Consensuses, controversies, and future directions in treatment deintensification for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

The most common cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the United States is oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and its incidence has been rising since the turn of the century. Because of substantial long-term morbidities with chemoradiation and the favorable prognosis of HPV-positive OPC, identifying the optimal deintensification strategy for this group has been a keystone of academic head-and-neck surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology for over the past decade. However, the first generation of randomized chemotherapy deintensification trials failed to change the standard of care, triggering concern over the feasibility of de-escalation. National database studies estimate that up to one third of patients receive nonstandard de-escalated treatments, which have subspecialty-specific nuances. A synthesis of the multidisciplinary deintensification data and current treatment standards is important for the oncology community to reinforce best practices and ensure optimal patient outcomes. In this review, the authors present a summary and comparison of prospective HPV-positive OPC de-escalation trials. Chemotherapy attenuation compromises outcomes without reducing toxicity. Limited data comparing transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with radiation raise concern over toxicity and outcomes with TORS. There are promising data to support de-escalating adjuvant therapy after TORS, but consensus on treatment indications is needed. Encouraging radiation deintensification strategies have been reported (upfront dose reduction and induction chemotherapy-based patient selection), but level I evidence is years away. Ultimately, stage and HPV status may be insufficient to guide de-escalation. The future of deintensification may lie in incorporating intratreatment response assessments to harness the powers of personalized medicine and integrate real-time surveillance.

Standard-of-care systemic therapy with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (Consolidative Use of Radiotherapy to Block [CURB] oligoprogression): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with metastatic cancer eventually develop resistance to systemic therapy, with some having limited disease progression (ie, oligoprogression). We aimed to assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) targeting oligoprogressive sites could improve patient outcomes. METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial of SBRT in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after having received at least first-line systemic therapy, with oligoprogression defined as five or less progressive lesions on PET-CT or CT. Patients aged 18 years or older were enrolled from a tertiary cancer centre in New York, NY, USA, and six affiliated regional centres in the states of New York and New Jersey, with a 1:1 randomisation between standard of care (standard-of-care group) and SBRT plus standard of care (SBRT group). Randomisation was done with a computer-based algorithm with stratification by number of progressive sites of metastasis, receptor or driver genetic alteration status, primary site, and type of systemic therapy previously received. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, measured up to 12 months. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by disease site. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03808662, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2019, to July 31, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=51; 23 patients with breast cancer and 28 patients with NSCLC) or SBRT plus standard of care (n=55; 24 patients with breast cancer and 31 patients with NSCLC). 16 (34%) of 47 patients with breast cancer had triple-negative disease, and 51 (86%) of 59 patients with NSCLC had no actionable driver mutation. The study was closed to accrual before reaching the targeted sample size, after the primary efficacy endpoint was met during a preplanned interim analysis. The median follow-up was 11·6 months for patients in the standard-of-care group and 12·1 months for patients in the SBRT group. The median progression-free survival was 3·2 months (95% CI 2·0-4·5) for patients in the standard-of-care group versus 7·2 months (4·5-10·0) for patients in the SBRT group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·35-0·81; p=0·0035). The median progression-free survival was higher for patients with NSCLC in the SBRT group than for those with NSCLC in the standard-of-care group (10·0 months [7·2-not reached] vs 2·2 months [95% CI 2·0-4·5]; HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·75; p=0·0039), but no difference was found for patients with breast cancer (4·4 months [2·5-8·7] vs 4·2 months [1·8-5·5]; 0·78, 0·43-1·43; p=0·43). Grade 2 or worse adverse events occurred in 21 (41%) patients in the standard-of-care group and 34 (62%) patients in the SBRT group. Nine (16%) patients in the SBRT group had grade 2 or worse toxicities related to SBRT, including gastrointestinal reflux disease, pain exacerbation, radiation pneumonitis, brachial plexopathy, and low blood counts. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed that progression-free survival was increased in the SBRT plus standard-of-care group compared with standard of care only. Oligoprogression in patients with metastatic NSCLC could be effectively treated with SBRT plus standard of care, leading to more than a four-times increase in progression-free survival compared with standard of care only. By contrast, no benefit was observed in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer. Further studies to validate these findings and understand the differential benefits are warranted. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response.

