After 4 years of survival, patients treated for an oral or oropharyngeal cancer have more neurosensorial disorders than chronic pain and a better quality of life.

PURPOSE: During follow-up, patients in remission after oral or oropharyngeal cancer are few to express pain, depression or anxiety, their chief complain are dry mouth and difficulties to chewing. The aim of the study is to estimate prevalence of pain, quality of life and their evolution over four years. METHODS: This prospective observational study included 21 patients between June and September 2017. Clinical examination, neurosensory examination and questionnaires (using visual analogic scale DN4, PCS-CF, HADS EORTC QLQ30 and H&N 35) were performed and a second time 4 years later. RESULTS: After 4 years, 17 patients could be reviewed. In 2017 as in 2021, two patients (11.8 %) experience neuropathic pain. In 2017, 14 (82.3 %) reported paresthesia or dysesthesia or hypo/anesthesia, none of them have provoked pain to a mechanical or thermal stimulus. In 2021, only 9 (53 %) still report those symptoms. Global analysis of the questionnaire QLQC30 reveals a significant increase quality of life of all 17 patients (p = 0.0003). For the two questionnaires QLQC30 and QLQ-H&N 35, dry mouth, sticky saliva, difficulties for eating and relation with food, are strong grievances which an absence of amelioration or a degradation. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosensory disturbance is a frequent symptom but pain concerns only 11.8 % of patients. Quality of life increase globally, yet difficulties concerning oral cavity functions endure. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: For remission patients, pain is an unfrequent situation unlike neurosensory disturbance. Support care improve life quality. In case of onset of pain, recurrence and osteoradionecrosis should be mentioned immediately.

Postoperative SBRT in the treatment of early-stage oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancers with high-risk margins: A dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with or without non-coplanar arcs and acute toxicity outcomes from the STEREOPOSTOP GORTEC 2017-03 phase 2 trial.

Background and purpose: The STEREO POSTOP GORTEC 2017-03 phase 2 trial (NCT03401840) evaluates postoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in case of high-risk margins for pT1-T2/N0 oropharyngeal and oral cavity tumors. The present ancillary study aimed to compare the dosimetric impact of adding non-coplanar arcs to the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and to evaluate acute toxicities on the first patients included in this trial. Materials and methods: Ten patients were included. Patients were treated with Novalis TX®. The total dose was 36 Gy (100 % isodose line) in 6 fractions, treated every other day. Two treatment plans were created for each patient: one plan using 2 coplanar arcs only (VMATc) and one plan using coplanar and 3 non-coplanar arcs (VMATc + nc). Acute toxicity was evaluated according to NCI CTCAE criteria V4.03. Results: Median age was 62 years. Localization of tumor was the mobile tongue for 6 patients, floor of mouth for 2, cheek for 1, and gingiva for 1. Six patients had pT2N0 tumors (AJCC 7th edition) and 4 had pT1N0. Mean CTV and PTV volumes were 36.4 and 56.1 cc respectively. Mean PTV coverage by the 36 Gy isodose was 98.2 % for both techniques (p = ns), with comparable conformity indexes (1.1 for VMATc vs 1.07 for VMATc + nc; p = 0.23). VMATc + nc had a significantly better gradient index (3.45 vs 2.97; p = 0.01), resulting in a significantly better sparing of most organs at risk. For example, mean Dmean to the oral cavity, lips, and homolateral parotid were respectively of 16.8 Gy, 11.1 Gy, and 10.4 Gy for VMATc vs 14.8 Gy (p = 0.005), 8.1 Gy (p = 0.001), 6.5 Gy (p = 0.04) for VMATc + nc. No grade ≥ 4 or higher acute toxicity was reported. The most common acute toxicity was grade ≥ 2 mucositis. Conclusion: VMATc + nc had better dosimetric outcomes than VMATc and has become the standard technique for patients treated in the STEREO POSTOP GORTEC 2017-03 trial (NCT03401840) in our institution. Acute toxicity appears acceptable.

Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: matched-pair comparison with conventional radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with conventional RT for the quality of life (QOL) of head and neck cancer survivors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cross-sectional QOL measures (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire C30 and head and neck cancer module) were used with a French multicenter cohort of patients cured of head and neck cancer (follow-up > or = 1 year) who had received bilateral neck RT (> or = 45 Gy) as a part of their initial treatment. We compared the QOL mean scores regarding RT modality (conventional RT vs. IMRT). The patients of the two groups were matched (one to one) according to the delay between the end of RT and the timing of the QOL evaluation and the T stage. Each QOL item was divided into two relevant levels of severity: "not severe" (responses, "not at all" and "a little") vs. "severe" (responses "quite a bit" and "very much"). The association between the type of RT and the prevalence of severe symptoms was approximated, through multivariate analysis using the prevalence odds ratio. RESULTS: Two comparable groups (67 pairs) were available. Better scores were observed on the head and neck cancer module QOL questionnaire for the IMRT group, especially for dry mouth and sticky saliva (p < 0.0001). Severe symptoms were more frequent with conventional RT concerning saliva modifications and oral discomfort. The adjusted prevalence odds ratios were 3.17 (p = 0.04) for dry mouth, 3.16 (p = 0.02) for sticky saliva, 3.58 (p = 0.02) for pain in the mouth, 3.35 (p = 0.04) for pain in the jaw, 2.60 (p = 0.02) for difficulties opening the mouth, 2.76 (p = 0.02) for difficulties with swallowing, and 2.68 (p = 0.03) for trouble with eating. CONCLUSION: The QOL assessment of head and neck cancer survivors demonstrated the benefit of IMRT, particularly in the areas of salivary dysfunction and oral discomfort.

Postoperative brachytherapy alone and combined postoperative radiotherapy and brachytherapy boost for squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, with positive or close margins.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative radiotherapy is necessary for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity with positive or close margins. The aim of the study is to define the indications of postoperative brachytherapy (BRT). METHODS: From 1979 to 1993, 82 patients with positive or close margins had postoperative BRT (58 T1-2, 24 T3-4, 45 mobile tongue, 37 floor of mouth). Forty-six patients had combined radiotherapy (RT) with a mean dose of 48 Gy, and BRT boost with a mean dose of 24 Gy. Thirty-six patients had BRT alone with a mean dose of 60 Gy. BRT was performed with interstitial low dose rate Iridium 192. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and local control (LC) at 5 years were, respectively, for T1-2/N0N- with BRT, 75%, 85%, and 88%,and with RT-BRT 70%, 92%, and 92%; for T1-2/N+ with RT-BRT, 44%, 67%, and 78%; for T3-4/N- with RT-BRT, 42%, 90%, and 80%; and for T3-4/N+ with RT-BRT, 22%, 43%, and 57%. Prognostic factors for OS, CSS, and LC were N+ (p