Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/26/2023 - 12:15
Display Headline
The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD
Case Study

A 65-year-old African American man presented to an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery clinic at a tertiary Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility for evaluation. The patient recalled a past diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), possibly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). After receiving the diagnosis at another VHA facility, the patient opted to seek care at a local, non-VHA facility and received approximately 7 weeks of daily radiation and weekly infusions of chemotherapy.

Six years after his initial diagnosis and treatment, the patient said he had a persistent cough with any meaningful attempts to eat or drink. He also noted he lost at least 10 lbs in the last 3 months and had been hospitalized twice during the past winter. During his second hospitalization he spent 4 days on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

On examination, the patient appeared frail and cachectic, with significant fibrosis of the neck skin and moderate trismus. His dentition was in poor health, and an in-clinic flexible endoscopy demonstrated clear silent aspiration of oral secretions. Given his failure to thrive, the patient was urgently admitted to the hospital. A modified barium swallow study performed by the head and neck Speech Pathology team demonstrated gross aspiration with all consistencies. After extensive counseling, the patient agreed to the placement of a gastrostomy tube. He was discharged in stable condition with adequate supplies and self-care training. He was advised to continue follow-up in the Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship clinic.

Two years later, in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient was admitted to the hospital with COVID pneumonia. Given the damage to his lungs over the previous decade from recurrent episodes of aspiration pneumonia, the patient succumbed.

An Unexpected, Unrelenting Epidemic

Shifting population dynamics and behaviors have led to an explosion in the incidence of cancers associated with infection by oncogenic subtypes of HPV, among which cancer of the oropharynx represents the most common malignancy.1,2 OPC now afflicts more than 30,000 new patients in the United States each year.3 Given current vaccination rates against oncogenic HPV, the overall trend of increasing incidence is not expected to stabilize until the 2040s.Traditional cancers of the head and neck region were previously fatal after 5 years in more than 60% of cases; however, today patients with HPV-associated OPC can expect a more than 80% chance of being alive 5 years after treatment.4-7 Combining the increasing incidence of OPC with a high chance of oncologic cure has led to an ever-expanding cohort of OPC survivors.

Enthusiasm about a high rate of survival after an HPV-associated OPC diagnosis is now partially dampened by an increasing realization that neither oncologists nor healthcare systems are remotely prepared for this rapidly expanding cohort of OPC survivors. Their unique needs and problems have yet to be objectively defined and quantified.

Relationship Between Survival and Long-Term Toxicity in HPV-Associated OPC

Survivorship care after OPC treatment is a growing challenge in terms of the number of patients affected, the negative impact on quality of life (QOL), and the potential burden on the healthcare system. The rapidly growing number of OPC survivors who are living long enough to develop delayed adverse effects related to their past OPC treatment1,2,8 includes many patients in whom toxicities can be truly debilitating,9,10 generating significant unmet needs.

Tumor and Treatment Toxicity

Although HPV-associated OPC demonstrates an excellent response to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT), this finding cannot be interpreted to mean that reducing treatment intensity is safe for patients with this disease. Prospective trials have now demonstrated that neither replacing or eliminating conventional chemotherapy, nor significantly reducing radiation doses, can be considered safe at this time.11-15 As a result, a patient with newly diagnosed HPV-associated OPC in 2025, and potentially even 2030, is likely to receive the same treatment as patients who were treated in the late 2010s.14

Three decades ago, the chronic effects of tumor and treatment were largely limited to a small cohort of survivors; however, today they affect more patients.1,2,7 Chronic xerostomia, dysphagia, trismus, radiation fibrosis, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) now confront tens of thousands of OPC survivors; over the coming decades, these treatment effects have the potential to affect millions of patients.16-22

While most acute toxicities resolve within several months of completing CRT, late CRT sequelae tend to be dynamic and can progress silently over many years.16,23 Adverse effects vary widely, with many toxicities (eg, dysphagia, ORN) being particularly debilitating. Many of these effects occur in a radiation dose–dependent fashion, but radiation dose does not fully predict late toxicities, pointing to a role for other, yet unidentified contributing factors.24,25

Dysphagia in Survivors of OPC

About two-thirds of survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) who seek follow-up care 5 years after treatment report dysphagia and at least partial dependence on a feeding tube.26 The incidence of dysphagia increases proportionately with higher radiation doses delivered to the pharyngeal constrictors and supraglottic larynx.18 Dysphagia can severely reduce QOL years after treatment, necessitating substantial changes in diet and social behavior among OPC survivors. Often, patients are forced to choose between chronic malnutrition or starvation and feeding tube dependence.27 Loss of a normal oral diet is frequently one of the most affected QOL measures for OPC survivors.28

In addition to effects on QOL, dysphagia can have life-threatening consequences. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, life-threatening aspiration occurred after > 24 months at a reported incidence ranging from 3% to nearly 35%. Although a reduction in radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictors can reduce chronic dysphagia,27 whether this can be done safely in most OPC patients, particularly those with bulky primary tumors, remains unclear.

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Survivors of OPC

ORN is one of the most potentially serious complications of CRT and may not manifest for years after treatment. Its median time of onset after radiotherapy is 8 years in patients with OPC.24 Bone injury and impaired healing of the alveolar mucosa are signs of ORN, which occurs in ~7% of patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy for OPC.17 ORN is accompanied by pain, difficulties with chewing, exacerbation of concomitant dysphagia and, in the advanced stage—gross cosmetic deformity secondary to mandibular or maxillary fracture and/or decay.29 Despite the severity of this complication, we are just beginning to understand why ORN develops in a subset of patients. Although ORN is generally more common in patients with advanced-stage OPC who receive higher doses of radiation to a larger overall bone volume,17,19,24,30 comprehensive translational research efforts focused on ORN (as well as other late toxicities of OPC treatment) are still in their infancy.

Unmet Needs in Predicting and Evaluating Late Toxicities

Predicting which patients will experience long-term treatment toxicities or which types of late toxicities they may develop is not yet possible. Whereas increased data collection and prognostic models can help inform healthcare systems as to the expected frequencies of toxicity, they are unlikely to be prognostic at the individual patient level. As such, there is a critical need for individualized biomarker strategies that can predict one’s risk of toxicity and identify normal tissue shifts in biology and function early in the process to initiate interventions before significant deterioration. Adding to the complexity of predicting late toxicities is the lack of standardization in instruments used to categorize them. Examples of tools that may be used to categorize dysphagia include the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scale, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer.20 The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for head and neck cancer may also be used to catalog dysphagia and other common symptoms of HNC, as well as treatment-related concerns.31 Magnetic resonance imaging-based techniques coupled with machine learning approaches represent emerging tools that may have a role in identifying early radiation-induced bone changes that can facilitate early detection of ORN.32,33 Although conventional and newer tools can be used to generate objective metrics of treatment-related toxicity, consistent and appropriate deployment across the entire cohort of OPC survivors in the United States remains a distant goal.

