ORATOR-Studie: Operation oder Strahlentherapie bei Oropharynxkarzinomen im HPV-Kontext?

[Surgical Treatment of Oropharyngeal Cancer - Recommendations of the Current German S3 Guideline, Part I]

In general, a trend towards transoral resection (as opposed to classic open approaches) + neck dissection + adjuvant radio- (chemo-) therapy has been observed for oropharyngeal carcinoma over the last 20 years. Techniques of transoral surgery (TOS), including transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) have been propagated in retrospective comparisons with conventional surgery or primary radiochemotherapy as gentle, minimally invasive procedures with good late functional results. Meta-analyses of mostly uncontrolled retrospective analyses suggest that TORS may have better disease-free survival (DFS) and a reduced risk of free flap reconstruction compared with open surgery. TORS (TOS) was associated with fewer tumor-positive resection margins (R1), a lower number of recurrences, fewer intraoperative tracheostomies, a shorter inpatient stay and a shorter duration of postoperative nasal tube feeding compared to open surgery. In principle, based on the best evidence currently available from registry studies, stage I-II oropharyngeal carcinomas can be treated either with primary surgery or radiochemotherapy with a comparable chance of survival. With comparable evidence for stage III and IVa, p16neg. oropharyngeal carcinomas, the majority of authors advocate primary surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy as the treatment of first choice. For p16pos. patients the results of registry studies are inconsistent, although the largest registry study on 450 HPV-positive stage III patients shows a significant superiority of primary surgery + adjuvant radiochemotherapy. Since all registry studies did not adjust for smoking status, among other factors, the current data situation should be evaluated with the necessary caution.

[Radiation or Surgery for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer? The ORATOR2 Trial - Comparing apples and oranges]

ORATOR2 was a randomized phase II trial aiming to assess an optimal approach for therapy de-escalation in early (T1-T2, N0-N2) human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC). Radiotherapy (RT) (consisting of a reduced dose of 60 Gy with concurrent weekly cisplatin in N+ patients) was compared to trans-oral surgery (TOS) and neck dissection (ND) (with adjuvant reduced-dose RT depending on pathologic findings) in 61 patients. The primary endpoint, overall survival, favored the radiotherapy approach. This was mainly due to 3 mortality events in the surgery arm (2 surgery-related) which resulted in an early trial termination. The authors, who speak on behalf of the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery (working group for oncology) warn to draw conclusions for clinical practice pointing out the main shortages/weaknesses of this trial especially in the surgery arm (at least 1 cm margins, recommending re-operation if not achieved, prohibition of regional or free flaps, high rates of tracheotomy, low rate of TLM). Small patient numbers, a highly selected patient cohort and a short follow-up time further limit this study's relevance. Therefore, patients with HPV-related OPSCC should not receive de-escalating (radiation) therapy outside of clinical trials. When deciding between a surgical or a radio-therapeutical approach, patients should be informed about the pros and cons of both modalities after interdisciplinary consent in a tumor board, as long as clinical trial results` (e. g. EORTC 1420) are pending.

Current Advances in Robotics for Head and Neck Surgery-A Systematic Review

Background. In the past few years, surgical robots have recently entered the medical field, particularly in urology, gynecology, and general surgery. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in the field of head and neck surgery has not been clearly established. In this review, we evaluate to what extent RAS can potentially be applied in head and neck surgery, in which fields it is already daily routine and what advantages can be seen in comparison to conventional surgery. Data sources. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic review of trials published between 2000 and 2021, as well as currently ongoing trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov. The results were structured according to anatomical regions, for the topics "Costs," "current clinical trials," and "robotic research" we added separate sections for the sake of clarity. Results. Our findings show a lack of large-scale systematic randomized trials on the use of robots in head and neck surgery. Most studies include small case series or lack a control arm which enables a comparison with established standard procedures. Conclusion. The question of financial reimbursement is still not answered and the systems on the market still require some specific improvements for the use in head and neck surgery.

[Robot-assisted head and neck surgery]

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has already been approved for several clinical applications in head and neck surgery. In some Anglo-American regions, RAS is currently the common standard for treatment of oropharyngeal diseases. Systematic randomized studies comparing established surgical procedures with RAS in a large number of patients are unavailable so far. Experimental publications rather describe how to reach poorly accessible anatomical regions using RAS, or represent feasibility studies on the use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in established surgical operations. With general application of RAS in clinical practice, the question of financial reimbursement arises. Furthermore, the technical applications currently on the market still require some specific improvements for routine use in head and neck surgery.