Chromosomal instability is a hallmark of cancer that results from ongoing errors in chromosome segregation during mitosis. Although chromosomal instability is a major driver of tumour evolution, its role in metastasis has not been established. Here we show that chromosomal instability promotes metastasis by sustaining a tumour cell-autonomous response to cytosolic DNA. Errors in chromosome segregation create a preponderance of micronuclei whose rupture spills genomic DNA into the cytosol. This leads to the activation of the cGAS-STING (cyclic GMP-AMP synthase-stimulator of interferon genes) cytosolic DNA-sensing pathway and downstream noncanonical NF-κB signalling. Genetic suppression of chromosomal instability markedly delays metastasis even in highly aneuploid tumour models, whereas continuous chromosome segregation errors promote cellular invasion and metastasis in a STING-dependent manner. By subverting lethal epithelial responses to cytosolic DNA, chromosomally unstable tumour cells co-opt chronic activation of innate immune pathways to spread to distant organs.

Proton Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review of Treatment-Related Side Effects and Toxicities.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Around half of all cancer patients undergo some type of radiation therapy throughout the course of their treatment. Photon radiation remains (RT) the most widely utilized modality of radiotherapy despite recent advancements in proton radiation therapy (PBT). PBT makes use of the particle's biological property known as the Bragg peak to better spare healthy tissue from radiation damage, with data to support that this treatment modality is less toxic than photon RT. Hence, proton radiation dosimetry looks better compared to photon dosimetry; however, due to proton-specific uncertainties, unexpected acute, subacute, and long-term toxicities can be encountered. Reported neurotoxicity resulting from proton radiation treatments include radiation necrosis, moyamoya syndrome, neurosensory toxicities, brain edema, neuromuscular toxicities, and neurocognitive toxicities. Pulmonary toxicities include pneumonitis and fibrosis, pleural effusions, and bronchial toxicities. Pericarditis, pericardial effusions, and atrial fibrillations are among the cardiac toxicities related to proton therapy. Gastrointestinal and hematological toxicities are also found in the literature. Genitourinary toxicities include urinary and reproductive-related toxicities. Osteological, oral, endocrine, and skin toxicities have also been reported. The side effects will be comparable to the ones following photon RT, nonetheless at an expected lower incidence. The toxicities collected mainly from case reports and clinical trials are described based on the organs affected and functions altered.

Radiotherapy and paclitaxel plus pazopanib or placebo in anaplastic thyroid cancer (NRG/RTOG 0912): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic thyroid cancer is a rare and aggressive cancer with no standard radiotherapy-based local treatment. Based on data suggesting synergy between pazopanib and paclitaxel in anaplastic thyroid cancer, NRG Oncology did a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 clinical trial comparing concurrent paclitaxel and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with the addition of pazopanib or placebo with the aim of improving overall survival in this patient population. METHODS: Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with a pathological diagnosis of anaplastic thyroid cancer, any TNM stage, Zubrod performance status of 0-2, no recent haemoptysis or bleeding, and no brain metastases. Patients were enrolled from 34 centres in the USA. Initially, a run-in was done to establish safety. In the randomised phase 2 trial, patients in the experimental group (pazopanib) received 2-3 weeks of weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) intravenously and daily pazopanib suspension 400 mg orally followed by concurrent weekly paclitaxel (50 mg/m2), daily pazopanib (300 mg), and IMRT 66 Gy given in 33 daily fractions (2 Gy fractions). In the control group (placebo), pazopanib was replaced by matching placebo. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the two treatment groups by permuted block randomisation by NRG Oncology with stratification by metastatic disease. All investigators, patients, and funders of the study were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01236547, and is complete. FINDINGS: The safety run-showed the final dosing regimen to be safe based on two out of nine participants having adverse events of predefined concern. Between June 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 89 patients were enrolled to the phase 2 trial, of whom 71 were eligible (36 in the pazopanib group and 35 in the placebo group; 34 [48%] males and 37 [52%] females). At the final analysis (data cutoff March 9, 2020), with a median follow-up of 2·9 years (IQR 0·002-4·0), 61 patients had died. Overall survival was not significantly improved with pazopanib versus placebo, with a median overall survival of 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-12·8) in the pazopanib group versus 7·3 months (4·3-10·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·52-1·43; one-sided log-rank p=0·28). 1-year overall survival was 37·1% (95% CI 21·1-53·2) in the pazopanib group and 29·0% (13·2-44·8) in the placebo group. The incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (pazopanib 88·9% [32 of 36 patients] and placebo 85·3% [29 of 34 patients]; p=0·73). The most common clinically significant grade 3-4 adverse events in the 70 eligible treated patients (36 in the pazopanib group and 34 in the placebo group) were dysphagia (13 [36%] vs 10 [29%]), radiation dermatitis (8 [22%] vs 13 [38%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [33%] vs none), increased aspartate aminotransferase (eight [22%] vs none), and oral mucositis (five [14%] vs eight [24%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported for 16 (44%) patients on pazopanib and 12 (35%) patients on placebo. The most common serious adverse events were dehydration and thromboembolic event (three [8%] each) in patients on pazopanib and oral mucositis (three [8%]) in those on placebo. There was one treatment-related death in each group (sepsis in the pazopanib group and pneumonitis in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this study is the largest randomised anaplastic thyroid cancer study that has completed accrual showing feasibility in a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network setting. Although no significant improvement in overall survival was recorded in the pazopanib group, the treatment combination was shown to be feasible and safe, and hypothesis-generating data that might warrant further investigation were generated. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Novartis.