Calibrating Treatment Intensity to Disease Intensity 

Given the risk of severe and potentially life-threatening consequences of radiation-based treatment, there is a large unmet need to better calibrate treatment intensity to the intensity of HPV-associated OPC.14,34 In light of the good prognosis of the disease in most patients, recent efforts have focused on identifying ways to de-escalate treatment intensity while preserving the good outcomes known to be possible for patients with HPV-associated OPC. Improving tolerability and limiting the risk of late effects of radiation-based treatment is especially important with the aging population of HPV-associated OPC survivors, who would also be expected to have unrelated comorbidities.1

Various modes of de-escalation have been studied, including adding surgery to CRT, reducing radiation dose, and modifying systemic therapy regimens. Most of these efforts have largely failed to identify a safe regimen for treatment de-escalation that applies to a majority or even a significant plurality of patients with OPC.14,35,36 Although CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-048 garnered excitement when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolonged overall survival and had a more favorable safety profile than standard systemic therapy in recurrent and metastatic OPC,11,37,38 adding definitive frontline avelumab to CRT failed to prolong progression-free survival versus CRT alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Head and Neck 100 trial.13 Combined with additional recent trial data, these findings make it unlikely that an ICI-based regimen will provide previously unavailable de-escalation options for patients with OPC in the near future.

Considering continued de-escalation efforts, it is important to remember that survival is not uniform among all patients with HPV-associated OPC. For example, patients with HPV-associated OPC and a history of current or prior heavy tobacco use have not experienced the same dramatic prolongation in overall survival as their nonsmoking counterparts.36 Patients with recurrent disease also face a dismal prognosis, with failure rates of about 70% with salvage treatment with surgery, re-irradiation, or systemic therapy.38-41 Therefore, de-escalation may not be appropriate in all patients, but identifying which patients are at risk of overtreatment is not straightforward. Better risk stratification of patients may provide part of the solution but will require rigorous testing and long-term follow-up to establish.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to carefully consider how to manage long-term survivors of HPV-associated OPC. With ever-increasing numbers of patients who are living years beyond their OPC treatment, continual reevaluation of treatment strategies in certain subsets of patients and making concerted efforts to identify and manage late toxicities early is paramount. Yet there remains a critical gap in knowledge due to insufficient metrics for both toxicity intensity and the frequency of debilitating, life-threatening toxicity. Unfortunately, the lack of tools available combined with the mismatch in disease intensity with treatment intensity likely results in excessive treatment-induced toxicity for many patients.

In the absence of clear evidence about which treatment strategy to use for individual patients, clinicians are tasked with making therapeutic choices without being fully able to predict outcomes. Patient preference is important to consider, but these conversations can be complicated. How does one talk to a patient about their willingness to risk a cancer recurrence and potentially risk late toxicities when the clinician does not know whether that individual patient will develop late toxicities, or know how severe they will be? It is a tradeoff between QOL (ie, possible feeding tube dependence) and survival—yet the magnitude of the effect on QOL remains impossible to predict at present for the individual patient.

Moreover, the needs of individual OPC survivors vary. A cross-sectional study performed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre found that 61% of the 158 participants had unmet needs related to their cancer survivorship.42 Meeting the needs of survivors may require the development of better screening instruments that can manage various complications early and effectively. Continuing to follow OPC survivors with a multidisciplinary team would most certainly be beneficial and has been reported to improve QOL.43 Continual Speech Pathology management and therapy from the time of diagnosis into the survivorship phase of care has been suggested as one way to improve functional outcomes.44 Given that coordinating long-term care teams is logistically challenging, well-planned research is warranted to equip these teams to provide OPC survivors with the care they need. These efforts will be particularly important considering the large number of survivors who will need this type of care in the coming decades. The time to start is now well past.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

