1
|
Chen AM. Management of unknown primary head and neck cancer with radiation therapy in the era of human papillomavirus (HPV): No longer cutting down the tree to get an apple. Radiother Oncol 2023; 189:109952. [PMID: 37844736 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2023] [Revised: 10/07/2023] [Accepted: 10/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Given the central role that radiation has in the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin, it is imperative to review how treatment paradigms have been refined and continue to evolve in the modern era. METHODS AND MATERIALS This study was designed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. A literature search of peer-reviewed publications was undertaken to identify works pertaining to the use of radiation for squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin presenting as cervical lymph node metastases. Articles published from January 2002 to January 2023 with full text available on PubMed and restricted to the English language and human subjects were included. The full bibliographies of identified articles were reviewed and irrelevant studies were removed. RESULTS While such breakthroughs as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, positron emission tomography, biomarker testing with immune-histochemistry, and minimally invasive surgical techniques such as transoral robotic surgery have fundamentally changed the approach to this disease in recent decades, controversies still exist with respect to the manner in which radiation is delivered. Although the incidence of head and neck unknown primary cancer is relatively low, questions regarding the necessity of comprehensive radiation using the age-old standard method of targeting the bilateral necks and entire pharyngeal axis to encompass all putative sites of mucosal disease persist. CONCLUSIONS Prospective evidence is lacking, and the available studies have been complicated by such factors as the relatively limited sample sizes, as well as the variability in work-up, treatment, inclusion criteria, and follow-up. Regardless, advances in science and technology have ushered in more precise approaches with a high degree of customization, particularly given the increased proportion of patients presenting with human papillomavirus-related disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allen M Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shen E, Van Swearingen AED, Price MJ, Bulsara K, Verhaak RGW, Baëta C, Painter BD, Reitman ZJ, Salama AKS, Clarke JM, Anders CK, Fecci PE, Goodwin CR, Walsh KM. A Need for More Molecular Profiling in Brain Metastases. Front Oncol 2022; 11:785064. [PMID: 35145903 PMCID: PMC8821807 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.785064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
As local disease control improves, the public health impact of brain metastases (BrM) continues to grow. Molecular features are frequently different between primary and metastatic tumors as a result of clonal evolution during neoplasm migration, selective pressures imposed by systemic treatments, and differences in the local microenvironment. However, biomarker information in BrM is not routinely obtained despite emerging evidence of its clinical value. We review evidence of discordance in clinically actionable biomarkers between primary tumors, extracranial metastases, and BrM. Although BrM biopsy/resection imposes clinical risks, these risks must be weighed against the potential benefits of assessing biomarkers in BrM. First, new treatment targets unique to a patient's BrM may be identified. Second, as BrM may occur late in a patient's disease course, resistance to initial targeted therapies and/or loss of previously identified biomarkers can occur by the time of occult BrM, rendering initial and other targeted therapies ineffective. Thus, current biomarker data can inform real-time treatment options. Third, biomarker information in BrM may provide useful prognostic information for patients. Appreciating the importance of biomarker analyses in BrM tissue, including how it may identify specific drivers of BrM, is critical for the development of more effective treatment strategies to improve outcomes for this growing patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica Shen
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States
- The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, United States
| | - Amanda E. D. Van Swearingen
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Meghan J. Price
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Ketan Bulsara
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States
| | - Roeland G. W. Verhaak
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States
- The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra (UMC), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) University Medical Center (VUmc), Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - César Baëta
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Brice D. Painter
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Zachary J. Reitman
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - April K. S. Salama
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Jeffrey M. Clarke
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Carey K. Anders
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Peter E. Fecci
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - C. Rory Goodwin
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Kyle M. Walsh
- Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|