34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Management of the Neck in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of the current work is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others on the management of the neck in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx. ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 1990 through 2018. Outcomes of interest included survival, regional disease control, neck recurrence, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. The literature search identified 124 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Six clinical scenarios were devised; three for oral cavity cancer and three for oropharynx cancer, and recommendations were generated for each one. For oral cavity cancers, clinical scenarios focused on the indications for and the hallmarks of a high-quality neck dissection, indications for postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and whether radiotherapy alone is sufficient elective treatment of an undissected neck compared with high-quality neck dissection. For oropharynx cancers, clinical scenarios focused on hallmarks of a high-quality neck dissection, factors that would favor operative versus nonoperative primary management, and clarifying criteria for an incomplete response to definitive chemoradiation for which salvage neck dissection would be recommended. Consensus was reached and recommendations were made for all six clinical scenarios. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines .

          Related collections

          Most cited references148

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501).

          In 2004, level I evidence was established for the postoperative adjuvant treatment of patients with selected high-risk locally advanced head and neck cancers, with the publication of the results of two trials conducted in Europe (European Organization Research and Treatment of Cancer; EORTC) and the United States (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; RTOG). Adjuvant chemotherapy-enhanced radiation therapy (CERT) was shown to be more efficacious than postoperative radiotherapy for these tumors in terms of locoregional control and disease-free survival. However, additional studies were needed to identify precisely which patients were most suitable for such intense treatment. Both studies compared the addition of concomitant relatively high doses of cisplatin (on days 1, 22, and 43) to radiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone given after surgery in patients with high-risk cancers of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx. A comparative analysis of the selection criteria, clinical and pathologic risk factors, and treatment outcomes was carried out using data pooled from these two trials. Extracapsular extension (ECE) and/or microscopically involved surgical margins were the only risk factors for which the impact of CERT was significant in both trials. There was also a trend in favor of CERT in the group of patients who had stage III-IV disease, perineural infiltration, vascular embolisms, and/or clinically enlarged level IV-V lymph nodes secondary to tumors arising in the oral cavity or oropharynx. Patients who had two or more histopathologically involved lymph nodes without ECE as their only risk factor did not seem to benefit from the addition of chemotherapy in this analysis. Subject to the usual caveats of retrospective subgroup analysis, our data suggest that in locally advanced head and neck cancer, microscopically involved resection margins and extracapsular spread of tumor from neck nodes are the most significant prognostic factors for poor outcome. The addition of concomitant cisplatin to postoperative radiotherapy improves outcome in patients with one or both of these risk factors who are medically fit to receive chemotherapy. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer.

            The Head and Neck Intergroup conducted a phase III randomized trial to test the benefit of adding chemotherapy to radiation in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. Eligible patients were randomly assigned between arm A (the control), single daily fractionated radiation (70 Gy at 2 Gy/d); arm B, identical radiation therapy with concurrent bolus cisplatin, given on days 1, 22, and 43; and arm C, a split course of single daily fractionated radiation and three cycles of concurrent infusional fluorouracil and bolus cisplatin chemotherapy, 30 Gy given with the first cycle and 30 to 40 Gy given with the third cycle. Surgical resection was encouraged if possible after the second chemotherapy cycle on arm C and, if necessary, as salvage therapy on all three treatment arms. Survival data were compared between each experimental arm and the control arm using a one-sided log-rank test. Between 1992 and 1999, 295 patients were entered on this trial. This did not meet the accrual goal of 362 patients and resulted in premature study closure. Grade 3 or worse toxicity occurred in 52% of patients enrolled in arm A, compared with 89% enrolled in arm B (P <.0001) and 77% enrolled in arm C (P <.001). With a median follow-up of 41 months, the 3-year projected overall survival for patients enrolled in arm A is 23%, compared with 37% for arm B (P =.014) and 27% for arm C (P = not significant). The addition of concurrent high-dose, single-agent cisplatin to conventional single daily fractionated radiation significantly improves survival, although it also increases toxicity. The loss of efficacy resulting from split-course radiation was not offset by either multiagent chemotherapy or the possibility of midcourse surgery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Elective versus Therapeutic Neck Dissection in Node-Negative Oral Cancer.

              Whether patients with early-stage oral cancers should be treated with elective neck dissection at the time of the primary surgery or with therapeutic neck dissection after nodal relapse has been a matter of debate.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                JCO
                American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                February 27 2019
                February 27 2019
                : JCO.18.01921
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
                [2 ]American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
                [3 ]Patient representative, Indianapolis, IN
                [4 ]Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
                [5 ]University of Washington, Seattle, WA
                [6 ]University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX
                [7 ]Huntington Internal Medicine Group, Huntington, WV
                [8 ]Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [9 ]University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS
                [10 ]University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
                [11 ]University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
                [12 ]Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
                Article
                10.1200/JCO.18.01921
                7098829
                30811281
                bb980f8b-249d-49cf-bdb2-8640b0b227c1
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,731

                Cited by97

                Most referenced authors2,515