References
  1. Tota JE, Best AF, Zumsteg ZS, Gillison ML, Rosenberg PS, Chaturvedi AK. Evolution of the oropharynx cancer epidemic in the United States: moderation of increasing incidence in younger individuals and shift in the burden to older individuals. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(18):1538-1546. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00370
  2. Liao CI, Francoeur AA, Kapp DS, Caesar MAP, Huh WK, Chan JK. Trends in human papillomavirus-associated cancers, demographic characteristics, and vaccinations in the US, 2001-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e222530. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2530
  3. Zhang Y, Fakhry C, D’Souza G. Projected association of human papillomavirus vaccination with oropharynx cancer incidence in the US, 2020-2045. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(10):e212907. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2907
  4. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):24-35. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0912217
  5. Li H, Torabi SJ, Yarbrough WG, Mehra S, Osborn HA, Judson B. Association of human papillomavirus status at head and neck carcinoma subsites with overall survival. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(6):519-525. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0395
  6. Lill C, Bachtiary B, Selzer E, Mittlboeck M, Thurnher D. A 5-year update of patients with HPV positive versus negative oropharyngeal cancer after radiochemotherapy in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(11-12):398-403. doi:10.1007/s00508-017-1171-5
  7. Pulte D, Brenner H. Changes in survival in head and neck cancers in the late 20th and early 21st century: a period analysis. Oncologist. 2010;15(9):994-1001. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0289
  8. Goepfert RP, Fuller CD, Gunn GB, et al. Symptom burden as a driver of decisional regret in long-term oropharyngeal carcinoma survivors. Head Neck. 2017;39(11):2151-2158. doi:10.1002/hed.24879
  9. MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Dose-volume correlates of mandibular osteoradionecrosis in oropharynx cancer patients receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy: results from a case-matched comparison. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124(2):232-239. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.026
  10. Goepfert RP, Lewin JS, Barrow MP, et al. Predicting two-year longitudinal MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory outcomes after intensity modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(4):842-848. doi:10.1002/lary.26153
  11. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab vs investigator’s choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: 2-year long term survival update of CheckMate 141 with analyses by tumor PD-L1 expression. Oral Oncol. 2018;81:45-51. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.04.008
  12. Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R, et al; KEYNOTE-048 Investigators. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1915-1928. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32591-7
  13. Lee NY, Ferris RL, Psyrri A, et al. Avelumab plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(4):450-462. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30737-3
  14. Strohl MP, Wai KC, Ha PK. De-intensification strategies in HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma–a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(23):1601. doi:10.21037/atm-20-2984
  15. Economopoulou P, Kotsantis I, Psyrri A. De-escalating strategies in HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Viruses. 2021;13(9):1787. doi:10.3390/v13091787
  16. Buchberger AMS, Strzelczyk EA, Wollenberg B, Combs SE, Pickhard A, Pigorsch SU. Report on late toxicity in head-and-neck tumor patients with long term survival after radiochemotherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4292. doi:10.3390/cancers13174292
  17. Caparrotti F, Huang SH, Lu L, et al. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Cancer. 2017;123(19):3691-3700. doi:10.1002/cncr.30803
  18. Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(5):1425-1439.
    doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.05.050
  19. Notani KI, Yamazaki Y, Kitada H, et al. Management of mandibular osteoradionecrosis corresponding to the severity of osteoradionecrosis and the method of radiotherapy. Head Neck. 2003;25(3):181-186. doi:10.1002/hed.10171
  20. Servagi-Vernat S, Ali D, Roubieu C, Durdux C, Laccourreye O, Giraud P. Dysphagia after radiotherapy: state of the art and prevention. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2015;132(1):25-29. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2013.09.006
  21. Wijers OB, Levendag PC, Braaksma MMJ, Boonzaaijer M, Visch LL, Schmitz PIM. Patients with head and neck cancer cured by radiation therapy: A survey of the dry mouth syndrome in long-term survivors. Head Neck. 2002;24(8):737-747. doi:10.1002/hed.10129
  22. Sroussi HY, Epstein JB, Bensadoun RJ, et al. Common oral complications of head and
    neck cancer radiation therapy: mucositis, infections, saliva change, fibrosis, sensory
    dysfunctions, dental caries, periodontal disease, and osteoradionecrosis. Cancer Med.
    2017;6(12):2918-2931. doi:10.1002/cam4.1221
  23. Bentzen SM, Trotti A. Evaluation of early and late toxicities in chemoradiation trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(26):4096-4103. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.3983
  24. Sapienza LG, Thomas JJ, Mai W, et al. Three-dimensional (3D) anatomic location, extension, and timing of severe osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2022;27(3):519-526. doi:10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0057
  25. Togni L, Mascitti M, Vignigni A, et al. Treatment-related dysgeusia in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: a comprehensive review. Nutrients. 2021;13(10):3325. doi:10.3390/nu13103325 
  26. Hutcheson KA, Lewin JS, Barringer DA, et al. Late dysphagia after radiotherapy-based treatment of head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(23):5793-5799. doi:10.1002/cncr.27631
  27. Charters EK, Bogaardt H, Freeman-Sanderson AL, Ballard KJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of dosimetry to dysphagia and aspiration related structures. Head Neck. 2019;41(6):1984-1998. doi:10.1002/hed.25631
  28. Terrell JE, Ronis DL, Fowler KE, et al. Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(4):401-408.
    doi:10.1001/archotol.130.4.401
  29. Rogers SN, D’Souza JJ, Lowe D, Kanatas A. Longitudinal evaluation of health-related quality of life after osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(9):854-857. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.07.008
  30. Kubota H, Miyawaki D, Mukumoto N, et al. Risk factors for osteoradionecrosis of the jaw in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1):1. doi:10.1186/s13014-020-01701-5
  31. Rosenthal DI, Mendoza TR, Chambers MS, et al. Measuring head and neck cancer symptom burden: the development and validation of the MD Anderson symptom inventory, head and neck module. Head Neck. 2007;29(10):923-931. doi:10.1002/hed.20602
  32. Barua S, Elhalawani H, Volpe S, et al. Computed tomography radiomics kinetics as early imaging correlates of osteoradionecrosis in oropharyngeal cancer patients. Front Artif Intell. 2021;4:618469. doi:10.3389/frai.2021.618469
  33. Joint Head and Neck Radiation Therapy-MRI Development Cooperative; Mohamed ASR, He R, Ding Y, et al. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI identifies radiation-induced vascular damage in patients with advanced osteoradionecrosis: results of a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108(5):1319-1328. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.029
  34. Lydiatt WM, Patel SG, O’Sullivan B, et al. Head and neck cancers—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):122-137. doi:10.3322/caac.21389
  35. Gillison ML, Trotti AM, Harris J, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10166):40-50. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32779-X
  36. Sandulache VC, Wilde DC, Sturgis EM, Chiao EY, Sikora AG. A hidden epidemic of “intermediate risk” oropharynx cancer. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4(6):617-623. doi:10.1002/lio2.316
  37. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856-1867. doi:10.1056/
    NEJMoa1602252
  38. Wilde DC, Castro PD, Bera K, et al. Oropharyngeal cancer outcomes correlate with p16 status, multinucleation and immune infiltration. Mod Pathol. 2022;35(8):1045-1054. doi:10.1038/s41379-022-01024-8
  39. Sandulache VC, Michikawa C, Kataria P, et al. High-risk TP53 mutations are associated with extranodal extension in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(7):1727-1733. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0721
  40. Sandulache VC, Vandelaar LJ, Skinner HD, et al. Salvage total laryngectomy after external-beam radiotherapy: a 20-year experience. Head Neck. 2016;38(suppl 1):E1962-E1968. doi:10.1002/hed.24355
  41. Sandulache VC, Kubik MW, Skinner HD, Malsky JA, Gelbard AH, Zevallos JP. Impact of race/ethnicity on laryngeal cancer in patients treated at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2170-2175. doi:10.1002/lary.24058
  42. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hobbs KM, Hunt GE, Lo SK, Wain G. Assessing unmet supportive care needs in partners of cancer survivors: the development and evaluation of the Cancer Survivors’ Partners Unmet Needs measure (CaSPUN). Psychooncology. 2007;16(9):805-813. doi:10.1002/pon.1138
  43. Passchier E, Stuiver MM, van der Molen L, Kerkhof SI, van den Brekel MWM, Hilgers FJM. Feasibility and impact of a dedicated multidisciplinary rehabilitation program on health-related quality of life in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:1577-1587. doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3648-z
  44. Starmer H, Edwards J. Clinical decision making with head and neck cancer patients with dysphagia. Semin Speech Lang. 2019;40(3):213-226. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1688979
Author and Disclosure Information

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD
Associate Professor, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Chief, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Section
Operative CareLine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Houston, TX

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD
Associate Professor, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Chief, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Section
Operative CareLine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Houston, TX

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Author and Disclosure Information

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD
Associate Professor, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Chief, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Section
Operative CareLine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Houston, TX

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD
Case Study

A 65-year-old African American man presented to an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery clinic at a tertiary Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility for evaluation. The patient recalled a past diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), possibly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). After receiving the diagnosis at another VHA facility, the patient opted to seek care at a local, non-VHA facility and received approximately 7 weeks of daily radiation and weekly infusions of chemotherapy.

Six years after his initial diagnosis and treatment, the patient said he had a persistent cough with any meaningful attempts to eat or drink. He also noted he lost at least 10 lbs in the last 3 months and had been hospitalized twice during the past winter. During his second hospitalization he spent 4 days on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

On examination, the patient appeared frail and cachectic, with significant fibrosis of the neck skin and moderate trismus. His dentition was in poor health, and an in-clinic flexible endoscopy demonstrated clear silent aspiration of oral secretions. Given his failure to thrive, the patient was urgently admitted to the hospital. A modified barium swallow study performed by the head and neck Speech Pathology team demonstrated gross aspiration with all consistencies. After extensive counseling, the patient agreed to the placement of a gastrostomy tube. He was discharged in stable condition with adequate supplies and self-care training. He was advised to continue follow-up in the Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship clinic.

Two years later, in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient was admitted to the hospital with COVID pneumonia. Given the damage to his lungs over the previous decade from recurrent episodes of aspiration pneumonia, the patient succumbed.

An Unexpected, Unrelenting Epidemic

Shifting population dynamics and behaviors have led to an explosion in the incidence of cancers associated with infection by oncogenic subtypes of HPV, among which cancer of the oropharynx represents the most common malignancy.1,2 OPC now afflicts more than 30,000 new patients in the United States each year.3 Given current vaccination rates against oncogenic HPV, the overall trend of increasing incidence is not expected to stabilize until the 2040s.Traditional cancers of the head and neck region were previously fatal after 5 years in more than 60% of cases; however, today patients with HPV-associated OPC can expect a more than 80% chance of being alive 5 years after treatment.4-7 Combining the increasing incidence of OPC with a high chance of oncologic cure has led to an ever-expanding cohort of OPC survivors.

Enthusiasm about a high rate of survival after an HPV-associated OPC diagnosis is now partially dampened by an increasing realization that neither oncologists nor healthcare systems are remotely prepared for this rapidly expanding cohort of OPC survivors. Their unique needs and problems have yet to be objectively defined and quantified.

