Risk Prediction Models for Head and Neck Cancer in the US Population From the INHANCE Consortium

Risk Prediction Models for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review

In the last 30 years, there has been an increasing incidence of oral cancer worldwide. Earlier detection of oral cancer has been shown to improve survival rates. However, given the relatively low prevalence of this disease, population-wide screening is likely to be inefficient. Risk prediction models could be used to target screening to those at highest risk or to select individuals for preventative interventions. This review (a) systematically identified published models that predict the development of oral cancer and are suitable for use in the general population and (b) described and compared the identified models, focusing on their development, including risk factors, performance and applicability to risk-stratified screening. A search was carried out in November 2022 in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify primary research papers that report the development or validation of models predicting the risk of developing oral cancer (cancers of the oral cavity or oropharynx). The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the identified studies and the applicability of the models they describe. The search identified 11,222 articles, of which 14 studies (describing 23 models), satisfied the eligibility criteria of this review. The most commonly included risk factors were age (n = 20), alcohol consumption (n = 18) and smoking (n = 17). Six of the included models incorporated genetic information and three used biomarkers as predictors. Including information on human papillomavirus status was shown to improve model performance; however, this was only included in a small number of models. Most of the identified models (n = 13) showed good or excellent discrimination (AUROC > 0.7). Only fourteen models had been validated and only two of these validations were carried out in populations distinct from the model development population (external validation). Conclusions: Several risk prediction models have been identified that could be used to identify individuals at the highest risk of oral cancer within the context of screening programmes. However, external validation of these models in the target population is required, and, subsequently, an assessment of the feasibility of implementation with a risk-stratified screening programme for oral cancer.

"We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021

Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.

Socioeconomic disparities in treatment and survival in patients with hypopharyngeal malignancy

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study utilizes The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to investigate socioeconomic factors leading to treatment disparities in hypopharyngeal malignancy.

METHODS

Treatment was compared to National Cancer Care Network guidelines. Novel analyses, including logistic modeling, allowed survival analysis and identification of socioeconomic variables not previously considered in staging and management guidelines.

RESULTS

Black and older patients, and residence in low-income areas predict lower likelihood of standard therapy (p < 0.05). Early-stage disease and standard therapy correlate with improved survival (p < 0.001). Medicaid, advanced age, advanced disease, and treatment outside of consensus guidelines correlated with lower survival (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are clear socioeconomic factors impacting treatment and survival in hypopharyngeal malignancies. Standard therapy affords superior survival rate. Black, low socioeconomic status, and older patients are less likely to receive standard therapy. Education and language isolation do not predict treatment or survival. Understanding these discrepancies is paramount to palliating disparities in healthcare.

A risk prediction model for head and neck cancers incorporating lifestyle factors, HPV serology and genetic markers

Head and neck cancer is often diagnosed late and prognosis for most head and neck cancer patients remains poor. To aid early detection, we developed a risk prediction model based on demographic and lifestyle risk factors, human papillomavirus (HPV) serological markers and genetic markers. A total of 10 126 head and neck cancer cases and 5254 controls from five North American and European studies were included. HPV serostatus was determined by antibodies for HPV16 early oncoproteins (E6, E7) and regulatory early proteins (E1, E2, E4). The data were split into a training set (70%) for model development and a hold-out testing set (30%) for model performance evaluation, including discriminative ability and calibration. The risk models including demographic, lifestyle risk factors and polygenic risk score showed a reasonable predictive accuracy for head and neck cancer overall. A risk model that also included HPV serology showed substantially improved predictive accuracy for oropharyngeal cancer (AUC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.92-0.95 in men and AUC = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95 in women). The 5-year absolute risk estimates showed distinct trajectories by risk factor profiles. Based on the UK Biobank cohort, the risks of developing oropharyngeal cancer among 60 years old and HPV16 seropositive in the next 5 years ranged from 5.8% to 14.9% with an average of 8.1% for men, 1.3% to 4.4% with an average of 2.2% for women. Absolute risk was generally higher among individuals with heavy smoking, heavy drinking, HPV seropositivity and those with higher polygenic risk score. These risk models may be helpful for identifying people at high risk of developing head and neck cancer.

