Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) differs from other head and neck (H&N) cancers in its epidemiology and treatment. Unlike other H&N cancers, NPC has a distinct geographical distribution with a much higher incidence in endemic areas, such as southern China, than in areas where it is relatively uncommon, such as the United States.¹ The etiology of NPC varies based on the geographical distribution, with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) thought to be the primary etiologic agent in endemic areas. On the other hand, in North America 2 additional subsets of NPC have been identified: human papillomavirus (HPV)–positive/EBV-negative and HPV-negative/EBV-negative.^2,3 NPC arises from the epithelial lining of the nasopharynx, often in the fossa of Rosenmuller, and is the most seen tumor in the nasopharynx.⁴ NPC is less surgically accessible than other H&N cancers, and surgery to the nasopharynx poses more risks given the proximity of critical surrounding structures. NPC is radiosensitive, and therefore radiotherapy (RT), in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced tumors, has become the mainstay of treatment for nonmetastatic NPC.⁴

NPC often presents with an asymptomatic neck mass or with symptoms of epistaxis, nasal obstruction, and otitis media.⁵ Advanced cases of NPC can present with direct extension into the skull base, paranasal sinuses, and orbit, as well as involvement of cranial nerves. Radiation planning for tumors of the nasopharynx is complicated by the need to deliver an adequate dose to the tumor while limiting dose and toxicity to nearby critical structures such as the brainstem, optic chiasm, eyes, spinal cord (SC), temporal lobes, and cochleae. Achieving an adequate dose to nasopharyngeal primary tumors is especially complicated for T4 tumors invading the skull base with intracranial extension, in direct contact with these critical structures (Table 1).

Case Presentation

A 34-year-old male patient with no previous medical history presented to the emergency department with worsening diplopia, nasal obstruction, facial pain, and neck stiffness. The patient reported a 3 pack-year smoking history with recent smoking cessation. His physical examination was notable for a right abducens nerve palsy and an ulcerated nasopharyngeal mass on endoscopy.

Computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a 7-cm mass in the nasopharynx, eroding through the skull base with destruction and replacement of the clivus by tumor. Also noted was erosion of the petrous apices, carotid canals, sella turcica, dens, and the bilateral occipital condyles. There was intracranial extension with replacement of portions of the cavernous sinuses as well as mass effect on the prepontine cistern. Additional brain imaging studies, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans, were obtained for completion of the staging workup. The MRI correlated with the findings noted on CT and demonstrated involvement of Meckel cave, foramen ovale, foramen rotundum, Dorello canal, and the hypoglossal canals. No cervical lymphadenopathy or distant metastases were noted on imaging. Pathology from biopsy revealed poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, EBV-negative, strongly p16-positive, HPV-16 positive, and P53-negative.

RT planning was complicated by the tumor’s contact with the brainstem and upper cervical SC, as well as proximity of the tumor to the optic apparatus. The patient underwent 2 replanning CT scans at 26 Gy and 44 Gy to evaluate for tumor shrinkage. These CT scans demonstrated shrinkage of the tumor away from critical neural structures, allowing the treatment volume to be reduced away from these structures in order to achieve required dose tolerances (brainstem < 54 Gy, optic nerves and chiasm < 50 Gy, SC < 45 Gy for this case). The replanning CT scan at 44 Gy, 5 weeks after treatment initiation, demonstrated that dramatic tumor shrinkage had occurred early in treatment, with separation of the remaining tumor from the area of the SC and brainstem with which it was initially in contact (Figure 1). This improvement allowed for shrinkage of the high-dose radiation field away from these critical neural structures.

Discussion

RT for NPC is complicated by the proximity of these tumors to critical surrounding neural structures. It is challenging to achieve the required dose constraints to surrounding neural tissues while delivering the usual 70-Gy dose to the gross tumor, especially when the tumor comes into direct contact with these structures.

This case provides an example of response-adapted RT using imaging during treatment to shrink the high-dose target as the tumor shrinks away from critical surrounding structures.⁷ This strategy permits delivery of the maximum dose to the tumor while minimizing radiation dose, and therefore risk of toxicity, to normal surrounding structures. While it is typical to deliver 70 Gy to the full extent of tumor involvement for H&N tumors, this was not possible in this case as the tumor was in contact with the brainstem and upper cervical SC. Delivering the full 70 Gy to these areas of tumor would have placed this patient at substantial risk of brainstem and/or SC toxicity. This report demonstrates that response-adapted RT with shrinking fields can allow for tumor control while avoiding toxicity to critical neural structures for cases of locally advanced NPC in which tumor is abutting these structures.

