2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Locally Advanced Oral Cavity Cancers: What Is The Optimal Care?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Patients with oral cavity cancers often present late to seek medical care. Surgery is usually the preferred upfront treatment. However, surgical resection cannot be achieved in many cases with advanced disease without major impact on patient’s quality of life. On the other hand, radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) have not been employed routinely to replace surgery as curative treatment or to facilitate surgery as neoadjuvant therapy. The optimal care of these patients is challenging when surgical treatment is not feasible. In this review, we aimed to summarize the best available evidence-based treatment approaches for patients with locally advanced oral cavity cancer. Surgery followed by RT with or without CT is the standard of care for locally advanced oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. In the case of unresectable disease, induction CT prior to surgery or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) can be attempted with curative intent. For inoperable patients or when surgery is expected to result in poor functional outcome, patients may be candidates for possibly curative CRT or palliative RT with a focus on quality of life.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

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

          Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (sequential chemoradiotherapy) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer (PARADIGM): a randomised phase 3 trial.

          The relative efficacy of the addition of induction chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy alone for patients with head and neck cancer is unclear. The PARADIGM study is a multicentre open-label phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF) induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Adult patients with previously untreated, non-metastatic, newly diagnosed head and neck cancer were eligible. Patients were eligible if their tumour was either unresectable or of low surgical curability on the basis of advanced tumour stage (3 or 4) or regional-node stage (2 or 3, except T1N2), or if they were a candidate for organ preservation. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive either induction chemotherapy with three cycles of TPF followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with either docetaxel or carboplatin or concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone with two cycles of bolus cisplatin. A computer-generated randomisation schedule using minimisation was prepared and the treatment assignment was done centrally at one of the study sites. Patients, study staff, and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Stratification factors were WHO performance status, primary disease site, and stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patient accrual was terminated in December, 2008, because of slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095875. Between Aug 24, 2004, and Dec 29, 2008, we enrolled 145 patients across 16 sites. After a median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 39-63), 41 patients had died-20 in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group and 21 in the chemoradiotherapy alone group. 3-year overall survival was 73% (95% CI 60-82) in the induction therapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group and 78% (66-86) in the chemoradiotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·59-2·03; p=0·77). More patients had febrile neutropenia in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group (16 patients) than in the chemoradiotherapy alone group (one patient). Although survival results were good in both groups there was no difference noted between those patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and those who received chemoradiotherapy alone. We cannot rule out the possibility of a difference in survival going undetected due to early termination of the trial. Clinicians should still use their best judgment, based on the available data, in the decision of how to best treat patients. The addition of induction chemotherapy remains an appropriate approach for advanced disease with high risk for local or distant failure. Sanofi-Aventis. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Phase III randomized trial of induction chemotherapy in patients with N2 or N3 locally advanced head and neck cancer.

            Induction chemotherapy (IC) before radiotherapy lowers distant failure (DF) rates in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The goal of this phase III trial was to determine whether IC before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) further improves survival compared with CRT alone in patients with N2 or N3 disease. Treatment-naive patients with nonmetastatic N2 or N3 SCCHN were randomly assigned to CRT alone (CRT arm; docetaxel, fluorouracil, and hydroxyurea plus radiotherapy 0.15 Gy twice per day every other week) versus two 21-day cycles of IC (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, and fluorouracil 750 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 5) followed by the same CRT regimen (IC + CRT arm). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included DF-free survival, failure pattern, and recurrence-free survival (RFS). A total of 285 patients were randomly assigned. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities during IC were febrile neutropenia (11%) and mucositis (9%); during CRT (both arms combined), they were mucositis (49%), dermatitis (21%), and leukopenia (18%). Serious adverse events were more common in the IC arm (47% v 28%; P = .002). With a minimum follow-up of 30 months, there were no statistically significant differences in OS (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.41), RFS, or DF-free survival. IC did not translate into improved OS compared with CRT alone. However, the study was underpowered because it did not meet the planned accrual target, and OS was higher than predicted in both arms. IC cannot be recommended routinely in patients with N2 or N3 locally advanced SCCHN. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Oral Cavity Carcinoma: Current Management, Controversies, and Future Directions.

              Oral cavity carcinoma (OCC) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with head and neck cancer. Although the incidence has decreased over the last decade, outcomes remain stagnant with only a 5% improvement in overall survival in the last 20 years. Although surgical resection remains the primary treatment modality, several areas of controversy exist with regard to work-up, management of the primary and neck tumors, and adjuvant therapy. As surgical techniques evolve, so has the delivery of radiotherapy and systemic treatment, which have helped to improve the outcomes for patients with advanced disease. Recently, the addition of cetuximab has shown promise as a way to improve outcomes while minimizing toxicity, and this remains an active area of study in the adjuvant setting. Advances in microvascular free-flap reconstruction have extended the limits of resection and enabled enhanced restoration of function and cosmesis. While these advances have led to limited survival benefit, evaluation of alternative modalities has gained interest on the basis of success in other head and neck subsites. Organ preservation with definitive chemoradiotherapy, though proven in the larynx and pharynx, remains controversial in OCC. Likewise, although the association of human papillomavirus is well established in oropharyngeal carcinoma, it has not been proven in the pathogenesis or survival of OCC. Future study of the molecular biology and pathogenesis of OCC should offer additional insight into screening, treatment selection, and novel therapeutic approaches.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cancer Control
                CCX
                spccx
                Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1073-2748
                1526-2359
                27 April 2020
                Jan-Dec 2020
                : 27
                : 1
                : 1073274820920727
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, Medical School, Al Baha University, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia
                [2 ]Otolaryngiology/Head and Neck section, Department of Surgery, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
                [3 ]King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
                [4 ]King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
                [5 ]Medical Oncology Section, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
                [6 ]Radiation Oncology Department, Comprehensive Cancer Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [7 ]Medical Imaging Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
                [8 ]Radiation Oncology Section, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
                [9 ]Department of Medicine, Medical School, Al Baha University, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes
                [*]Majed Alghamdi, Radiation Oncology, Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Al Baha University, Prince Mohammed Bin Saud, Al Baha 65527, Saudi Arabia. Email: malghamdi1984@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8242-3637
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0779-079X
                Article
                10.1177_1073274820920727
                10.1177/1073274820920727
                7218312
                32339002
                3467f8aa-b2c8-4d81-abf1-04cd62b9a25d
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 28 June 2019
                : 01 January 2020
                : 31 March 2020
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2020
                ts3

                oral cancer,locally advanced,radiotherapy,chemotherapy
                oral cancer, locally advanced, radiotherapy, chemotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article