Diagnostic Accuracy of an Indirect Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (iELISA) for Screening of Babesia bovis in Cattle from West Africa

The epidemiology of corresponding tick-borne diseases has changed as a result of the recent introduction of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to West Africa. The current study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of an indirect ELISA for the detection of Babesia bovis infection in cattle. In a cross-section study, using a Bayesian Latent Class Model and iELISA diagnostic test for cattle babesiosis due to Babesia bovis, accuracy has been assessed with RT-PCR as an imperfect reference test. A total of 766 cattle were tested. The optimal diagnostic performances were obtained with 5% percentage of positivity. Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.94 [Cr. I.: 0.85−0.99] and 0.89 [Cr. I.: 0.87−0.92]. Additional diagnostic characteristics revealed that the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were 96.6% [Cr. I.: 92.7−100%] and 82.2% [Cr. I.: 72−93%]. Overall, this test well discriminates an infected status from an uninfected status considering the area under the ROC curve (AUC) which was 0.78 [Cr. I: 0.72−0.85] and a Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) of 127.8 [Cr. I.: 10.43−1562.27]. The AUC was significantly higher than 0.5 (p < 10−5). In consequence, this serologic assay could be suitable in moderate to high prevalence assessments.

Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review

Background

Cancer risk assessment models are used to support prevention and early detection. However, few models have been developed for head and neck cancer (HNC).

Methods

A rapid review of Embase and MEDLINE identified n = 3045 articles. Following dual screening, n = 14 studies were included. Quality appraisal using the PROBAST (risk of bias) instrument was conducted, and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify the best performing models in terms of risk factors and designs.

Results

Six of the 14 models were assessed as "high" quality. Of these, three had high predictive performance achieving area under curve values over 0.8 (0.87-0.89). The common features of these models were their inclusion of predictors carefully tailored to the target population/anatomical subsite and development with external validation.

Conclusions

Some existing models do possess the potential to identify and stratify those at risk of HNC but there is scope for improvement.

Performance of a simplified scoring system for risk stratification in oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening

BACKGROUND

Impact and efficiency of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening are most realized in "at-risk" individuals. However, tools that can provide essential knowledge on individuals' risks are not applied in risk-based screening. This study aims to optimize a simplified risk scoring system for risk stratification in organized oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening.

METHODS

Participants were invited to attend a community-based oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening program in Hong Kong. Visual oral examination was performed for all attendees and information on sociodemographic characteristics as well as habitual, lifestyle, familial, and comorbidity risk factors were obtained. Individuals' status of those found to have suspicious lesions following biopsy and histopathology were classified as positive/negative and this outcome was used in a multiple logistic regression analysis with variables collected during screening. Odds ratio weightings were then used to develop a simplified risk scoring system which was validated in an external cohort.

RESULTS

Of 979 participants, 4.5% had positive status following confirmatory diagnosis. A 12-variable simplified risk scoring system with weightings was generated with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.82, 0.71, and 0.78 for delineating high-risk cases. Further optimization on the validation cohort of 491 participants yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 and 0.87 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The simplified risk scoring system was able to stratify oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders risk with satisfactory sensitivity and specificity and can be applied in risk-based disease screening.

Epigenetics, environment and epidemiology: an interview with Karl Kelsey

In this interview, Professor Karl Kelsey speaks with Storm Johnson, Commissioning Editor for Epigenomics, on his work to date in the field of environmental epigenomics and epidemiology. Dr Karl Kelsey, MD, MOH is a Professor of Epidemiology and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Brown University. He is the Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Health and Technology and Head of the Environmental Health Section at the Department of Epidemiology. Dr Kelsey is interested in the application of laboratory-based biomarkers in environmental disease, with experience in chronic disease epidemiology and tumor biology. The goals of his work include a mechanistic understanding of individual susceptibility to exposure-related cancers. In addition, his laboratory is interested in tumor biology, investigating somatic alterations in tumor tissue from the patients who have developed exposure-related cancers. This work involves the use of an epidemiologic approach to characterize epigenetic and genetic alteration of genes in the causal pathway for malignancy. Active work includes several studies of individual susceptibility to cancer. Dr Kelsey's laboratory mainly investigates susceptibility to smoking-related lung cancer and studies multi-racial and ethnic populations. In addition, the laboratory is also involved with the study of inherited susceptibility to brain tumors and pancreatic cancer. Major case control studies that are ongoing in the laboratory include studies designed to understand inherited and acquired susceptibility in head and neck cancers. The laboratory is also involved in a case control study of asbestos-associated mesothelioma, arsenic exposure, cigarette smoking and bladder cancer. Considerable work is being devoted to understanding the mechanisms of action of both asbestos and arsenic including their ability to affect promoter methylation and gene silencing in carcinogenesis. Recent laboratory studies includes an interest in using newly developed DNA methylation biomarkers to probe immune profiles from archived blood. Dr Kelsey received his MD from the University of Minnesota and Masters of Occupational Health from Harvard University.

