Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

Evaluation of Oropharyngeal Cancer Information from Revolutionary Artificial Intelligence Chatbot

OBJECTIVE

With burgeoning popularity of artificial intelligence-based chatbots, oropharyngeal cancer patients now have access to a novel source of medical information. Because chatbot information is not reviewed by experts, we sought to evaluate an artificial intelligence-based chatbot's oropharyngeal cancer-related information for accuracy.

METHODS

Fifteen oropharyngeal cancer-related questions were developed and input into ChatGPT version 3.5. Four physician-graders independently assessed accuracy, comprehensiveness, and similarity to a physician response using 5-point Likert scales. Responses graded lower than three were then critiqued by physician-graders. Critiques were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Readability of responses was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) scales.

RESULTS

Average accuracy, comprehensiveness, and similarity to a physician response scores were 3.88 (SD = 0.99), 3.80 (SD = 1.14), and 3.67 (SD = 1.08), respectively. Posttreatment-related questions were most accurate, comprehensive, and similar to a physician response, followed by treatment-related, then diagnosis-related questions. Posttreatment-related questions scored significantly higher than diagnosis-related questions in all three domains (p < 0.01). Two themes of the physician critiques were identified: suboptimal education value and potential to misinform patients. The mean FRE and FKRGL scores both indicated greater than an 11th grade readability level-higher than the 6th grade level recommended for patients.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT responses may not educate patients to an appropriate degree, could outright misinform them, and read at a more difficult grade level than is recommended for patient material. As oropharyngeal cancer patients represent a vulnerable population facing complex, life-altering diagnoses, and treatments, they should be cautious when consuming chatbot-generated medical information.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:2252-2257, 2024.

Review of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials addressing head/neck cancers

BACKGROUND

To assess the frequency of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing head/neck cancers.

METHODS

We included RCTs about interventions to treat head/neck cancers. PubMed was searched on September 16, 2022 and included studies published during three periods (2000-2002, 2010-2012, and 2020-2022). Data on types of outcomes and instruments to measure them were extracted and organized into PROs and non-PROs, and temporal trends for reporting outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

There was a reduction in the frequency of non-PROs (40% to 22%) and an increase in PROs (5% to 19%) over 20 years. The frequency of reporting both non-PROs and PROs seemed to be stable over the same period (55% to 58%). A great variety of instruments to measure PROs and non-PROs was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a growth in the types of PROs in more recent years, and they were more frequently reported in RCTs. However, head/neck cancer trials with a combination of PROs and non-PROs were the most prevalent.

Prognostic prediction models for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC): a protocol for systematic review, critical appraisal and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is increasingly prevalent and has significantly heterogeneous risks of survival for diagnosed individuals due to the inter-related risk factors. Precise prediction of the risk of survival for an individual patient with OPSCC presents a useful adjunct to therapeutic decision-making regarding the management of OPSCC. The aim of this systematic review, critical appraisal and meta-analysis is to assess prognostic prediction models for OPSCC and lay a foundation for future research programmes to develop and validate prognostic prediction models for OPSCC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol statement. Based on predefined criteria, electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) will be searched for relevant studies without language restrictions from inception of databases to present. This study will systematically review published prognostic prediction models for survival outcomes in patients with OPSCC, describe their characteristics, compare performance and assess risk of bias and real-world clinical utility. Selection of eligible studies, data extraction and critical appraisal will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Included studies will be systematically summarised using appropriate tools designed for prognostic prediction modelling studies. Risk of bias and quality of studies will be assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis. Performance measures of these models will be pooled and analysed with meta-analyses if feasible.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will be conducted completely based on published data, so approval from an ethics committee or written consent is not required. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023400272.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

Surgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour. Five trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 883 participants; moderate certainty) and disease-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; I2 = 12%; 5 trials, 954 participants; moderate certainty), and probably reduces locoregional recurrence (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 458 participants; moderate certainty) and recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 633 participants; moderate certainty). Elective ND is probably associated with more adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 746 participants; moderate certainty). Two trials evaluated elective radical ND versus elective selective ND in people with oral cavity cancer, but we were unable to pool the data as the trials used different surgical procedures. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival (pooled measure not estimable; very low certainty). We are unsure if there is a difference in effect on disease-free survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; 1 trial, 104 participants; very low certainty) or recurrence (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; 1 trial, 143 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference between the interventions in terms of adverse events (1 trial, 148 participants; low certainty). Two trials evaluated superselective ND versus selective ND, but we were unable to use the data. One trial evaluated supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND in 332 participants. We were unable to use any of the primary outcome data. The evidence on adverse events was very uncertain, with more complications, pain, and poorer shoulder function in the modified radical ND group. One trial evaluated sentinel node biopsy versus elective ND in 279 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; low certainty), disease-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; low certainty), or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; low certainty). The trial provided no usable data for recurrence, and reported no adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy) in 564 participants. There is probably no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; moderate certainty) or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; moderate certainty). One trial evaluated surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone and provided very low-certainty evidence of better overall survival in the surgery plus radiotherapy group (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59; 35 participants). The data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and had multiple protocol violations. In terms of adverse events, subcutaneous fibrosis was more frequent in the surgery plus radiotherapy group, but there were no differences in other adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated surgery versus radiotherapy alone for oropharyngeal cancer in 68 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions for overall survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.46; low certainty) or disease-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.22; low certainty). For adverse events, there were too many outcomes to draw reliable conclusions. One trial evaluated surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. We were unable to use the data for any of the outcomes reported (very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence. There was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. The evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.

Oral health-related quality of life after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: the OraRad study

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment results in morbidity impacting quality of life (QOL) in survivorship. This analysis evaluated changes in oral health-related QOL (OH-QOL) up to 2 years after curative intent radiation therapy (RT) for HNC patients and factors associated with these changes.

METHODS

572 HNC patients participated in a multicenter, prospective observational study (OraRad). Data collected included sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment variables. Ten single-item questions and 2 composite scales of swallowing problems and senses problems (taste and smell) from a standard QOL instrument were assessed before RT and at 6-month intervals after RT.

RESULTS

The most persistently impacted OH-QOL variables at 24 months included: dry mouth; sticky saliva, and senses problems. These measures were most elevated at the 6-month visit. Aspects of swallowing were most impacted by oropharyngeal tumor site, chemotherapy, and non-Hispanic ethnicity. Problems with senses and dry mouth were worse with older age. Dry mouth and sticky saliva increased more among men and those with oropharyngeal cancer, nodal involvement, and use of chemotherapy. Problems with mouth opening were increased by chemotherapy and were more common among non-White and Hispanic individuals. A 1000 cGy increase in RT dose was associated with a clinically meaningful change in difficulty swallowing solid food, dry mouth, sticky saliva, sense of taste, and senses problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic, tumor, and treatment variables impacted OH-QOL for HNC patients up to 2 years after RT. Dry mouth is the most intense and sustained toxicity of RT that negatively impacts OH-QOL of HNC survivors.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02057510; first posted February 7, 2014.

The role of HPV status in patients with overlapping grey zone cancer in oral cavity and oropharynx

PURPOSE

We aimed to explore the clinicodemographic characteristics and prognosis of grey zone squamous cell cancer (GZSCC) located in the overlapping or ambiguous area of oral cavity and oropharynx and to identify valuable factors that would improve its differential diagnosis and prognosis.

METHODS

Information of GZSCC patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were compared to patients with oral cavity (OCSCC) and oropharyngeal (OPSCC) squamous cell carcinomas with corresponding HPV status, respectively. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test and multivariate Cox regression analysis were applied to assess associations between clinical characteristics and overall survival (OS). A predictive model integrating age, gender, marital status, HPV status and staging variables was conducted to classify GZSCC patients into three risk groups and verified internally by tenfold cross validation.