International recommendations for plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA measurement in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in resource-constrained settings: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to constrain health-care staff and resources worldwide, despite the availability of effective vaccines. Aerosol-generating procedures such as endoscopy, a common investigation tool for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, are recognised as a likely cause of SARS-CoV-2 spread in hospitals. Plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA is considered the most accurate biomarker for the routine management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A consensus statement on whether plasma EBV DNA can minimise the need for or replace aerosol-generating procedures, imaging methods, and face-to-face consultations in managing nasopharyngeal carcinoma is urgently needed amid the current pandemic and potentially for future highly contagious airborne diseases or natural disasters. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 33 international experts in otorhinolaryngology or head and neck surgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and clinical oncology with vast experience in managing nasopharyngeal carcinoma, representing 51 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. These consensus recommendations aim to enhance consistency in clinical practice, reduce ambiguity in delivering care, and offer advice for clinicians worldwide who work in endemic and non-endemic regions of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, in the context of COVID-19 and other airborne pandemics, and in future unexpected settings of severe resource constraints and insufficiency of personal protective equipment.

Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Who Should Get Postoperative Radiation?

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment of well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) is surgery followed by adjuvant radioactive iodine therapy. Postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) is rarely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to report our experience of patients with WDTC who were selected to receive PORT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, patients who received PORT were identified from a departmental database of 6259 patients with WDTC treated with primary surgery from 1986 to 2015. We carried out propensity matching to compare outcomes with a cohort of patients who did not receive PORT. The main outcome of interest was central neck recurrence-free probability (CNRFP), while secondary outcomes were lateral neck recurrence-free probability (LNRFP), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From 6259 patients, 32 (0.5%) patients with a median age of 65.2 years received PORT. Tall-cell variant papillary thyroid carcinoma was the most common pathology (45%). Patients who received PORT had no difference in CNRFP compared with patients treated without PORT (10-year CNRFP 88% vs. 73%; p = 0.18). Furthermore, patients who received PORT had superior LNRFP (10-year LNRFP 100% vs. 62%; p = 0.001) compared with the no-PORT cohort. Despite this, patients who received PORT had similar DSS (71% PORT vs. 75% no-PORT) and OS (65% PORT vs. 58% no-PORT group) as the no-PORT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that select patients who received PORT had improved locoregional recurrence-free probability; however, this did not translate into improved DSS and OS. At our institution, we recommend the use of PORT only in highly selected patients with locally advanced primary tumors who are deemed to have a high risk of central neck recurrence for which salvage surgery would result in unacceptable risk to the airway.

Human papillomavirus 16 promotes microhomology-mediated end-joining.

Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) arising from aerodigestive or anogenital epithelium that are associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) are far more readily cured with radiation therapy than HPV-negative SCCs. The mechanism behind this increased radiosensitivity has been proposed to be secondary to defects in DNA repair, although the specific repair pathways that are disrupted have not been elucidated. To gain insight into this important biomarker of radiosensitivity, we first examined genomic patterns reflective of defects in DNA double-strand break repair, comparing HPV-associated and HPV-negative head and neck cancers (HNSCC). Compared to HPV-negative HNSCC genomes, HPV+ cases demonstrated a marked increase in the proportion of deletions with flanking microhomology, a signature associated with a backup, error-prone double-strand break repair pathway known as microhomology-mediated end-joining (MMEJ). Then, using 3 different methodologies to comprehensively profile double-strand break repair pathways in isogenic paired cell lines, we demonstrate that the HPV16 E7 oncoprotein suppresses canonical nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) and promotes error-prone MMEJ, providing a mechanistic rationale for the clinical radiosensitivity of these cancers.

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.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for unresected locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We aimed to assess if addition of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) to chemoradiotherapy could improve treatment outcomes for this patient population. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, patients were recruited from 196 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 22 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed, previously untreated, locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx, or oral cavity (unselected for PD-L1 status), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and who could receive chemoradiotherapy were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of stratified block randomisation with block size four (stratified by human papillomavirus status, tumour stage, and nodal stage, and done by an interactive response technology system) to receive 10 mg/kg avelumab intravenously every 2 weeks plus chemoradiotherapy (100 mg/m2 cisplatin every 3 weeks plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy with standard fractionation of 70 Gy [35 fractions during 7 weeks]; avelumab group) or placebo plus chemoradiotherapy (placebo group). This was preceded by a single 10 mg/kg avelumab or placebo lead-in dose given 7 days previously and followed by 10 mg/kg avelumab or placebo every 2 weeks maintenance therapy for up to 12 months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by investigator assessment per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all randomly assigned patients. Adverse events were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of avelumab or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02952586. Enrolment is no longer ongoing, and the trial has been discontinued. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2016, and Jan 29, 2019, from 907 patients screened, 697 patients were randomly assigned to the avelumab group (n=350) or the placebo group (n=347). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 14·6 months (IQR 8·5-19·6) in the avelumab group and 14·8 months (11·6-18·8) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 16·9 months-not estimable) in the avelumab group and not reached (23·0 months-not estimable) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·21 [95% CI 0·93-1·57] favouring the placebo group; one-sided p=0·92). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (57 [16%] of 348 patients in the avelumab group vs 52 [15%] of 344 patients in the placebo group), mucosal inflammation (50 [14%] vs 45 [13%]), dysphagia (49 [14%] vs 47 [14%]), and anaemia (41 [12%] vs 44 [13%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 124 (36%) patients in the avelumab group and in 109 (32%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (1%) patients in the avelumab group (due to general disorders and site conditions, and vascular rupture) and one (<1%) in the placebo group (due to acute respiratory failure). INTERPRETATION: The primary objective of prolonging progression-free survival with avelumab plus chemoradiotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck was not met. These findings may help inform the design of future trials investigating the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus CRT. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Any day, split halfway: Flexibility in scheduling high-dose cisplatin-A large retrospective review from a high-volume cancer center.