Dietary Carotenoids in Head and Neck Cancer-Molecular and Clinical Implications

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is one of the most common cancers in the world according to GLOBCAN. In 2018, it was reported that HNC accounts for approximately 3% of all human cancers (51,540 new cases) and is the cause of nearly 1.5% of all cancer deaths (10,030 deaths). Despite great advances in treatment, HNC is indicated as a leading cause of death worldwide. In addition to having a positive impact on general health, a diet rich in carotenoids can regulate stages in the course of carcinogenesis; indeed, strong epidemiological associations exist between dietary carotenoids and HNS, and it is presumed that diets with carotenoids can even reduce cancer risk. They have also been proposed as potential chemotherapeutic agents and substances used in chemoprevention of HNC. The present review discusses the links between dietary carotenoids and HNC. It examines the prospective anticancer effect of dietary carotenoids against intracellular cell signalling and mechanisms, oxidative stress regulation, as well as their impact on apoptosis, cell cycle progression, cell proliferation, angiogenesis, metastasis, and chemoprevention; it also provides an overview of the limited preclinical and clinical research published in this arena. Recent epidemiological, key opinion-forming systematic reviews, cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, and interventional studies based on in vitro and animal models of HNC also indicate that high carotenoid content obtained from daily supplementation has positive effects on the initiation, promotion, and progression of HNC. This article presents these results according to their increasing clinical credibility.

Management of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders

Patients with oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs), including oral leukoplakia and erythroplakia, proliferative verrucous leukoplakia, oral submucous fibrosis, and oral lichen planus/lichenoid lesions can be challenging to manage. A small proportion will undergo cancer development and determining a patient's cancer risk is key to making management decisions. Yet, our understanding of the natural history of OPMDs has not been fully elucidated, and a precision approach based on the integration of numerous predictive markers has not been validated by prospective studies. Evidence-based health promotion by clinicians and healthcare systems is not embraced universally. Medical and surgical interventions evaluated by rigorous research measuring important endpoints, such as cancer development, mortality, or survival are difficult and expensive to run. Most of these studies employ non-ideal surrogate endpoints and have deep methodologic flaws. Diagnostic criteria for enrolling research subjects are not uniform, and patients with the highest risk for cancer development comprise small proportions of those enrolled. Few studies explore quality of life and patient preferences. It is time to rethink how we approach the management of these patients, across each OPMD, and considering the healthcare infrastructure and cost effectiveness. Global networks with well-characterized patient populations with OPMDs and well-designed interventional trials using validated outcome measures are needed.

Surveillance of the Incidence and Mortality of Oral and Pharyngeal, Esophageal, and Lung Cancer in Nevada: Potential Implications of the Nevada Indoor Clean Air Act

Reviews of national and state-specific cancer registries have revealed differences in rates of oral, esophageal, and lung cancer incidence and mortality that have implications for public health research and policy. Many significant associations between these types of cancers and major risk factors, such as cigarette usage, may be influenced by public health policy such as smoking restrictions and bans-including the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act (NCIAA) of 2006 (and subsequent modification in 2011). Although evaluation of general and regional advances in public policy have been previously evaluated, no recent studies have focused specifically on the changes to the epidemiology of oral and pharyngeal, esophageal, and lung cancer incidence and mortality in Nevada. Methods: Cancer incidence and mortality rate data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program. Most recently available rate changes in cancer incidence and mortality for Nevada included the years 2012-2016 and are age-adjusted to the year 2000 standard US population. This analysis revealed that the overall rates of incidence and mortality from these types of cancer in Nevada differs from that observed in the overall US population. For example, although the incidence rate of oral cancer is decreasing in the US overall (0.9%), it is stable in Nevada (0.0%). However, the incidence and mortality rates from esophageal cancer are also decreasing in the US (-1.1%, -1.2%, respectively), and are declining more rapidly in Nevada (-1.5%, -1.9%, respectively). Similarly, the incidence and mortality rates from lung are cancer are declining in the US (-2.5%, -2.4%, respectively) and are also declining more rapidly in Nevada (-3.2%, -3.1%, respectively). Analysis of previous epidemiologic data from Nevada (1999-2003) revealed the highest annual percent change (APC) in oral cancer incidence in the US was observed in Nevada (+4.6%), which corresponded with the highest APC in oral cancer mortality (+4.6%). Subsequent studies regarding reduced rates of cigarette use due to smoking restrictions and bans have suggested that follow up studies may reveal changes in the incidence and mortality rates of oral and other related cancers. This study analysis revealed that oral cancer incidence rates are no longer increasing in Nevada and that mortality rates have started to decline, although not as rapidly as the overall national rates. However, rapid decreases in both the incidence and mortality from esophageal and lung cancer were observed in Nevada, which strongly suggest the corresponding changes in oral cancer may be part of a larger epidemiologic shift resulting from improved public health policies that include indoor smoking restrictions and bans.