Relationship Between Survival and Long-Term Toxicity in HPV-Associated OPC

Survivorship care after OPC treatment is a growing challenge in terms of the number of patients affected, the negative impact on quality of life (QOL), and the potential burden on the healthcare system. The rapidly growing number of OPC survivors who are living long enough to develop delayed adverse effects related to their past OPC treatment1,2,8 includes many patients in whom toxicities can be truly debilitating,9,10 generating significant unmet needs.

Tumor and Treatment Toxicity

Although HPV-associated OPC demonstrates an excellent response to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT), this finding cannot be interpreted to mean that reducing treatment intensity is safe for patients with this disease. Prospective trials have now demonstrated that neither replacing or eliminating conventional chemotherapy, nor significantly reducing radiation doses, can be considered safe at this time.11-15 As a result, a patient with newly diagnosed HPV-associated OPC in 2025, and potentially even 2030, is likely to receive the same treatment as patients who were treated in the late 2010s.14

Three decades ago, the chronic effects of tumor and treatment were largely limited to a small cohort of survivors; however, today they affect more patients.1,2,7 Chronic xerostomia, dysphagia, trismus, radiation fibrosis, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) now confront tens of thousands of OPC survivors; over the coming decades, these treatment effects have the potential to affect millions of patients.16-22

While most acute toxicities resolve within several months of completing CRT, late CRT sequelae tend to be dynamic and can progress silently over many years.16,23 Adverse effects vary widely, with many toxicities (eg, dysphagia, ORN) being particularly debilitating. Many of these effects occur in a radiation dose–dependent fashion, but radiation dose does not fully predict late toxicities, pointing to a role for other, yet unidentified contributing factors.24,25

Dysphagia in Survivors of OPC

About two-thirds of survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) who seek follow-up care 5 years after treatment report dysphagia and at least partial dependence on a feeding tube.26 The incidence of dysphagia increases proportionately with higher radiation doses delivered to the pharyngeal constrictors and supraglottic larynx.18 Dysphagia can severely reduce QOL years after treatment, necessitating substantial changes in diet and social behavior among OPC survivors. Often, patients are forced to choose between chronic malnutrition or starvation and feeding tube dependence.27 Loss of a normal oral diet is frequently one of the most affected QOL measures for OPC survivors.28

In addition to effects on QOL, dysphagia can have life-threatening consequences. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, life-threatening aspiration occurred after > 24 months at a reported incidence ranging from 3% to nearly 35%. Although a reduction in radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictors can reduce chronic dysphagia,27 whether this can be done safely in most OPC patients, particularly those with bulky primary tumors, remains unclear.

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Survivors of OPC

ORN is one of the most potentially serious complications of CRT and may not manifest for years after treatment. Its median time of onset after radiotherapy is 8 years in patients with OPC.24 Bone injury and impaired healing of the alveolar mucosa are signs of ORN, which occurs in ~7% of patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy for OPC.17 ORN is accompanied by pain, difficulties with chewing, exacerbation of concomitant dysphagia and, in the advanced stage—gross cosmetic deformity secondary to mandibular or maxillary fracture and/or decay.29 Despite the severity of this complication, we are just beginning to understand why ORN develops in a subset of patients. Although ORN is generally more common in patients with advanced-stage OPC who receive higher doses of radiation to a larger overall bone volume,17,19,24,30 comprehensive translational research efforts focused on ORN (as well as other late toxicities of OPC treatment) are still in their infancy.

Unmet Needs in Predicting and Evaluating Late Toxicities

Predicting which patients will experience long-term treatment toxicities or which types of late toxicities they may develop is not yet possible. Whereas increased data collection and prognostic models can help inform healthcare systems as to the expected frequencies of toxicity, they are unlikely to be prognostic at the individual patient level. As such, there is a critical need for individualized biomarker strategies that can predict one’s risk of toxicity and identify normal tissue shifts in biology and function early in the process to initiate interventions before significant deterioration. Adding to the complexity of predicting late toxicities is the lack of standardization in instruments used to categorize them. Examples of tools that may be used to categorize dysphagia include the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scale, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer.20 The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for head and neck cancer may also be used to catalog dysphagia and other common symptoms of HNC, as well as treatment-related concerns.31 Magnetic resonance imaging-based techniques coupled with machine learning approaches represent emerging tools that may have a role in identifying early radiation-induced bone changes that can facilitate early detection of ORN.32,33 Although conventional and newer tools can be used to generate objective metrics of treatment-related toxicity, consistent and appropriate deployment across the entire cohort of OPC survivors in the United States remains a distant goal.

Calibrating Treatment Intensity to Disease Intensity 

Given the risk of severe and potentially life-threatening consequences of radiation-based treatment, there is a large unmet need to better calibrate treatment intensity to the intensity of HPV-associated OPC.14,34 In light of the good prognosis of the disease in most patients, recent efforts have focused on identifying ways to de-escalate treatment intensity while preserving the good outcomes known to be possible for patients with HPV-associated OPC. Improving tolerability and limiting the risk of late effects of radiation-based treatment is especially important with the aging population of HPV-associated OPC survivors, who would also be expected to have unrelated comorbidities.1

Various modes of de-escalation have been studied, including adding surgery to CRT, reducing radiation dose, and modifying systemic therapy regimens. Most of these efforts have largely failed to identify a safe regimen for treatment de-escalation that applies to a majority or even a significant plurality of patients with OPC.14,35,36 Although CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-048 garnered excitement when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolonged overall survival and had a more favorable safety profile than standard systemic therapy in recurrent and metastatic OPC,11,37,38 adding definitive frontline avelumab to CRT failed to prolong progression-free survival versus CRT alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Head and Neck 100 trial.13 Combined with additional recent trial data, these findings make it unlikely that an ICI-based regimen will provide previously unavailable de-escalation options for patients with OPC in the near future.

Considering continued de-escalation efforts, it is important to remember that survival is not uniform among all patients with HPV-associated OPC. For example, patients with HPV-associated OPC and a history of current or prior heavy tobacco use have not experienced the same dramatic prolongation in overall survival as their nonsmoking counterparts.36 Patients with recurrent disease also face a dismal prognosis, with failure rates of about 70% with salvage treatment with surgery, re-irradiation, or systemic therapy.38-41 Therefore, de-escalation may not be appropriate in all patients, but identifying which patients are at risk of overtreatment is not straightforward. Better risk stratification of patients may provide part of the solution but will require rigorous testing and long-term follow-up to establish.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to carefully consider how to manage long-term survivors of HPV-associated OPC. With ever-increasing numbers of patients who are living years beyond their OPC treatment, continual reevaluation of treatment strategies in certain subsets of patients and making concerted efforts to identify and manage late toxicities early is paramount. Yet there remains a critical gap in knowledge due to insufficient metrics for both toxicity intensity and the frequency of debilitating, life-threatening toxicity. Unfortunately, the lack of tools available combined with the mismatch in disease intensity with treatment intensity likely results in excessive treatment-induced toxicity for many patients.

In the absence of clear evidence about which treatment strategy to use for individual patients, clinicians are tasked with making therapeutic choices without being fully able to predict outcomes. Patient preference is important to consider, but these conversations can be complicated. How does one talk to a patient about their willingness to risk a cancer recurrence and potentially risk late toxicities when the clinician does not know whether that individual patient will develop late toxicities, or know how severe they will be? It is a tradeoff between QOL (ie, possible feeding tube dependence) and survival—yet the magnitude of the effect on QOL remains impossible to predict at present for the individual patient.