Bony regeneration of the skull base following RT has been reported in the literature, but in limited reviews. Early reports used plain radiography to follow changes. Unger and colleagues demonstrated the regeneration of bone using skull radiographs 4 to 6 months after completion of RT for NPC.⁸ More recent literature details the ability of bone to regenerate after RT based on CT findings. Fang and colleagues reported on 90 cases of NPC with skull base destruction, with 63% having bony regeneration on posttreatment CT.⁹ Most of the patients in Fang’s report had bony regeneration within 1 year of treatment, and in general, bony regeneration became more evident on imaging with longer follow-up. Of note, local control was significantly greater in patients with regeneration vs persistent destruction (77% vs 21%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, complete tumor response was significantly associated with bony regeneration; other factors such as age, sex, radiation dose, and chemotherapy were not significantly associated with the likelihood of bony regeneration.

Our report details a nasopharyngeal tumor that destroyed the skull base with no intact bony barrier. In such cases, concern arises regarding craniospinal instability with tumor regression if there is not simultaneous bone regeneration. Tumor invasion of the skull base and C1-2 vertebral bodies and complications from treatment of such tumor extent can lead to symptoms of craniospinal instability, including pain, difficulty with neck range of motion, and loss of strength and sensation in the upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ A case report of a woman treated with chemoradiation for a plasmacytoma of the skull base detailed her posttreatment presentation with quadriparesis resulting from craniospinal instability after tumor regression.¹¹ Such instability is generally treated surgically, and during this woman’s surgery, there was an injury to the right vertebral artery, although this did not cause any additional neurologic deficits.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of literature on bony regeneration in patients with skull base destruction from advanced NPC, and in particular, the ability of skull base regeneration to occur during treatment simultaneous with tumor regression. Our patient had HPV-positive/EBV-negative NPC, but it is unclear how this subtype affected his prognosis. Factors such as tumor histology, radiosensitivity with rapid tumor regression, and young age may have all contributed to the rapidity of bone regeneration in our patient. This case report demonstrates that an impressive tumor response to chemoradiation with simultaneous bony regeneration is possible among patients presenting with tumor destruction of the skull base, precluding the need for neurosurgical intervention.

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) differs from other head and neck (H&N) cancers in its epidemiology and treatment. Unlike other H&N cancers, NPC has a distinct geographical distribution with a much higher incidence in endemic areas, such as southern China, than in areas where it is relatively uncommon, such as the United States.¹ The etiology of NPC varies based on the geographical distribution, with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) thought to be the primary etiologic agent in endemic areas. On the other hand, in North America 2 additional subsets of NPC have been identified: human papillomavirus (HPV)–positive/EBV-negative and HPV-negative/EBV-negative.^2,3 NPC arises from the epithelial lining of the nasopharynx, often in the fossa of Rosenmuller, and is the most seen tumor in the nasopharynx.⁴ NPC is less surgically accessible than other H&N cancers, and surgery to the nasopharynx poses more risks given the proximity of critical surrounding structures. NPC is radiosensitive, and therefore radiotherapy (RT), in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced tumors, has become the mainstay of treatment for nonmetastatic NPC.⁴

NPC often presents with an asymptomatic neck mass or with symptoms of epistaxis, nasal obstruction, and otitis media.⁵ Advanced cases of NPC can present with direct extension into the skull base, paranasal sinuses, and orbit, as well as involvement of cranial nerves. Radiation planning for tumors of the nasopharynx is complicated by the need to deliver an adequate dose to the tumor while limiting dose and toxicity to nearby critical structures such as the brainstem, optic chiasm, eyes, spinal cord (SC), temporal lobes, and cochleae. Achieving an adequate dose to nasopharyngeal primary tumors is especially complicated for T4 tumors invading the skull base with intracranial extension, in direct contact with these critical structures (Table 1).

Case Presentation

A 34-year-old male patient with no previous medical history presented to the emergency department with worsening diplopia, nasal obstruction, facial pain, and neck stiffness. The patient reported a 3 pack-year smoking history with recent smoking cessation. His physical examination was notable for a right abducens nerve palsy and an ulcerated nasopharyngeal mass on endoscopy.

Computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a 7-cm mass in the nasopharynx, eroding through the skull base with destruction and replacement of the clivus by tumor. Also noted was erosion of the petrous apices, carotid canals, sella turcica, dens, and the bilateral occipital condyles. There was intracranial extension with replacement of portions of the cavernous sinuses as well as mass effect on the prepontine cistern. Additional brain imaging studies, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans, were obtained for completion of the staging workup. The MRI correlated with the findings noted on CT and demonstrated involvement of Meckel cave, foramen ovale, foramen rotundum, Dorello canal, and the hypoglossal canals. No cervical lymphadenopathy or distant metastases were noted on imaging. Pathology from biopsy revealed poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, EBV-negative, strongly p16-positive, HPV-16 positive, and P53-negative.

RT planning was complicated by the tumor’s contact with the brainstem and upper cervical SC, as well as proximity of the tumor to the optic apparatus. The patient underwent 2 replanning CT scans at 26 Gy and 44 Gy to evaluate for tumor shrinkage. These CT scans demonstrated shrinkage of the tumor away from critical neural structures, allowing the treatment volume to be reduced away from these structures in order to achieve required dose tolerances (brainstem < 54 Gy, optic nerves and chiasm < 50 Gy, SC < 45 Gy for this case). The replanning CT scan at 44 Gy, 5 weeks after treatment initiation, demonstrated that dramatic tumor shrinkage had occurred early in treatment, with separation of the remaining tumor from the area of the SC and brainstem with which it was initially in contact (Figure 1). This improvement allowed for shrinkage of the high-dose radiation field away from these critical neural structures.

Discussion

RT for NPC is complicated by the proximity of these tumors to critical surrounding neural structures. It is challenging to achieve the required dose constraints to surrounding neural tissues while delivering the usual 70-Gy dose to the gross tumor, especially when the tumor comes into direct contact with these structures.

This case provides an example of response-adapted RT using imaging during treatment to shrink the high-dose target as the tumor shrinks away from critical surrounding structures.⁷ This strategy permits delivery of the maximum dose to the tumor while minimizing radiation dose, and therefore risk of toxicity, to normal surrounding structures. While it is typical to deliver 70 Gy to the full extent of tumor involvement for H&N tumors, this was not possible in this case as the tumor was in contact with the brainstem and upper cervical SC. Delivering the full 70 Gy to these areas of tumor would have placed this patient at substantial risk of brainstem and/or SC toxicity. This report demonstrates that response-adapted RT with shrinking fields can allow for tumor control while avoiding toxicity to critical neural structures for cases of locally advanced NPC in which tumor is abutting these structures.

Bony regeneration of the skull base following RT has been reported in the literature, but in limited reviews. Early reports used plain radiography to follow changes. Unger and colleagues demonstrated the regeneration of bone using skull radiographs 4 to 6 months after completion of RT for NPC.⁸ More recent literature details the ability of bone to regenerate after RT based on CT findings. Fang and colleagues reported on 90 cases of NPC with skull base destruction, with 63% having bony regeneration on posttreatment CT.⁹ Most of the patients in Fang’s report had bony regeneration within 1 year of treatment, and in general, bony regeneration became more evident on imaging with longer follow-up. Of note, local control was significantly greater in patients with regeneration vs persistent destruction (77% vs 21%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, complete tumor response was significantly associated with bony regeneration; other factors such as age, sex, radiation dose, and chemotherapy were not significantly associated with the likelihood of bony regeneration.

Our report details a nasopharyngeal tumor that destroyed the skull base with no intact bony barrier. In such cases, concern arises regarding craniospinal instability with tumor regression if there is not simultaneous bone regeneration. Tumor invasion of the skull base and C1-2 vertebral bodies and complications from treatment of such tumor extent can lead to symptoms of craniospinal instability, including pain, difficulty with neck range of motion, and loss of strength and sensation in the upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ A case report of a woman treated with chemoradiation for a plasmacytoma of the skull base detailed her posttreatment presentation with quadriparesis resulting from craniospinal instability after tumor regression.¹¹ Such instability is generally treated surgically, and during this woman’s surgery, there was an injury to the right vertebral artery, although this did not cause any additional neurologic deficits.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of literature on bony regeneration in patients with skull base destruction from advanced NPC, and in particular, the ability of skull base regeneration to occur during treatment simultaneous with tumor regression. Our patient had HPV-positive/EBV-negative NPC, but it is unclear how this subtype affected his prognosis. Factors such as tumor histology, radiosensitivity with rapid tumor regression, and young age may have all contributed to the rapidity of bone regeneration in our patient. This case report demonstrates that an impressive tumor response to chemoradiation with simultaneous bony regeneration is possible among patients presenting with tumor destruction of the skull base, precluding the need for neurosurgical intervention.

