The necessity of IIb dissection in T1-T2N0M0 oral squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Potential of melatonin to reverse epigenetic aberrations in oral cancer: new findings

It is now an accepted principle that epigenetic alterations cause cellular dyshomeostasis and functional changes, both of which are essential for the initiation and completion of the tumor cycle. Oral carcinogenesis is no exception in this regard, as most of the tumors in the different subsites of the oral cavity arise from the cross-reaction between (epi)genetic inheritance and the huge challenge of environmental stressors. Currently, the biochemical machinery is put at the service of the tumor program, halting the cell cycle, triggering uncontrolled proliferation, driving angiogenesis and resistance to apoptosis, until the archetypes of the tumor phenotype are reached. Melatonin has the ability to dynamically affect the epigenetic code. It has become accepted that melatonin can reverse (epi)genetic aberrations present in oral and other cancers, suggesting the possibility of enhancing the oncostatic capacity of standard multimodal treatments by incorporating this indolamine as an adjuvant. First steps in this direction confirm the potential of melatonin as a countermeasure to mitigate the detrimental side effects of conventional first-line radiochemotherapy. This single effect could produce synergies of extraordinary clinical importance, allowing doses to be increased and treatments not to be interrupted, ultimately improving patients' quality of life and prognosis. Motivated by the urgency of improving the medical management of oral cancer, many authors advocate moving from in vitro and preclinical research, where the bulk of melatonin cancer research is concentrated, to systematic randomized clinical trials on large cohorts. Recognizing the challenge to improve the clinical management of cancer, our motivation is to encourage comprehensive and robust research to reveal the clinical potential of melatonin in oral cancer control. To improve the outcome and quality of life of patients with oral cancer, here we provide the latest evidence of the oncolytic activity that melatonin can achieve by manipulating epigenetic patterns in oronasopharyngeal tissue.

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.

Sentinel node biopsy in node negative early oral cancers: Solution to the conundrum!

Ideal management of the node-negative neck in early oral cancers is a debated issue. Elective neck dissection (END) is recommended in these patients as it offers a survival benefit. However, about 50-70% of patients who do not harbor occult metastasis are overtreated with this approach. Surgery is associated with morbidity, predominantly shoulder dysfunction. Numerous attempts have been made to identify true node-negative patients through imaging and prediction models but none have high diagnostic accuracy to safely spare the neck dissection. The recent publications of 2 large randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and END have spurred interest in SNB. Both the trials reported SNB to be an oncologically safe procedure and spared unnecessary neck dissections. The functional outcomes of the trials showed that SNB limits the morbidity compared to END, which albeit evens out at the end of one-year post-surgery. Despite its benefits, SNB has failed to gain widespread acceptability due to various limitations including the need for infrastructure, equipment costs, staff, and multidisciplinary collaboration of nuclear medicine, surgical, and pathology fraternity. The labor-intensive pathology protocol with serial step sectioning and immunohistochemistry poses a challenge to the feasibility at a high-volume center. This perspective discusses these limitations and propose plausible solutions to the conundrum. To make it widely applicable and feasible across the globe efforts should be directed to understand biology better, find novel solutions, and implement the lessons learned over decades from other sites.