulation of inactive MMPs complex formation. Finally, Ca9-22 behaviour appears to be mainly modulated by the P38/STAT5/NFkB pathways. In summary, we can disclose that eugenol is cancer selective and that its mediated anti-cancer mechanisms vary according to the cell line with gingival squamous cell carcinoma being more sensitive to this phytotherapy agent.

Oncological and functional outcomes of transoral surgery compared with non-surgical management in small-volume oropharyngeal cancer: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to investigate oncological and functional outcomes following primary transoral surgery compared with non-surgical management in patients with small-volume (T1-2, N0-2) oropharyngeal cancer.

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is rising. Transoral surgery was introduced to provide a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with small-volume oropharyngeal cancer and to avoid the morbidity that results from open surgery and the potential acute and late toxicities of chemoradiotherapy.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The review will include all studies on adult patients with small-volume oropharyngeal cancer managed by transoral surgery or non-surgical management with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. All patients must have undergone treatment with curative intent. Participants who underwent palliative treatment will be excluded.

METHODS

This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Eligible study designs will include randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and multiple trial registries from 1972. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed, and full-text articles will be retrieved if they meet the inclusion criteria. All eligible studies will be critically appraised by 2 independent reviewers using the appropriate JBI tools for experimental and observational designs. Where possible, outcome data from studies will be pooled with statistical meta-analysis to compare both oncological and functional outcomes between the two groups. All time to event to data will be converted to a common metric for oncological outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be followed to assess the certainty of findings.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD4202235209.

[Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck cancer treatment: relevance, challenges, and benefit]

Next to overall survival, quality of life is becoming more and more pivotal for cancer patients. The various domains of quality of life are complex and have different value to each patient. However, not only patients but also health care professionals, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory bodies ask: How can quality of life be reliably ascertained in clinical trials? For this purpose, carefully developed and validated specific questionnaires are needed: the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A key challenge is to define how results based on PROMs can be used for shared decision-making. Next to clinical factors such as health and nutritional status, quality of life acts as a prognostic factor for overall survival in cancer. Thus, it is crucial to take quality of life into account in daily clinical practice.

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

BACKGROUND

Surgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour. Five trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 883 participants; moderate certainty) and disease-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; I2 = 12%; 5 trials, 954 participants; moderate certainty), and probably reduces locoregional recurrence (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 458 participants; moderate certainty) and recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 633 participants; moderate certainty). Elective ND is probably associated with more adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 746 participants; moderate certainty). Two trials evaluated elective radical ND versus elective selective ND in people with oral cavity cancer, but we were unable to pool the data as the trials used different surgical procedures. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival (pooled measure not estimable; very low certainty). We are unsure if there is a difference in effect on disease-free survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; 1 trial, 104 participants; very low certainty) or recurrence (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; 1 trial, 143 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference between the interventions in terms of adverse events (1 trial, 148 participants; low certainty). Two trials evaluated superselective ND versus selective ND, but we were unable to use the data. One trial evaluated supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND in 332 participants. We were unable to use any of the primary outcome data. The evidence on adverse events was very uncertain, with more complications, pain, and poorer shoulder function in the modified radical ND group. One trial evaluated sentinel node biopsy versus elective ND in 279 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; low certainty), disease-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; low certainty), or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; low certainty). The trial provided no usable data for recurrence, and reported no adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy) in 564 participants. There is probably no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; moderate certainty) or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; moderate certainty). One trial evaluated surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone and provided very low-certainty evidence of better overall survival in the surgery plus radiotherapy group (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59; 35 participants). The data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and had multiple protocol violations. In terms of adverse events, subcutaneous fibrosis was more frequent in the surgery plus radiotherapy group, but there were no differences in other adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated surgery versus radiotherapy alone for oropharyngeal cancer in 68 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions for overall survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.46; low certainty) or disease-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.22; low certainty). For adverse events, there were too many outcomes to draw reliable conclusions. One trial evaluated surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. We were unable to use the data for any of the outcomes reported (very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence. There was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. The evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.

[Radiation or Surgery for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer? The ORATOR2 Trial - Comparing apples and oranges]

ORATOR2 was a randomized phase II trial aiming to assess an optimal approach for therapy de-escalation in early (T1-T2, N0-N2) human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC). Radiotherapy (RT) (consisting of a reduced dose of 60 Gy with concurrent weekly cisplatin in N+ patients) was compared to trans-oral surgery (TOS) and neck dissection (ND) (with adjuvant reduced-dose RT depending on pathologic findings) in 61 patients. The primary endpoint, overall survival, favored the radiotherapy approach. This was mainly due to 3 mortality events in the surgery arm (2 surgery-related) which resulted in an early trial termination. The authors, who speak on behalf of the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery (working group for oncology) warn to draw conclusions for clinical practice pointing out the main shortages/weaknesses of this trial especially in the surgery arm (at least 1 cm margins, recommending re-operation if not achieved, prohibition of regional or free flaps, high rates of tracheotomy, low rate of TLM). Small patient numbers, a highly selected patient cohort and a short follow-up time further limit this study's relevance. Therefore, patients with HPV-related OPSCC should not receive de-escalating (radiation) therapy outside of clinical trials. When deciding between a surgical or a radio-therapeutical approach, patients should be informed about the pros and cons of both modalities after interdisciplinary consent in a tumor board, as long as clinical trial results` (e. g. EORTC 1420) are pending.

