Outcomes of Patients with Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinomas Treated with Adjuvant IMRT with Perineural Invasion

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Patients with advanced oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) have high rates of recurrence and dismal outcomes. Treatment consists of definitive surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiation therapy based on pathologic review. Perineural invasion (PNI) is thought to be an intermediate risk factor, leading to clinical uncertainty as to adjuvant therapy in the setting of PNI. We performed a single institution retrospective review of patients with OCSCC treated with adjuvant radiation with or without PNI and examined relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

MATERIALS/METHODS

We performed a single-institutional retrospective review of patients with OCSCC treated with adjuvant IMRT +/- chemotherapy after surgical resection from July 2002- August 2021 using our institution's Head and Neck SPORE database. Time to recurrence or death was calculated from end of RT. OCSCC within 5 years of RT was considered a recurrence, beyond this timeframe any OCSCC was considered a new primary. Univariate analysis of predictors for RFS and OS were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Factors significant on univariable analysis were entered into parsimonious cox multivariable analysis using forward selection methodology. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant in both analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 494 patients with OCSCC were identified that received surgery and adjuvant IMRT. In this cohort, 48.8% of patients had pT4 tumors, 62.2% of patients had nodal involvement, and 40.3% of patients had extranodal extension. PNI was present in 63.6% of patients (n = 314). With regards to tumor subsite, 40.9% originated from the oral tongue, 21.5% originated from the gums, 18% originated from the floor of mouth, and 19.6% from the other sites. Median age was 59 years, and median adjuvant RT dose was 63 Gy (Interquartile range [IQR]) 60-66 Gy). The majority of patient received platinum-based chemotherapy (51.8%), and 44.1% of patients did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The 3-year RFS and OS with a median follow-up of 32 months (IQR 12-69 months) is presented in Table 1. On univariable analysis for OS, T stage (p = 0.003), N stage (p<0.001), PNI (p = 0.005), extranodal extension (ENE) (p<0.001), margin status (p = 0.038), and chemotherapy (p<0.001) were significant. On multivariable analysis, T stage (p<0.001), N stage (p = 0.010), PNI (p = 0.017), and ENE (p = 0.007) remained significant. Similar results were seen in the RFS analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this large single institution study, PNI was a significant and independent negative predictive factor for RFS and OS in patients with OCSCC that had received definitive surgery followed by adjuvant IMRT. To our knowledge this is the largest study of its kind, and these findings can help guide clinical decision making for these patients.

The role of oral hygiene in head and neck cancer: results from International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium

BACKGROUND

Poor oral hygiene has been proposed to contribute to head and neck cancer (HNC) risk, although causality and independency of some indicators are uncertain. This study investigates the relationship of five oral hygiene indicators with incident HNCs.

METHODS

In a pooled analysis of 8925 HNC cases and 12 527 controls from 13 studies participating in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium, comparable data on good oral hygiene indicators were harmonized. These included: no denture wear, no gum disease (or bleeding), <5 missing teeth, tooth brushing at least daily, and visiting a dentist ≥once a year. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effects of each oral hygiene indicator and cumulative score on HNC risk, adjusting for tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption.

RESULTS

Inverse associations with any HNC, in the hypothesized direction, were observed for <5 missing teeth [odds ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74, 0.82], annual dentist visit (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.78, 0.87), daily tooth brushing (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.79, 0.88), and no gum disease (OR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.89, 0.99), and no association was observed for wearing dentures. These associations were relatively consistent across specific cancer sites, especially for tooth brushing and dentist visits. The population attributable fraction for ≤ 2 out of 5 good oral hygiene indicators was 8.9% (95% CI 3.3%, 14%) for oral cavity cancer.

CONCLUSION

Good oral hygiene, as characterized by few missing teeth, annual dentist visits, and daily tooth brushing, may modestly reduce the risk of HNC.

Vitamin E intake from natural sources and head and neck cancer risk: a pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology consortium

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the possible effect of vitamin E on head and neck cancers (HNCs) is limited.

METHODS

We used individual-level pooled data from 10 case-control studies (5959 cases and 12 248 controls) participating in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium to assess the association between vitamin E intake from natural sources and cancer of the oral cavity/pharynx and larynx. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression models applied to quintile categories of non-alcohol energy-adjusted vitamin E intake.

RESULTS

Intake of vitamin E was inversely related to oral/pharyngeal cancer (OR for the fifth vs the first quintile category=0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71; P for trend <0.001) and to laryngeal cancer (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.83, P for trend <0.001). There was, however, appreciable heterogeneity of the estimated effect across studies for oral/pharyngeal cancer. Inverse associations were generally observed for the anatomical subsites of oral and pharyngeal cancer and within covariate strata for both sites.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that greater vitamin E intake from foods may lower HNC risk, although we were not able to explain the heterogeneity observed across studies or rule out certain sources of bias.