Moreover, the needs of individual OPC survivors vary. A cross-sectional study performed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre found that 61% of the 158 participants had unmet needs related to their cancer survivorship.42 Meeting the needs of survivors may require the development of better screening instruments that can manage various complications early and effectively. Continuing to follow OPC survivors with a multidisciplinary team would most certainly be beneficial and has been reported to improve QOL.43 Continual Speech Pathology management and therapy from the time of diagnosis into the survivorship phase of care has been suggested as one way to improve functional outcomes.44 Given that coordinating long-term care teams is logistically challenging, well-planned research is warranted to equip these teams to provide OPC survivors with the care they need. These efforts will be particularly important considering the large number of survivors who will need this type of care in the coming decades. The time to start is now well past.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

Vlad C. Sandulache, MD, PhD
Case Study

A 65-year-old African American man presented to an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery clinic at a tertiary Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility for evaluation. The patient recalled a past diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), possibly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). After receiving the diagnosis at another VHA facility, the patient opted to seek care at a local, non-VHA facility and received approximately 7 weeks of daily radiation and weekly infusions of chemotherapy.

Six years after his initial diagnosis and treatment, the patient said he had a persistent cough with any meaningful attempts to eat or drink. He also noted he lost at least 10 lbs in the last 3 months and had been hospitalized twice during the past winter. During his second hospitalization he spent 4 days on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

On examination, the patient appeared frail and cachectic, with significant fibrosis of the neck skin and moderate trismus. His dentition was in poor health, and an in-clinic flexible endoscopy demonstrated clear silent aspiration of oral secretions. Given his failure to thrive, the patient was urgently admitted to the hospital. A modified barium swallow study performed by the head and neck Speech Pathology team demonstrated gross aspiration with all consistencies. After extensive counseling, the patient agreed to the placement of a gastrostomy tube. He was discharged in stable condition with adequate supplies and self-care training. He was advised to continue follow-up in the Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship clinic.

Two years later, in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient was admitted to the hospital with COVID pneumonia. Given the damage to his lungs over the previous decade from recurrent episodes of aspiration pneumonia, the patient succumbed.

An Unexpected, Unrelenting Epidemic

Shifting population dynamics and behaviors have led to an explosion in the incidence of cancers associated with infection by oncogenic subtypes of HPV, among which cancer of the oropharynx represents the most common malignancy.1,2 OPC now afflicts more than 30,000 new patients in the United States each year.3 Given current vaccination rates against oncogenic HPV, the overall trend of increasing incidence is not expected to stabilize until the 2040s.Traditional cancers of the head and neck region were previously fatal after 5 years in more than 60% of cases; however, today patients with HPV-associated OPC can expect a more than 80% chance of being alive 5 years after treatment.4-7 Combining the increasing incidence of OPC with a high chance of oncologic cure has led to an ever-expanding cohort of OPC survivors.

Enthusiasm about a high rate of survival after an HPV-associated OPC diagnosis is now partially dampened by an increasing realization that neither oncologists nor healthcare systems are remotely prepared for this rapidly expanding cohort of OPC survivors. Their unique needs and problems have yet to be objectively defined and quantified.

Relationship Between Survival and Long-Term Toxicity in HPV-Associated OPC

Survivorship care after OPC treatment is a growing challenge in terms of the number of patients affected, the negative impact on quality of life (QOL), and the potential burden on the healthcare system. The rapidly growing number of OPC survivors who are living long enough to develop delayed adverse effects related to their past OPC treatment1,2,8 includes many patients in whom toxicities can be truly debilitating,9,10 generating significant unmet needs.

Tumor and Treatment Toxicity

Although HPV-associated OPC demonstrates an excellent response to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT), this finding cannot be interpreted to mean that reducing treatment intensity is safe for patients with this disease. Prospective trials have now demonstrated that neither replacing or eliminating conventional chemotherapy, nor significantly reducing radiation doses, can be considered safe at this time.11-15 As a result, a patient with newly diagnosed HPV-associated OPC in 2025, and potentially even 2030, is likely to receive the same treatment as patients who were treated in the late 2010s.14

Three decades ago, the chronic effects of tumor and treatment were largely limited to a small cohort of survivors; however, today they affect more patients.1,2,7 Chronic xerostomia, dysphagia, trismus, radiation fibrosis, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) now confront tens of thousands of OPC survivors; over the coming decades, these treatment effects have the potential to affect millions of patients.16-22

While most acute toxicities resolve within several months of completing CRT, late CRT sequelae tend to be dynamic and can progress silently over many years.16,23 Adverse effects vary widely, with many toxicities (eg, dysphagia, ORN) being particularly debilitating. Many of these effects occur in a radiation dose–dependent fashion, but radiation dose does not fully predict late toxicities, pointing to a role for other, yet unidentified contributing factors.24,25

Dysphagia in Survivors of OPC

About two-thirds of survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) who seek follow-up care 5 years after treatment report dysphagia and at least partial dependence on a feeding tube.26 The incidence of dysphagia increases proportionately with higher radiation doses delivered to the pharyngeal constrictors and supraglottic larynx.18 Dysphagia can severely reduce QOL years after treatment, necessitating substantial changes in diet and social behavior among OPC survivors. Often, patients are forced to choose between chronic malnutrition or starvation and feeding tube dependence.27 Loss of a normal oral diet is frequently one of the most affected QOL measures for OPC survivors.28

In addition to effects on QOL, dysphagia can have life-threatening consequences. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, life-threatening aspiration occurred after > 24 months at a reported incidence ranging from 3% to nearly 35%. Although a reduction in radiation dose to the pharyngeal constrictors can reduce chronic dysphagia,27 whether this can be done safely in most OPC patients, particularly those with bulky primary tumors, remains unclear.

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Survivors of OPC

ORN is one of the most potentially serious complications of CRT and may not manifest for years after treatment. Its median time of onset after radiotherapy is 8 years in patients with OPC.24 Bone injury and impaired healing of the alveolar mucosa are signs of ORN, which occurs in ~7% of patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy for OPC.17 ORN is accompanied by pain, difficulties with chewing, exacerbation of concomitant dysphagia and, in the advanced stage—gross cosmetic deformity secondary to mandibular or maxillary fracture and/or decay.29 Despite the severity of this complication, we are just beginning to understand why ORN develops in a subset of patients. Although ORN is generally more common in patients with advanced-stage OPC who receive higher doses of radiation to a larger overall bone volume,17,19,24,30 comprehensive translational research efforts focused on ORN (as well as other late toxicities of OPC treatment) are still in their infancy.

