Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

A multi-centre survey reveals variations in the standard treatments and treatment modifications for head and neck cancer patients during Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid changes to the practice of head and neck oncology in UK. There was a delay between the onset of the pandemic and the release of guidelines from cancer societies and networks, leading to a variable response of individual centres. This survey was conducted to assess the pre-Covid-19 pandemic standard of practice for head and neck oncology patients and the treatment modifications introduced during the first wave of the pandemic in UK. METHODOLOGY: The UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Head and Neck Clinical Studies Group initiated a multi-centre survey using questionnaire to investigate the effect on feeding tube practice, radiotherapy (RT) fractionation and volumes, use of chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant, concurrent and palliative setting, the use of immunotherapy in the palliative setting, access to radiology and histopathology services, and availability of surgical procedures. RESULTS: 30 centres were approached across UK; 23 (76.7%) centres responded and were included in the survey. There were differences in the standard practices in feeding tube policy, RT dose and fractionation as well as concurrent chemotherapy use. 21 (91%) participating centres had at least one treatment modification. 15 (65%) centres initiated a change in radical RT; changing to either a hypofractionation or acceleration schedule. For post-operative RT 10 centres (43.5%) changed to a hypofractionation schedule. 12 (52.2%) centres stopped neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for all patients; 13 (56.5%) centres followed selective omission of chemotherapy in concurrent chemo-radiotherapy patients, 17 (73.9%) centres changed first-line chemotherapy treatment to pembrolizumab (following NHS England's interim guidance) and 8 (34.8%) centres stopped the treatment early or offered delays for patients that have been already on systemic treatment. The majority of centres did not have significant changes associated with surgery, radiology, histopathology and dental screening. CONCLUSION: There are variations in the standard of practice and treatment modifications for head and neck cancer patients during Covid-19 pandemic. A timely initiative is required to form a consensus on head and neck cancer management in the UK and other countries.

Primary transoral robotic surgery +/- adjuvant therapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma-A large observational single-centre series from the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the oncological outcomes following primary Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). DESIGN: Observational case series. SETTING: Tertiary centre; first TORS practice to commence in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients undergoing primary TORS with curative intent, with or without adjuvant treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive analysis of patient and tumour pathology variables. Survival outcomes: Overall, Disease-Specific, Progression-Free and Locoregional control. RESULTS: The cohort comprised of 120 patients undergoing TORS with minimum 12-month follow-up data and the following characteristics: mean age 58 years, 91 males (76%), 78 tonsil (65%) and 34 base of tongue primaries (28%), 89% HPV-related OPSCC. The surgical pathology revealed 14 (12%) with positive margins, 19 (16%) had close margins <2mm and 31% with extranodal extension. The treatment was as follows: 39 (33%) treated with TORS alone, 50 (42%) received adjuvant radiotherapy and 31 (26%) received adjuvant radiotherapy with chemotherapy. There were 15 recurrences. Estimated survival for all patients at 3 years (95% CI): overall 85% (78-92), disease-specific 90% (85-96), progression-free 86% (79-92) and locoregional control 90% (84-96). The equivalent survival figures for the HPV-related cases alone were as follows: overall 88% (82-94), disease-specific 93% (87-98), progression-free 88% (81-95) and locoregional control 92% (87-98). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst TORS has become a common practice in the management of OPSCC in the UK, these are the first reported oncological outcomes. For selected patients, TORS with or without adjuvant therapy is an appropriate treatment modality.