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) differs from other head and neck (H&N) cancers in its epidemiology and treatment. Unlike other H&N cancers, NPC has a distinct geographical distribution with a much higher incidence in endemic areas, such as southern China, than in areas where it is relatively uncommon, such as the United States.¹ The etiology of NPC varies based on the geographical distribution, with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) thought to be the primary etiologic agent in endemic areas. On the other hand, in North America 2 additional subsets of NPC have been identified: human papillomavirus (HPV)–positive/EBV-negative and HPV-negative/EBV-negative.^2,3 NPC arises from the epithelial lining of the nasopharynx, often in the fossa of Rosenmuller, and is the most seen tumor in the nasopharynx.⁴ NPC is less surgically accessible than other H&N cancers, and surgery to the nasopharynx poses more risks given the proximity of critical surrounding structures. NPC is radiosensitive, and therefore radiotherapy (RT), in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced tumors, has become the mainstay of treatment for nonmetastatic NPC.⁴

NPC often presents with an asymptomatic neck mass or with symptoms of epistaxis, nasal obstruction, and otitis media.⁵ Advanced cases of NPC can present with direct extension into the skull base, paranasal sinuses, and orbit, as well as involvement of cranial nerves. Radiation planning for tumors of the nasopharynx is complicated by the need to deliver an adequate dose to the tumor while limiting dose and toxicity to nearby critical structures such as the brainstem, optic chiasm, eyes, spinal cord (SC), temporal lobes, and cochleae. Achieving an adequate dose to nasopharyngeal primary tumors is especially complicated for T4 tumors invading the skull base with intracranial extension, in direct contact with these critical structures (Table 1).

Case Presentation

A 34-year-old male patient with no previous medical history presented to the emergency department with worsening diplopia, nasal obstruction, facial pain, and neck stiffness. The patient reported a 3 pack-year smoking history with recent smoking cessation. His physical examination was notable for a right abducens nerve palsy and an ulcerated nasopharyngeal mass on endoscopy.

Computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a 7-cm mass in the nasopharynx, eroding through the skull base with destruction and replacement of the clivus by tumor. Also noted was erosion of the petrous apices, carotid canals, sella turcica, dens, and the bilateral occipital condyles. There was intracranial extension with replacement of portions of the cavernous sinuses as well as mass effect on the prepontine cistern. Additional brain imaging studies, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans, were obtained for completion of the staging workup. The MRI correlated with the findings noted on CT and demonstrated involvement of Meckel cave, foramen ovale, foramen rotundum, Dorello canal, and the hypoglossal canals. No cervical lymphadenopathy or distant metastases were noted on imaging. Pathology from biopsy revealed poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, EBV-negative, strongly p16-positive, HPV-16 positive, and P53-negative.

RT planning was complicated by the tumor’s contact with the brainstem and upper cervical SC, as well as proximity of the tumor to the optic apparatus. The patient underwent 2 replanning CT scans at 26 Gy and 44 Gy to evaluate for tumor shrinkage. These CT scans demonstrated shrinkage of the tumor away from critical neural structures, allowing the treatment volume to be reduced away from these structures in order to achieve required dose tolerances (brainstem < 54 Gy, optic nerves and chiasm < 50 Gy, SC < 45 Gy for this case). The replanning CT scan at 44 Gy, 5 weeks after treatment initiation, demonstrated that dramatic tumor shrinkage had occurred early in treatment, with separation of the remaining tumor from the area of the SC and brainstem with which it was initially in contact (Figure 1). This improvement allowed for shrinkage of the high-dose radiation field away from these critical neural structures.

Discussion

RT for NPC is complicated by the proximity of these tumors to critical surrounding neural structures. It is challenging to achieve the required dose constraints to surrounding neural tissues while delivering the usual 70-Gy dose to the gross tumor, especially when the tumor comes into direct contact with these structures.