Unmet Needs in Predicting and Evaluating Late Toxicities

Predicting which patients will experience long-term treatment toxicities or which types of late toxicities they may develop is not yet possible. Whereas increased data collection and prognostic models can help inform healthcare systems as to the expected frequencies of toxicity, they are unlikely to be prognostic at the individual patient level. As such, there is a critical need for individualized biomarker strategies that can predict one’s risk of toxicity and identify normal tissue shifts in biology and function early in the process to initiate interventions before significant deterioration. Adding to the complexity of predicting late toxicities is the lack of standardization in instruments used to categorize them. Examples of tools that may be used to categorize dysphagia include the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scale, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer.20 The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for head and neck cancer may also be used to catalog dysphagia and other common symptoms of HNC, as well as treatment-related concerns.31 Magnetic resonance imaging-based techniques coupled with machine learning approaches represent emerging tools that may have a role in identifying early radiation-induced bone changes that can facilitate early detection of ORN.32,33 Although conventional and newer tools can be used to generate objective metrics of treatment-related toxicity, consistent and appropriate deployment across the entire cohort of OPC survivors in the United States remains a distant goal.

Calibrating Treatment Intensity to Disease Intensity 

Given the risk of severe and potentially life-threatening consequences of radiation-based treatment, there is a large unmet need to better calibrate treatment intensity to the intensity of HPV-associated OPC.14,34 In light of the good prognosis of the disease in most patients, recent efforts have focused on identifying ways to de-escalate treatment intensity while preserving the good outcomes known to be possible for patients with HPV-associated OPC. Improving tolerability and limiting the risk of late effects of radiation-based treatment is especially important with the aging population of HPV-associated OPC survivors, who would also be expected to have unrelated comorbidities.1

Various modes of de-escalation have been studied, including adding surgery to CRT, reducing radiation dose, and modifying systemic therapy regimens. Most of these efforts have largely failed to identify a safe regimen for treatment de-escalation that applies to a majority or even a significant plurality of patients with OPC.14,35,36 Although CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-048 garnered excitement when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolonged overall survival and had a more favorable safety profile than standard systemic therapy in recurrent and metastatic OPC,11,37,38 adding definitive frontline avelumab to CRT failed to prolong progression-free survival versus CRT alone in the phase 3 JAVELIN Head and Neck 100 trial.13 Combined with additional recent trial data, these findings make it unlikely that an ICI-based regimen will provide previously unavailable de-escalation options for patients with OPC in the near future.

Considering continued de-escalation efforts, it is important to remember that survival is not uniform among all patients with HPV-associated OPC. For example, patients with HPV-associated OPC and a history of current or prior heavy tobacco use have not experienced the same dramatic prolongation in overall survival as their nonsmoking counterparts.36 Patients with recurrent disease also face a dismal prognosis, with failure rates of about 70% with salvage treatment with surgery, re-irradiation, or systemic therapy.38-41 Therefore, de-escalation may not be appropriate in all patients, but identifying which patients are at risk of overtreatment is not straightforward. Better risk stratification of patients may provide part of the solution but will require rigorous testing and long-term follow-up to establish.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to carefully consider how to manage long-term survivors of HPV-associated OPC. With ever-increasing numbers of patients who are living years beyond their OPC treatment, continual reevaluation of treatment strategies in certain subsets of patients and making concerted efforts to identify and manage late toxicities early is paramount. Yet there remains a critical gap in knowledge due to insufficient metrics for both toxicity intensity and the frequency of debilitating, life-threatening toxicity. Unfortunately, the lack of tools available combined with the mismatch in disease intensity with treatment intensity likely results in excessive treatment-induced toxicity for many patients.

In the absence of clear evidence about which treatment strategy to use for individual patients, clinicians are tasked with making therapeutic choices without being fully able to predict outcomes. Patient preference is important to consider, but these conversations can be complicated. How does one talk to a patient about their willingness to risk a cancer recurrence and potentially risk late toxicities when the clinician does not know whether that individual patient will develop late toxicities, or know how severe they will be? It is a tradeoff between QOL (ie, possible feeding tube dependence) and survival—yet the magnitude of the effect on QOL remains impossible to predict at present for the individual patient.

Moreover, the needs of individual OPC survivors vary. A cross-sectional study performed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre found that 61% of the 158 participants had unmet needs related to their cancer survivorship.42 Meeting the needs of survivors may require the development of better screening instruments that can manage various complications early and effectively. Continuing to follow OPC survivors with a multidisciplinary team would most certainly be beneficial and has been reported to improve QOL.43 Continual Speech Pathology management and therapy from the time of diagnosis into the survivorship phase of care has been suggested as one way to improve functional outcomes.44 Given that coordinating long-term care teams is logistically challenging, well-planned research is warranted to equip these teams to provide OPC survivors with the care they need. These efforts will be particularly important considering the large number of survivors who will need this type of care in the coming decades. The time to start is now well past.

Click to read more from 2023 Rare Diseases Report: Cancers

References
  1. Tota JE, Best AF, Zumsteg ZS, Gillison ML, Rosenberg PS, Chaturvedi AK. Evolution of the oropharynx cancer epidemic in the United States: moderation of increasing incidence in younger individuals and shift in the burden to older individuals. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(18):1538-1546. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00370
  2. Liao CI, Francoeur AA, Kapp DS, Caesar MAP, Huh WK, Chan JK. Trends in human papillomavirus-associated cancers, demographic characteristics, and vaccinations in the US, 2001-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e222530. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2530
  3. Zhang Y, Fakhry C, D’Souza G. Projected association of human papillomavirus vaccination with oropharynx cancer incidence in the US, 2020-2045. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(10):e212907. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2907
  4. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):24-35. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0912217
  5. Li H, Torabi SJ, Yarbrough WG, Mehra S, Osborn HA, Judson B. Association of human papillomavirus status at head and neck carcinoma subsites with overall survival. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(6):519-525. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0395
  6. Lill C, Bachtiary B, Selzer E, Mittlboeck M, Thurnher D. A 5-year update of patients with HPV positive versus negative oropharyngeal cancer after radiochemotherapy in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(11-12):398-403. doi:10.1007/s00508-017-1171-5
  7. Pulte D, Brenner H. Changes in survival in head and neck cancers in the late 20th and early 21st century: a period analysis. Oncologist. 2010;15(9):994-1001. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0289
  8. Goepfert RP, Fuller CD, Gunn GB, et al. Symptom burden as a driver of decisional regret in long-term oropharyngeal carcinoma survivors. Head Neck. 2017;39(11):2151-2158. doi:10.1002/hed.24879
  9. MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Dose-volume correlates of mandibular osteoradionecrosis in oropharynx cancer patients receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy: results from a case-matched comparison. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124(2):232-239. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.026
  10. Goepfert RP, Lewin JS, Barrow MP, et al. Predicting two-year longitudinal MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory outcomes after intensity modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(4):842-848. doi:10.1002/lary.26153
  11. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab vs investigator’s choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: 2-year long term survival update of CheckMate 141 with analyses by tumor PD-L1 expression. Oral Oncol. 2018;81:45-51. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.04.008
  12. Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R, et al; KEYNOTE-048 Investigators. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1915-1928. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32591-7
  13. Lee NY, Ferris RL, Psyrri A, et al. Avelumab plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(4):450-462. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30737-3
  14. Strohl MP, Wai KC, Ha PK. De-intensification strategies in HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma–a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(23):1601. doi:10.21037/atm-20-2984
  15. Economopoulou P, Kotsantis I, Psyrri A. De-escalating strategies in HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Viruses. 2021;13(9):1787. doi:10.3390/v13091787
  16. Buchberger AMS, Strzelczyk EA, Wollenberg B, Combs SE, Pickhard A, Pigorsch SU. Report on late toxicity in head-and-neck tumor patients with long term survival after radiochemotherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4292. doi:10.3390/cancers13174292
  17. Caparrotti F, Huang SH, Lu L, et al. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Cancer. 2017;123(19):3691-3700. doi:10.1002/cncr.30803
  18. Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(5):1425-1439.
    doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.05.050
  19. Notani KI, Yamazaki Y, Kitada H, et al. Management of mandibular osteoradionecrosis corresponding to the severity of osteoradionecrosis and the method of radiotherapy. Head Neck. 2003;25(3):181-186. doi:10.1002/hed.10171
  20. Servagi-Vernat S, Ali D, Roubieu C, Durdux C, Laccourreye O, Giraud P. Dysphagia after radiotherapy: state of the art and prevention. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2015;132(1):25-29. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2013.09.006
  21. Wijers OB, Levendag PC, Braaksma MMJ, Boonzaaijer M, Visch LL, Schmitz PIM. Patients with head and neck cancer cured by radiation therapy: A survey of the dry mouth syndrome in long-term survivors. Head Neck. 2002;24(8):737-747. doi:10.1002/hed.10129
  22. Sroussi HY, Epstein JB, Bensadoun RJ, et al. Common oral complications of head and
    neck cancer radiation therapy: mucositis, infections, saliva change, fibrosis, sensory
    dysfunctions, dental caries, periodontal disease, and osteoradionecrosis. Cancer Med.
    2017;6(12):2918-2931. doi:10.1002/cam4.1221
  23. Bentzen SM, Trotti A. Evaluation of early and late toxicities in chemoradiation trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(26):4096-4103. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.3983
  24. Sapienza LG, Thomas JJ, Mai W, et al. Three-dimensional (3D) anatomic location, extension, and timing of severe osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2022;27(3):519-526. doi:10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0057
  25. Togni L, Mascitti M, Vignigni A, et al. Treatment-related dysgeusia in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: a comprehensive review. Nutrients. 2021;13(10):3325. doi:10.3390/nu13103325 
  26. Hutcheson KA, Lewin JS, Barringer DA, et al. Late dysphagia after radiotherapy-based treatment of head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(23):5793-5799. doi:10.1002/cncr.27631
  27. Charters EK, Bogaardt H, Freeman-Sanderson AL, Ballard KJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of dosimetry to dysphagia and aspiration related structures. Head Neck. 2019;41(6):1984-1998. doi:10.1002/hed.25631
  28. Terrell JE, Ronis DL, Fowler KE, et al. Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(4):401-408.
    doi:10.1001/archotol.130.4.401
  29. Rogers SN, D’Souza JJ, Lowe D, Kanatas A. Longitudinal evaluation of health-related quality of life after osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(9):854-857. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.07.008
  30. Kubota H, Miyawaki D, Mukumoto N, et al. Risk factors for osteoradionecrosis of the jaw in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1):1. doi:10.1186/s13014-020-01701-5
  31. Rosenthal DI, Mendoza TR, Chambers MS, et al. Measuring head and neck cancer symptom burden: the development and validation of the MD Anderson symptom inventory, head and neck module. Head Neck. 2007;29(10):923-931. doi:10.1002/hed.20602
  32. Barua S, Elhalawani H, Volpe S, et al. Computed tomography radiomics kinetics as early imaging correlates of osteoradionecrosis in oropharyngeal cancer patients. Front Artif Intell. 2021;4:618469. doi:10.3389/frai.2021.618469
  33. Joint Head and Neck Radiation Therapy-MRI Development Cooperative; Mohamed ASR, He R, Ding Y, et al. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI identifies radiation-induced vascular damage in patients with advanced osteoradionecrosis: results of a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108(5):1319-1328. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.029
  34. Lydiatt WM, Patel SG, O’Sullivan B, et al. Head and neck cancers—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):122-137. doi:10.3322/caac.21389
  35. Gillison ML, Trotti AM, Harris J, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10166):40-50. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32779-X
  36. Sandulache VC, Wilde DC, Sturgis EM, Chiao EY, Sikora AG. A hidden epidemic of “intermediate risk” oropharynx cancer. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4(6):617-623. doi:10.1002/lio2.316
  37. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856-1867. doi:10.1056/
    NEJMoa1602252
  38. Wilde DC, Castro PD, Bera K, et al. Oropharyngeal cancer outcomes correlate with p16 status, multinucleation and immune infiltration. Mod Pathol. 2022;35(8):1045-1054. doi:10.1038/s41379-022-01024-8
  39. Sandulache VC, Michikawa C, Kataria P, et al. High-risk TP53 mutations are associated with extranodal extension in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(7):1727-1733. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0721
  40. Sandulache VC, Vandelaar LJ, Skinner HD, et al. Salvage total laryngectomy after external-beam radiotherapy: a 20-year experience. Head Neck. 2016;38(suppl 1):E1962-E1968. doi:10.1002/hed.24355
  41. Sandulache VC, Kubik MW, Skinner HD, Malsky JA, Gelbard AH, Zevallos JP. Impact of race/ethnicity on laryngeal cancer in patients treated at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2170-2175. doi:10.1002/lary.24058
  42. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hobbs KM, Hunt GE, Lo SK, Wain G. Assessing unmet supportive care needs in partners of cancer survivors: the development and evaluation of the Cancer Survivors’ Partners Unmet Needs measure (CaSPUN). Psychooncology. 2007;16(9):805-813. doi:10.1002/pon.1138
  43. Passchier E, Stuiver MM, van der Molen L, Kerkhof SI, van den Brekel MWM, Hilgers FJM. Feasibility and impact of a dedicated multidisciplinary rehabilitation program on health-related quality of life in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:1577-1587. doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3648-z
  44. Starmer H, Edwards J. Clinical decision making with head and neck cancer patients with dysphagia. Semin Speech Lang. 2019;40(3):213-226. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1688979
References
