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.

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 for Organ Preservation with Chemoradiation Therapy for T4 Larynx and Hypopharynx Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data is available to guide non-surgical management of Stage T4 larynx and hypopharynx cancer patients who have inoperable disease or refuse surgery. We aim to review the nonoperative management of T4 laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer and report the long-term therapeutic and functional outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed the nonoperative management of T4 laryngeal (n = 44) and hypopharyngeal (n = 53) cancer from 1997 to 2015 and performed a univariate analysis (UVA). RESULTS: The 2-/5-year OS rates were 73%/38% for larynx patients and 52%/29% for hypopharynx patients. Locoregional failure (LRF) occurred in 25% and 19% of larynx and hypopharynx patients, respectively. On UVA of the larynx subset, N3 nodal status and non-intensity-modulated radiation therapy were negatively associated with OS; treatment with radiation therapy alone impacted disease-free survival; and age >70 was associated with LRF. On UVA of the hypopharynx subset, only T4b status significantly impacted OS. In the larynx and hypopharynx groups, 68% and 85% received a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube and 32% and 40% received a tracheostomy tube, respectively. At the last follow-up visit, 66% of our larynx cohort had neither tracheostomy or PEG placed and 40% of our hypopharynx cohort had neither. CONCLUSION: We report better than previously noted outcomes among T4 larynx and hypopharynx patients who have unresectable disease or refuse surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:1138-1145, 2023.

The effect of short radiation treatment breaks on chemo-radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies and guidelines suggest an outcome detriment from radiation treatment breaks (rTBs) and the need for compensatory dosing in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: In a consecutive cohort of 521 patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), we investigated the impact of rTBs and prolongation of overall treatment time (OTT) on OS, DFS, LRC, and cancer recurrence using competing risk and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Neither OTT prolongation by ≤2 days nor rTBs of ≤3 days were associated with detriments to clinical outcomes. Consecutive breaks of ≥3 days were also not significantly associated with detriment to clinical outcomes. There was significantly increased competing mortality in those with longer breaks. CONCLUSIONS: In OPSCC patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, there is no significant association between disease failure and total rTBs of ≤3 consecutive or scattered days. Further investigation is needed for longer breaks.

Proton beam radiation therapy results in significantly reduced toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck tumors that require ipsilateral radiation.

BACKGROUND: As proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT) may allow greater normal tissue sparing when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), we compared the dosimetry and treatment-related toxicities between patients treated to the ipsilateral head and neck with either PBRT or IMRT. METHODS: Between 01/2011 and 03/2014, 41 consecutive patients underwent ipsilateral irradiation for major salivary gland cancer or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The availability of PBRT, during this period, resulted in an immediate shift in practice from IMRT to PBRT, without any change in target delineation. Acute toxicities were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. RESULTS: Twenty-three (56.1%) patients were treated with IMRT and 18 (43.9%) with PBRT. The groups were balanced in terms of baseline, treatment, and target volume characteristics. IMRT plans had a greater median maximum brainstem (29.7 Gy vs. 0.62 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001), maximum spinal cord (36.3 Gy vs. 1.88 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001), mean oral cavity (20.6 Gy vs. 0.94 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001), mean contralateral parotid (1.4 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), P<0.001), and mean contralateral submandibular (4.1 Gy vs. 0.0 Gy (RBE), ​P < 0.001) dose when compared to PBRT plans. PBRT had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or greater acute dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 65.2%, P<0.001), mucositis (16.7% vs. 52.2%, P=0.019), and nausea (11.1% vs. 56.5%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The unique properties of PBRT allow greater normal tissue sparing without sacrificing target coverage when irradiating the ipsilateral head and neck. This dosimetric advantage seemingly translates into lower rates of acute treatment-related toxicity.