Article

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

Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Coupland III Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006387.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The management of advanced oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is problematic and has traditionally relied on surgery and radiotherapy, both of which are associated with substantial adverse effects. Radiotherapy has been in use since the 1950s and has traditionally been given as single daily doses. This method of dividing up the total dose, or fractionation, has been modified over the years and a variety of approaches have been developed with the aim of improving survival whilst maintaining acceptable toxicity.
To determine which radiotherapy regimens for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and locoregional control.
The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 July 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 July 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 July 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.
Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more radiotherapy regimens, radiotherapy versus other treatment modality, or the addition of radiotherapy to other treatment modalities.
Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials.
30 trials involving 6535 participants were included. Seventeen trials compared some form of altered fractionation (hyperfractionation/accelerated) radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy; three trials compared different altered fractionation regimens; one trial compared timing of radiotherapy, five trials evaluated neutron therapy and four trials evaluated the addition of pre-operative radiotherapy. Pooling trials of any altered fractionation radiotherapy compared to a conventional schedule showed a statistically significant reduction in total mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98). In addition, a statistically significant difference in favour of the altered fractionation was shown for the outcome of locoregional control (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). No statistically significant difference was shown for disease free survival.No statistically significant difference was shown for any other comparison.
Altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with an improvement in overall survival and locoregional control in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. More accurate methods of reporting adverse events are needed in order to truly assess the clinical performance of different radiotherapy regimens.

0 Followers
 · 
143 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Wir berichten von einem 23-jährigen Patienten, welcher sich mit einem cT4 cN1 M0-Plattenepithelkarzinom der rechten Zunge vorstellte. Nach Tumorresektion und Defektdeckung mit einem freien Anterolateral-thigh(ALT)-Lappen zeigte sich eine ausgeprägte funktionelle Hypersalivation, welche sich auch nach Gabe von Anticholinergika nicht besserte. Aus diesem Grund erfolgte die Injektion von insgesamt 75 Einheiten des Präparats Botox®, verteilt auf die Glandulae submandibulares und parotideae. Durch die intraglanduläre Injektion von Botulinumtoxin A wurde eine sehr gute Hemmung der Speichelsekretion erreicht. Hierdurch konnte die Einheilung des Transplantats, die Aspirationsneigung und die Patientenzufriedenheit entschieden verbessert werden. Botulinumtoxin A eignet sich zur Behandlung der postoperativen Hypersalivation nach Tumoreingriffen.
    HNO 06/2012; 60(6). DOI:10.1007/s00106-011-2476-8 · 0.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment. Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006205.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy is a key modality in the treatment of different cancer types. Fatigue is the most common side effect of radiotherapy, while others include nausea, hair loss, skin irritation, anemia, infertility, cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment and even the development of second cancers. Studies in experimental animals have shown protective effects of carnitine against exposure of various organs to ionizing radiation, whereas carnitine deficiency is known to enhance radiation-induced toxicity. This report summarizes the recent literature on the adverse effects of radiotherapy and the impact of radiation on carnitine homeostasis. Although some studies have demonstrated the prophylactic benefits of carnitine against the toxic effects of chemotherapy, the role of carnitine in the prognosis and management of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy is not clear and needs to be explored.
    Journal of Applied Toxicology 11/2011; 31(8):707-13. DOI:10.1002/jat.1716 · 3.17 Impact Factor