Oral Cancer Screening: Past, Present, and Future

Oral cancer is a major public health problem, and there is an increasing trend for oral cancer to affect young men and women. Public awareness is poor, and many patients present with late-stage disease, contributing to high mortality. Oral cancer is often preceded by a clinical premalignant phase accessible to visual inspection, and thus there are opportunities for earlier detection and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening asymptomatic individuals by systematic visual oral examinations to detect the disease has been shown to be feasible. A positive screen includes both oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders. We review key screening studies undertaken, including 1 randomized clinical trial. Screening of high-risk groups is cost-effective. Strengths and weaknesses of oral cancer screening studies are presented to help guide new research in primary care settings and invigorated by the prospect of using emerging new technologies that may help to improve discriminatory accuracy of case detection. Most national organizations, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, have so far not recommended population-based screening due a lack of sufficient evidence that screening leads to a reduction in oral cancer mortality. Where health care resources are high, opportunistic screening in dental practices is recommended, although the paucity of research in primary care is alarming. The results of surveys suggest that dentists do perform oral cancer screenings, but there is only weak evidence that screening in dental practices leads to downstaging of disease. Where health care resources are low, the feasibility of using primary health care workers for oral cancer screening has been tested, and measures indicate good outcomes. Most studies reported in the literature are based on 1 round of screening, whereas screening should be a continuous process. This review identifies a huge potential for new research directions on screening for oral cancer.

A roadmap of six different pathways to improve survival in laryngeal cancer patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laryngeal cancer continues to require improvement in earlier stage diagnosis and better imaging delineation of disease, and hence 'more evidence-based' selection of treatment, as recent evidence suggests that related mortality, in the last decades, has not significantly decreased worldwide. Even though the reasons are not fully understood, there persists an urgency for a review and development of future strategies to embrace such clinical and diagnostic challenges from a political, societal, as well as scientific and clinical points of view.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review of the published literature suggests that survival improvement in laryngeal cancer may be achieved by fuelling and combining at least some or all of six targeted agendas: documentation of disease global incidence and national burden monitoring; development and implementation of high-quality cancer registries; education on risk factors and hazardous habits associated with laryngeal cancer for the general population; active modification of proven at-risk population lifestyles; centralization of treatment; and use of machine learning of gathered 'big data' and their integration into approaches for the optimization of prevention and treatments strategies.

SUMMARY

Laryngeal cancer should be tackled on several fronts, commencing with disease monitoring and prevention, up to treatment optimisation. Available modern resources offer the possibility to generate significant advances in laryngeal cancer management. However, each nation needs to develop a comprehensive approach, which is an essential prerequisite to obtain meaningful improvement on results.

Lessons learned from the INHANCE consortium: An overview of recent results on head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the latest evidence on head and neck cancer epidemiology from the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

INHANCE was established in 2004 to elucidate the etiology of head and neck cancer through pooled analyses of individual-level data on a large scale. We summarize results from recent INHANCE-based publications updating our 2015 overview.

RESULTS

Seventeen papers were published between 2015 and May 2020. These studies further define the nature of risks associated with tobacco and alcohol, and occupational exposures on head and neck cancer. The beneficial effects on incidence of head and neck cancer were identified for good oral health, endogenous and exogenous hormonal factors, and selected aspects of diet related to fruit and vegetables. INHANCE has begun to develop risk prediction models and to pool follow-up data on their studies, finding that ~30% of cases had cancer recurrence and 9% second primary cancers, with overall- and disease-specific 5-year-survival of 51% and 57%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The number and importance of INHANCE scientific findings provides further evidence of the advantages of large-scale internationally collaborative projects and will support the development of prevention strategies.