Detection of stage I HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer in asymptomatic individuals in the Hamburg City Health Study using HPV16 E6 serology - A proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND

The lack of detectable precancerous lesions poses challenges to the early detection of human papillomavirus-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). Antibodies against HPV16 early proteins, especially E6, are uniquely sensitive and specific biomarkers detectable years prior to HPV-OPC diagnosis. Thus, HPV16 early protein serology warrants clinical investigation for HPV-OPC screening.

METHODS

Using multiplex serology, we analyzed HPV16 serum antibodies of the first 5000 participants (n=4,424 sera, recruited 2016-2017) of the Hamburg City Health Study, a population-based prospective cohort (45-74 years). Participants seropositive for HPV16 E6 and at least one additional early protein (E1, E2, E7) were considered at high risk for HPV-OPC development and invited to six-monthly non-invasive head and neck follow-up (FU) examinations (visual inspection, endoscopy, ultrasonography, performed 2019-2020). Participants with suspicious lesions were examined by magnetic resonance imaging and panendoscopy with biopsy. Histologically confirmed OPC cases were treated according to standard of care.

FINDINGS

In total, 35 out of 4,424 study participants (0·8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·6-1·1%) were HPV16 E6 seropositive. Among these, eleven (0·3%, 95%CI 0·1-0·5%) were considered at high risk for HPV-OPC of which nine were successfully re-contacted and invited to regular clinical FU examinations. Two males and one female were diagnosed with stage I HPV-OPC within 1·3 years of clinical FU (3-4 years after initial blood draw), representing one diagnosis of prevalent advanced disease, one incident diagnosis of advanced disease, and one incident diagnosis of early disease. The remaining participants showed no detectable signs of cancer, and undergo regular examinations (median clinical FU: 1·0 years, median total FU from blood draw to last clinical FU visit: 4·7 years).

INTERPRETATION

HPV16 early antibodies allowed identifying three asymptomatic stage I HPV-OPC patients, out of eleven participants considered at high risk. However, two of the three cases already showed signs of advanced disease at diagnosis. Targeting multiple early proteins may considerably improve the positive predictive value of HPV16 serology and may have clinical utility for HPV-OPC screening.

FUNDING

This work was funded by DKFZ and UKE intramural funding.

Management of elderly patients with head and neck cancer

There are no established guidelines for managing older patients with head and neck cancer. Most clinical trials that define current standard therapy included few elderly patients. On the other hand, there is great variability in patients' comorbidities, physical functions, cognitive function, familial and financial background and values. The key point appears to be appropriate geriatric assessment, clarifying the patients' outcomes and a multidisciplinary team approach, including the treatment decision-making policy. Although these processes should be scientific in nature, the evidence for the treatment of elderly head and neck patients is very limited. This review summarizes the evidence available regarding the management of geriatric assessment, each treatment modality and the multidisciplinary team approach for older patients with head and neck cancers.

Nutritional Status Impacts Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing (Chemo)Radiotherapy: Results from the Prospective HEADNUT Trial

Malnutrition negatively impacts quality of life (QoL) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). This is the first prospective study to assess the impact of malnutrition (defined by the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived fat-free mass index) on QoL in patients with HNC undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy. Between October 2018 and October 2020, 58 HNC patients prospectively completed the QoL-questionnaires EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-H&N35 at the beginning (t_b) and at the end of (chemo)radiotherapy (t_e) as well as during follow-up (t_f). At these time points, nutritional risk assessment (MUST, NRS-2002, Nutriscore), BIA measurement and laboratory testing was performed by a permanent study team. Differences between malnourished (n = 14) and well-nourished patients (n = 44) were observed in UICC classification (P < 0.001) and HPV status (P = 0.03). Well-nourished patients showed higher baseline hemoglobin (P = 0.025) and albumin (P = 0.005), but lower c-reactive protein levels (P < 0.001). At t_b, mostly malnourished patients presented with worse QoL. Multivariable analysis showed that MUST, NRS-2002, HPV status, and UICC classification were related to QoL. Nutritional status has a crucial impact on QoL. The nutritional screening protocols MUST and NRS-2002 are suitable for identifying patients at risk and predicting QoL in patients with HNC undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy.