Association Between Social Determinants of Health, Distance from Treatment Center, and Treatment Type with Outcomes in Human Papillomavirus Associated Oropharyngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants of health (SDOH) can influence access to cancer care, clinical trials, and oncologic outcomes. We investigated the association between SDOH, distance from treatment center, and treatment type with outcomes in human papillomavirus associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma [HPV(+)OPSCC] patients treated at a tertiary care center. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS: HPV(+)OPSCC patients treated surgically from 2006 to 2021 were selected from our departmental Oropharyngeal Cancer RedCap database. Demographic data, treatment, and oncologic outcomes were extracted. Distance was calculated in miles between the centroid of each patient zip code and our hospital zip code (zipdistance). RESULTS: 874 patients (89 % male; mean age: 58 years) were identified. Most patients (96 %) reported Non-Hispanic White as their primary race. 204 patients (23 %) had a high-school degree or less, 217 patients (25 %) reported some college education or a 2-year degree, 153 patients (18 %) completed a four-year college degree, and 155 patients (18 %) had post-graduate degrees. Relative to those with a high-school degree, patients with higher levels of education were more likely to live further away from our institution (p < 0.0001). Patients who received adjuvant radiation therapy elsewhere lived, on average, 104 miles further away than patients receiving radiation at our institution (Estimate 104.3, 95 % CI 14.2-194.4, p-value = 0.02). In univariable Cox PH models, oncologic outcomes did not significantly differ by zipdistance. CONCLUSIONS: Education level-and access to resources-varied proportionally to a patient's distance from our center. Patients travelling further distances for surgical management of OPSCC were more likely to pursue adjuvant radiation therapy at an outside institution. Distance traveled was not associated with oncologic outcomes. Breaking down barriers to currently excluded populations may improve access to clinical trials and improve oncologic outcomes for diverse patient populations.

Capecitabine for Salvage Treatment of Patients With Heavily Pretreated Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharynx Cancer With Distant Metastases.

Background: Patients with metastatic human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) have a median overall survival exceeding 2 years and are often candidates for multiple lines of palliative therapy. With the approval of immunotherapy as first-line treatment, salvage therapeutic options are limited. We describe our experience using capecitabine as salvage therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HPV-OPC. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients with R/M HPV-OPC with distant metastatic disease. Eligible patients were identified from a medical oncology clinical database. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the medical record. Survival probabilities were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 10 patients were identified. Sites of metastatic disease included lung, liver, mediastinal lymph nodes, bone, abdominal lymph nodes, and soft tissue. Most patients received capecitabine as fourth-line treatment. The median duration from start of capecitabine therapy until death was 10.5 months. Best treatment response was as follows: partial responses (PR) were seen in 4 of 10 (40%), stable disease (SD) in 3 of 10 (30%), and progressive disease (PD) in 2 of 10 (20%). The clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD) was 70%. Reasons for discontinuation included disease progression (n = 8) and side effects (n = 2). One patient notably had prolonged benefit from capecitabine and continued to be on treatment for 34 months total. Conclusions: Capecitabine is a potential salvage treatment for heavily pretreated patients with R/M HPV-OPC, with some patients experiencing prolonged response. Clinical or molecular predictors of response would be helpful to identify patients likely to benefit; a larger prospective study would be useful to confirm efficacy in this patient population.