RESULTS

A total of 3318 GZSCC, 10792 OPSCC and 6656 OCSCC patients were identified. HPV-positive GZSCC patients had the best 5-year OS as HPV-positive OPSCC (81% vs. 82%). However, the 5-year OS of HPV-negative/unknown GZSCC (43%/42%) were the worst among all groups, indicating that HPV status and the overlapping nature of tumors were valuable prognostic predictors in GZSCC patients. Compared with the strategy of dividing GZSCC into two groups by HPV status, the predictive model integrating more variables could additionally identify a unique high-risk GZSCC group with the lowest OS rate.

CONCLUSIONS

GZSCC patients had distinct clinical characteristics and prognosis compared with OPSCC and OCSCC, integrating HPV status and other clinical factors could help distinguish GZSCC and predict their prognosis.

Melatonin: Emerging Player in the Management of Oral Cancer

Oral cancer (OC) has emerged as a major medical and social issue in many industrialized nations due to the high death rate. It is becoming increasingly common in people under the age of 45, although the underlying causes and mechanisms of this increase remain unclear. Melatonin, as a pleiotropic hormone, plays a pivotal role in a wide variety of cellular and physiological functions. Mounting evidence supports melatonin's ability to modify/influence oral carcinogenesis, help in the reduction of the incidence of OC, and increase chemo- and radiosensitivity. Despite its potential anti-carcinogenic effects, the precise function of melatonin in the management of OC is not well understood. This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding melatonin function in anti-carcinogenesis mechanisms for OC. In addition, clinical assessment and the potential therapeutic utility of melatonin in OC are discussed. This review will provide a basis for researchers to create new melatonin-based personalized medicines for treating and preventing OC.

m7G-related lncRNAs are potential biomarkers for predicting prognosis and immune responses in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Among head and neck cancers, oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the most common malignant tumor. N-7-methylguanosine (m7G) and lncRNAs are both related to the development and progression of tumors. Therefore, this study aims to explore and establish the prognostic signal of OSCC based on m7G-related lncRNAs. In this study, RNA sequencing transcriptome data of OSCC patients were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Therefore, m7G-related lncRNAs were identified as differentially expressed in OSCC. Then, univariate Cox regression analysis and LASSO regression analysis were conducted to evaluate the prognostic significance of differentially expressed lncRNAs. Consequently, the abovementioned lncRNAs were assigned five OSCC patient risk scores, with high-risk and low-risk patients assigned to each group. Different signaling pathways were significantly enriched between the two groups as determined by set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed the factors used to construct the nomogram model. Then, the prognosis of the nomogram model was evaluated. Consequently, high-risk individuals had higher immune infiltration levels. According to the results of a study that evaluated the sensitivity of different risk subgroups to antitumour drugs, the high-risk group had a high sensitivity to doxorubicin. By performing real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT‒PCR), we verified the expression of these five m7G lncRNAs. Therefore, the model based on five m7G-related lncRNAs was able to predict the overall survival rates of OSCC patients and guide their treatment. It can also spur new ideas about how to prevent and treat OSCC.

Combination treatment of arsenic trioxide and osimertinib in recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) represents an advanced stage of the disease and frequently shows resistance to these current treatments, including platinum chemotherapy, cetuximab plus chemotherapy, and checkpoint inhibitors. EGFR overexpression and TP53 mutation are the most frequent genetic changes in patients with HNSCC. On the basis of this genetic feature, we proposed a combinatorial treatment using the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib (AZD) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) for compassionate use. The patient obtained treatment response and progression-free survival for about six months. In vitro mechanical verifications showed that ATO and AZD combination (ATO/AZD) significantly increased intracellular ROS levels and DNA damage. Additionally, ATO/AZD decreases the expression and activity of breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein (BRCA1) and polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1), thereby impairing Rad51 recruitment to DNA double-strand lesion for repair and may ultimately cause tumor cell death. In conclusion, this study provides a concrete experience and an alternate strategy of ATO/AZD therapy for patients with R/M HNSCC.