High-dose (HD) cisplatin remains the standard of care with chemoradiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Cooperative group trials mandate bolus-HD (100 mg/m2 × 1 day, every 3 weeks) cisplatin administration at the beginning of the week to optimize radiosensitization-a requirement which may be unnecessary. This analysis evaluates the impact of chemotherapy administration day of week (DOW) on outcomes. We also report our institutional experience with an alternate dosing schedule, split-HD (50 mg/m2 × 2 days, every 3 weeks). We retrospectively reviewed 435 definitive chemoradiation OPC patients from 10 December 2001 to 23 December 2014. Those receiving non-HD cisplatin regimens or induction chemotherapy were excluded. Data collected included DOW, dosing schedule (bolus-HD vs split-HD), smoking, total cumulative dose (TCD), stage, Karnofsky Performance Status, human papillomavirus status and creatinine (baseline, peak and posttreatment baseline). Local failure (LF), regional failure (RF), locoregional failure (LRF), distant metastasis (DM), any failure (AF, either LRF or DM) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from radiation therapy start. Median follow-up was 8.0 years (1.8 months-17.0 years). DOW, dosing schedule and TCD were not associated with any outcomes in univariable or multivariable regression models. There was no statistically significant difference in creatinine or association with TCD in split-HD vs bolus-HD. There was no statistically significant association between DOW and outcomes, suggesting that cisplatin could be administered any day. Split-HD had no observed differences in outcomes, renal toxicity or TCD compared to bolus-HD cisplatin. Our data suggest that there is some flexibility of when and how to give HD cisplatin compared to clinical trial mandates.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and doxorubicin in thyroid cancer: A prospective phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced nonanaplastic thyroid cancer remains controversial. This prospective study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with or without concurrent chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced thyroid cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a nonrandomized phase 2 trial of IMRT with or without concurrent doxorubicin in patients with gross residual or unresectable nonanaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01882816). The primary end point was 2-year locoregional progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled: 12 (44.4%) with unresectable disease and 15 (55.6%) with gross residual disease. The median follow-up was 45.6 months (interquartile range, 42.0-51.6 months); the 2-year cumulative incidences of locoregional PFS and OS were 79.7% and 77.3%, respectively. The rate of grade 3 or higher acute and late toxicities was 33.4%. There were no significant functional differences 12 months after treatment (assessed objectively by the modified barium swallow study). Patient-reported quality of life in the experimental group was initially lower but returned to the baseline after 6 months and improved thereafter. In a post hoc analysis, concurrent chemotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CC-IMRT) resulted in significantly less locoregional failure at 2 years (no failure vs 50%; P = .001), with higher rates of grade 2 or higher acute dermatitis, mucositis, and dysphagia but no difference in long-term toxicity, functionality, or patient-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the excellent locoregional control rates achieved with CC-IMRT and its acceptable toxicity profile as confirmed by functional assessments and patient-reported outcomes, CC-IMRT may be preferred over IMRT alone.

Case study of the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes as standard of care in a head and neck oncology practice: Obstacles and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow for the direct measurement of functional and psychosocial effects related to treatment. However, technological barriers, survey fatigue, and clinician adoption have hindered the meaningful integration of PROs into clinical care. The objective of the authors was to develop an electronic PROs (ePROs) program that meets a range of clinical needs across a head and neck multidisciplinary disease management team. METHODS: The authors developed the ePROs module using literature review and stakeholder input in collaboration with health informatics. They designed an ePROs platform that was integrated as the standard of care for personalized survey delivery by diagnosis across the disease management team. Tableau software was used to create dashboards for data visualization and monitoring at the clinical enterprise, disease subsite, and patient levels. All patients who were treated for head and neck cancer were eligible for ePROs assessment as part of the standard of care. A descriptive analysis of ePROs program implementation is presented herein. RESULTS: The Head and Neck Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has integrated ePROs into clinical care. Surveys are delivered via the patient portal at the time of diagnosis and longitudinally through care. From August 1, 2018, to February 1, 2020, a total of 4154 patients completed ePROs surveys. The average patient participation rate was 69%, with a median time for completion of 5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of the head and neck ePROs program as part of clinical care is feasible and could be used to assess value and counsel patients in the future. Continued qualitative assessments of stakeholders and workflow will refine content and enhance the health informatics platform. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with head and neck cancer experience significant changes in their quality of life after treatment. Measuring and integrating patient-reported outcomes as a part of clinical care have been challenging given the multimodal treatment options, vast subsites, and unique domains affected. The authors present a case study of the successful integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into a high-volume head and neck cancer practice.

The hidden curve behind COVID-19 outbreak: the impact of delay in treatment initiation in cancer patients and how to mitigate the additional risk of dying-the head and neck cancer model.

PURPOSE: The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic around the world caused most healthcare services to turn substantial attention to treatment of these patients and also to alter the structure of healthcare systems to address an infectious disease. As a result, many cancer patients had their treatment deferred during the pandemic, increasing the time-to-treatment initiation, the number of untreated patients (which will alter the dynamics of healthcare delivery in the post-pandemic era) and increasing their risk of death. Hence, we analyzed the impact on global cancer mortality considering the decline in oncology care during the COVID-19 outbreak using head and neck cancer, a known time-dependent disease, as a model. METHODS: An online practical tool capable of predicting the risk of cancer patients dying due to the COVID-19 outbreak and also useful for mitigation strategies after the peak of the pandemic has been developed, based on a mathematical model. The scenarios were estimated by information of 15 oncological services worldwide, given a perspective from the five continents and also some simulations were conducted at world demographic data. RESULTS: The model demonstrates that the more that cancer care was maintained during the outbreak and also the more it is increased during the mitigation period, the shorter will be the recovery, lessening the additional risk of dying due to time-to-treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: This impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients is inevitable, but it is possible to minimize it with an effort measured by the proposed model.