  1. Tota JE, Best AF, Zumsteg ZS, Gillison ML, Rosenberg PS, Chaturvedi AK. Evolution of the oropharynx cancer epidemic in the United States: moderation of increasing incidence in younger individuals and shift in the burden to older individuals. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(18):1538-1546. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00370
  2. Liao CI, Francoeur AA, Kapp DS, Caesar MAP, Huh WK, Chan JK. Trends in human papillomavirus-associated cancers, demographic characteristics, and vaccinations in the US, 2001-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e222530. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2530
  3. Zhang Y, Fakhry C, D’Souza G. Projected association of human papillomavirus vaccination with oropharynx cancer incidence in the US, 2020-2045. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(10):e212907. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2907
  4. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):24-35. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0912217
  5. Li H, Torabi SJ, Yarbrough WG, Mehra S, Osborn HA, Judson B. Association of human papillomavirus status at head and neck carcinoma subsites with overall survival. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(6):519-525. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0395
  6. Lill C, Bachtiary B, Selzer E, Mittlboeck M, Thurnher D. A 5-year update of patients with HPV positive versus negative oropharyngeal cancer after radiochemotherapy in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(11-12):398-403. doi:10.1007/s00508-017-1171-5
  7. Pulte D, Brenner H. Changes in survival in head and neck cancers in the late 20th and early 21st century: a period analysis. Oncologist. 2010;15(9):994-1001. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0289
  8. Goepfert RP, Fuller CD, Gunn GB, et al. Symptom burden as a driver of decisional regret in long-term oropharyngeal carcinoma survivors. Head Neck. 2017;39(11):2151-2158. doi:10.1002/hed.24879
  9. MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Dose-volume correlates of mandibular osteoradionecrosis in oropharynx cancer patients receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy: results from a case-matched comparison. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124(2):232-239. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.026
  10. Goepfert RP, Lewin JS, Barrow MP, et al. Predicting two-year longitudinal MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory outcomes after intensity modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(4):842-848. doi:10.1002/lary.26153
  11. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab vs investigator’s choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: 2-year long term survival update of CheckMate 141 with analyses by tumor PD-L1 expression. Oral Oncol. 2018;81:45-51. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.04.008
  12. Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R, et al; KEYNOTE-048 Investigators. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1915-1928. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32591-7
  13. Lee NY, Ferris RL, Psyrri A, et al. Avelumab plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(4):450-462. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30737-3
  14. Strohl MP, Wai KC, Ha PK. De-intensification strategies in HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma–a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(23):1601. doi:10.21037/atm-20-2984
  15. Economopoulou P, Kotsantis I, Psyrri A. De-escalating strategies in HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Viruses. 2021;13(9):1787. doi:10.3390/v13091787
  16. Buchberger AMS, Strzelczyk EA, Wollenberg B, Combs SE, Pickhard A, Pigorsch SU. Report on late toxicity in head-and-neck tumor patients with long term survival after radiochemotherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4292. doi:10.3390/cancers13174292
  17. Caparrotti F, Huang SH, Lu L, et al. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Cancer. 2017;123(19):3691-3700. doi:10.1002/cncr.30803
  18. Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(5):1425-1439.
    doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.05.050
  19. Notani KI, Yamazaki Y, Kitada H, et al. Management of mandibular osteoradionecrosis corresponding to the severity of osteoradionecrosis and the method of radiotherapy. Head Neck. 2003;25(3):181-186. doi:10.1002/hed.10171
  20. Servagi-Vernat S, Ali D, Roubieu C, Durdux C, Laccourreye O, Giraud P. Dysphagia after radiotherapy: state of the art and prevention. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2015;132(1):25-29. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2013.09.006
  21. Wijers OB, Levendag PC, Braaksma MMJ, Boonzaaijer M, Visch LL, Schmitz PIM. Patients with head and neck cancer cured by radiation therapy: A survey of the dry mouth syndrome in long-term survivors. Head Neck. 2002;24(8):737-747. doi:10.1002/hed.10129
  22. Sroussi HY, Epstein JB, Bensadoun RJ, et al. Common oral complications of head and
    neck cancer radiation therapy: mucositis, infections, saliva change, fibrosis, sensory
    dysfunctions, dental caries, periodontal disease, and osteoradionecrosis. Cancer Med.
    2017;6(12):2918-2931. doi:10.1002/cam4.1221
  23. Bentzen SM, Trotti A. Evaluation of early and late toxicities in chemoradiation trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(26):4096-4103. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.3983
  24. Sapienza LG, Thomas JJ, Mai W, et al. Three-dimensional (3D) anatomic location, extension, and timing of severe osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2022;27(3):519-526. doi:10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0057
  25. Togni L, Mascitti M, Vignigni A, et al. Treatment-related dysgeusia in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: a comprehensive review. Nutrients. 2021;13(10):3325. doi:10.3390/nu13103325 
  26. Hutcheson KA, Lewin JS, Barringer DA, et al. Late dysphagia after radiotherapy-based treatment of head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(23):5793-5799. doi:10.1002/cncr.27631
  27. Charters EK, Bogaardt H, Freeman-Sanderson AL, Ballard KJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of dosimetry to dysphagia and aspiration related structures. Head Neck. 2019;41(6):1984-1998. doi:10.1002/hed.25631
  28. Terrell JE, Ronis DL, Fowler KE, et al. Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(4):401-408.
    doi:10.1001/archotol.130.4.401
  29. Rogers SN, D’Souza JJ, Lowe D, Kanatas A. Longitudinal evaluation of health-related quality of life after osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(9):854-857. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.07.008
  30. Kubota H, Miyawaki D, Mukumoto N, et al. Risk factors for osteoradionecrosis of the jaw in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1):1. doi:10.1186/s13014-020-01701-5
  31. Rosenthal DI, Mendoza TR, Chambers MS, et al. Measuring head and neck cancer symptom burden: the development and validation of the MD Anderson symptom inventory, head and neck module. Head Neck. 2007;29(10):923-931. doi:10.1002/hed.20602
  32. Barua S, Elhalawani H, Volpe S, et al. Computed tomography radiomics kinetics as early imaging correlates of osteoradionecrosis in oropharyngeal cancer patients. Front Artif Intell. 2021;4:618469. doi:10.3389/frai.2021.618469
  33. Joint Head and Neck Radiation Therapy-MRI Development Cooperative; Mohamed ASR, He R, Ding Y, et al. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI identifies radiation-induced vascular damage in patients with advanced osteoradionecrosis: results of a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108(5):1319-1328. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.029
  34. Lydiatt WM, Patel SG, O’Sullivan B, et al. Head and neck cancers—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):122-137. doi:10.3322/caac.21389
  35. Gillison ML, Trotti AM, Harris J, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10166):40-50. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32779-X
  36. Sandulache VC, Wilde DC, Sturgis EM, Chiao EY, Sikora AG. A hidden epidemic of “intermediate risk” oropharynx cancer. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4(6):617-623. doi:10.1002/lio2.316
  37. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856-1867. doi:10.1056/
    NEJMoa1602252
  38. Wilde DC, Castro PD, Bera K, et al. Oropharyngeal cancer outcomes correlate with p16 status, multinucleation and immune infiltration. Mod Pathol. 2022;35(8):1045-1054. doi:10.1038/s41379-022-01024-8
  39. Sandulache VC, Michikawa C, Kataria P, et al. High-risk TP53 mutations are associated with extranodal extension in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(7):1727-1733. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0721
  40. Sandulache VC, Vandelaar LJ, Skinner HD, et al. Salvage total laryngectomy after external-beam radiotherapy: a 20-year experience. Head Neck. 2016;38(suppl 1):E1962-E1968. doi:10.1002/hed.24355
  41. Sandulache VC, Kubik MW, Skinner HD, Malsky JA, Gelbard AH, Zevallos JP. Impact of race/ethnicity on laryngeal cancer in patients treated at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2170-2175. doi:10.1002/lary.24058
  42. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hobbs KM, Hunt GE, Lo SK, Wain G. Assessing unmet supportive care needs in partners of cancer survivors: the development and evaluation of the Cancer Survivors’ Partners Unmet Needs measure (CaSPUN). Psychooncology. 2007;16(9):805-813. doi:10.1002/pon.1138
  43. Passchier E, Stuiver MM, van der Molen L, Kerkhof SI, van den Brekel MWM, Hilgers FJM. Feasibility and impact of a dedicated multidisciplinary rehabilitation program on health-related quality of life in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:1577-1587. doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3648-z
  44. Starmer H, Edwards J. Clinical decision making with head and neck cancer patients with dysphagia. Semin Speech Lang. 2019;40(3):213-226. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1688979
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
Display Headline
The Complex Challenge of Survival After HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 06/01/2023 - 11:30
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 06/01/2023 - 11:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 06/01/2023 - 11:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article