Outcomes of multimodal therapy in a large series of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) for local tumor control is critical because mortality often is secondary to complications of tumor volume rather than metastatic disease. Herein, the authors report the long-term outcomes of RT for patients with ATC. METHODS: A total of 104 patients with histologically confirmed ATC were identified who presented to the study institution between 1984 and 2017 and who received curative-intent or postoperative RT. Locoregional progression-free survival (LPFS), overall survival (OS), and distant metastasis-free survival were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 63.5 years. The median follow-up was 5.9 months (interquartile range, 2.7-17.0 months) for the entire cohort and 10.6 months (interquartile range, 5.3-40.0 months) for surviving patients. Thirty-one patients (29.8%) had metastatic disease prior to the initiation of RT. Concurrent chemoradiation was administered in 99 patients (95.2%) and 53 patients (51.0%) received trimodal therapy. Systemic therapy included doxorubicin (73.7%), paclitaxel with or without pazopanib (24.3%), and other systemic agents (2.0%). The 1-year OS and LPFS rates were 34.4% and 74.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, RT ≥60 Gy was associated with improved LPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.135; P = .001) and improved OS (HR, 0.487; P = .004), and trimodal therapy was associated with improved LPFS (HR, 0.060; P = .017). The most commonly observed acute grade 3 adverse events included dermatitis (20%) and mucositis (13%), with no grade 4 subacute or late adverse events noted (adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). CONCLUSIONS: RT appears to demonstrate a dose-dependent, persistent LPFS and OS benefit in patients with locally advanced ATC with an acceptable toxicity profile. Aggressive RT should be strongly considered for the treatment of patients with ATC as part of a trimodal treatment approach.

Management of primary skin cancer during a pandemic: Multidisciplinary recommendations.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID-19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID-19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early-stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1-month to 2-month delay is unlikely to worsen disease-specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

Outcomes and toxicities of definitive radiotherapy and reirradiation using 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated (pencil beam) proton therapy for patients with nasal cavity and paranasal sinus malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy (PT) improves outcomes in patients with nasal cavity (NC) and paranasal sinus (PNS) cancers. Herein, the authors have reported to their knowledge the largest series to date using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the treatment of these patients. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, a total of 86 consecutive patients (68 of whom were radiation-naive and 18 of whom were reirradiated) received PT to median doses of 70 grays and 67 grays relative biological effectiveness, respectively. Approximately 53% received IMPT. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 23.4 months (range, 1.7-69.3 months) for all patients and 28.1 months (range, 2.3-69.3 months) for surviving patients. The 2-year local control (LC), distant control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83%, 84%, 74%, and 81%, respectively, for radiation-naive patients and 77%, 80%, 54%, and 66%, respectively for reirradiated patients. Among radiation-naive patients, when compared with 3-dimensional conformal proton technique, IMPT significantly improved LC (91% vs 72%; P < .01) and independently predicted LC (hazard ratio, 0.14; P = .01). Sixteen radiation-naive patients (24%) experienced acute grade 3 toxicities; 4 (6%) experienced late grade 3 toxicities (osteoradionecrosis, vision loss, soft-tissue necrosis, and soft tissue fibrosis) (grading was performed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 5.0]). Slightly inferior LC was noted for patients undergoing reirradiation with higher complications: 11% experienced late grade 3 toxicities (facial pain and brain necrosis). Patients treated with reirradiation had more grade 1 to 2 radionecrosis than radiation-naive patients (brain: 33% vs 7% and osteoradionecrosis: 17% vs 3%). CONCLUSIONS: PT achieved remarkable LC for patients with nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancers with lower grade 3 toxicities relative to historical reports. IMPT has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio in these malignancies and is worthy of further investigation.

The 3 Bs of cancer care amid the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: "Be safe, be smart, be kind"-A multidisciplinary approach increasing the use of radiation and embracing telemedicine for head and neck cancer.

Because of the national emergency triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government-mandated public health directives have drastically changed not only social norms but also the practice of oncologic medicine. Timely head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment must be prioritized, even during emergencies. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 predominantly resides in the sinonasal/oral/oropharyngeal tracts, nonessential mucosal procedures are restricted, and HNCs are being triaged toward nonsurgical treatments when cures are comparable. Consequently, radiation utilization will likely increase during this pandemic. Even in radiation oncology, standard in-person and endoscopic evaluations are being restrained to limit exposure risks and preserve personal protective equipment for other frontline workers. The authors have implemented telemedicine and multidisciplinary conferences to continue to offer standard-of-care HNC treatments during this uniquely challenging time. Because of the lack of feasibility data on telemedicine for HNC, they report their early experience at a high-volume cancer center at the domestic epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis.

Outcomes of surgery and postoperative radiation therapy in managing medullary thyroid carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the outcomes of surgery with or without postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in the management of medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). METHODS: From two tertiary cancer centers, 297 consecutive patients with MTC treated with PORT (n = 46) between 1990 and 2016 or surgery alone (n = 251) between 2000 and 2016 were reviewed. RESULTS: Ten-year cumulative incidences of locoregional and distant failure were 30.2% and 24.9% in the surgery cohort, and 16.9% and 55.2% in the PORT cohort. In the surgery alone cohort, T4 disease, extrathyroidal extension, N1 disease, extranodal extension (ENE), and residual disease after surgery were associated with local failure. The PORT cohort had significantly higher proportions of patients with T4 disease, N1 disease, ENE, and residual disease. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk clinical features can help identify patients with MTC at high-risk for local failure after surgery alone. Patients with high-risk clinical features had effective locoregional control after PORT.

Optimal mass transport kinetic modeling for head and neck DCE-MRI: Initial analysis.

PURPOSE: Current state-of-the-art models for estimating the pharmacokinetic parameters do not account for intervoxel movement of the contrast agent (CA). We introduce an optimal mass transport (OMT) formulation that naturally handles intervoxel CA movement and distinguishes between advective and diffusive flows. METHOD: Ten patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled in the study between June 2014 and October 2015 and underwent DCE MRI imaging prior to beginning treatment. The CA tissue concentration information was taken as the input in the data-driven OMT model. The OMT approach was tested on HNSCC DCE data that provides quantitative information for forward flux ( ΦF ) and backward flux ( ΦB ). OMT-derived ΦF was compared with the volume transfer constant for CA, Ktrans , derived from the Extended Tofts Model (ETM). RESULTS: The OMT-derived flows showed a consistent jump in the CA diffusive behavior across the images in accordance with the known CA dynamics. The mean forward flux was 0.0082 ± 0.0091 ( min-1 ) whereas the mean advective component was 0.0052 ± 0.0086 ( min-1 ) in the HNSCC patients. The diffusive percentages in forward and backward flux ranged from 8.67% to 18.76% and 12.76% to 30.36%, respectively. The OMT model accounts for intervoxel CA movement and results show that the forward flux ( ΦF ) is comparable with the ETM-derived Ktrans . CONCLUSIONS: This is a novel data-driven study based on optimal mass transport principles applied to patient DCE imaging to analyze CA flow in HNSCC.

Comparing Kadish, TNM, and the modified Dulguerov staging systems for esthesioneuroblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) is a rare neuroendocrine tumor. The purpose of this study was to compare the Kadish, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM), and Dulguerov's modified TNM staging in order to determine the impact of the stage on primary surgical treatment selection, margin status, and survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients diagnosed with ENB between 2004 to 2015. Patients were excluded based on the ability to properly stage their disease as well as the availability of treatment data. RESULTS: Eight-hundred eighty-three patients had sufficient data for analysis. On multivariate analysis, age and government insurance were associated with primary surgical treatment, whereas tumor stage, gender, race, hospital type and volume, and comorbidity score were not. Age, charlson-deyo comorbidity (CDCC) score, hospital volume, and nodal status were found to be predictors of survival. Multivariate-analysis controlling for stage failed to demonstrate clear survival differences between staging in both TNM and Kadish systems. T-stage and the presence of regional nodal metastasis were associated with an increased risk of positive margins on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Although primary surgical management and positive margins can be predicted by certain patient and tumor factors, clinical staging systems for ENB poorly predict prognosis over a 10-year horizon.