This case provides an example of response-adapted RT using imaging during treatment to shrink the high-dose target as the tumor shrinks away from critical surrounding structures.⁷ This strategy permits delivery of the maximum dose to the tumor while minimizing radiation dose, and therefore risk of toxicity, to normal surrounding structures. While it is typical to deliver 70 Gy to the full extent of tumor involvement for H&N tumors, this was not possible in this case as the tumor was in contact with the brainstem and upper cervical SC. Delivering the full 70 Gy to these areas of tumor would have placed this patient at substantial risk of brainstem and/or SC toxicity. This report demonstrates that response-adapted RT with shrinking fields can allow for tumor control while avoiding toxicity to critical neural structures for cases of locally advanced NPC in which tumor is abutting these structures.

Bony regeneration of the skull base following RT has been reported in the literature, but in limited reviews. Early reports used plain radiography to follow changes. Unger and colleagues demonstrated the regeneration of bone using skull radiographs 4 to 6 months after completion of RT for NPC.⁸ More recent literature details the ability of bone to regenerate after RT based on CT findings. Fang and colleagues reported on 90 cases of NPC with skull base destruction, with 63% having bony regeneration on posttreatment CT.⁹ Most of the patients in Fang’s report had bony regeneration within 1 year of treatment, and in general, bony regeneration became more evident on imaging with longer follow-up. Of note, local control was significantly greater in patients with regeneration vs persistent destruction (77% vs 21%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, complete tumor response was significantly associated with bony regeneration; other factors such as age, sex, radiation dose, and chemotherapy were not significantly associated with the likelihood of bony regeneration.

Our report details a nasopharyngeal tumor that destroyed the skull base with no intact bony barrier. In such cases, concern arises regarding craniospinal instability with tumor regression if there is not simultaneous bone regeneration. Tumor invasion of the skull base and C1-2 vertebral bodies and complications from treatment of such tumor extent can lead to symptoms of craniospinal instability, including pain, difficulty with neck range of motion, and loss of strength and sensation in the upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ A case report of a woman treated with chemoradiation for a plasmacytoma of the skull base detailed her posttreatment presentation with quadriparesis resulting from craniospinal instability after tumor regression.¹¹ Such instability is generally treated surgically, and during this woman’s surgery, there was an injury to the right vertebral artery, although this did not cause any additional neurologic deficits.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of literature on bony regeneration in patients with skull base destruction from advanced NPC, and in particular, the ability of skull base regeneration to occur during treatment simultaneous with tumor regression. Our patient had HPV-positive/EBV-negative NPC, but it is unclear how this subtype affected his prognosis. Factors such as tumor histology, radiosensitivity with rapid tumor regression, and young age may have all contributed to the rapidity of bone regeneration in our patient. This case report demonstrates that an impressive tumor response to chemoradiation with simultaneous bony regeneration is possible among patients presenting with tumor destruction of the skull base, precluding the need for neurosurgical intervention.

A qualitative analysis of 20 people with head and neck cancer (HNC) has led to recommendations for improvements in care.

HNC has a high burden of treatment-related adverse events, along with frequent trouble with speech, swallowing, facial disfigurement, and psychological distress.

Among cancer patients, “they have the highest rates of emergency department use and hospitalization during treatment. They also have the highest rates of psychological distress. We have some Ontario data that shows they’ve got the highest rates of suicide and self-harm. So I think this is a really special population that we need to support,” Christopher Noel, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Noel was the lead author of the study, which was published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

These issues can strongly affect quality of life, and even patient outcomes. “Even a 1-day interruption in treatment has been shown to impact oncologic outcomes. This is a very big issue whether you’re a surgeon, a medical oncologist, or a radiation oncologist,” said Dr. Noel, who is a resident physician at the University of Toronto.

He advocates that physicians interview patients and review the results in a structured way and then act on it. “If we just rely on patient [provided] communication, we’re going to miss about 50% of patient symptoms,” he said.

The researchers aimed for the patient’s perspective on treatment. “What is the patient’s perception of going through head neck cancer and their treatment, and managing their symptoms at home? And where do they think that we could do better?” Dr. Noel asked.

The most pressing issue was that patients felt their emotional and informational needs often were not met. That challenge is even harder for patients who have trouble communicating, which in turn makes them more prone to isolation and loneliness. Many felt that they had to get the information on their own. “They wanted it to be a more effortless process,” said Dr. Noel.

He described one patient with oropharynx cancer who was able to talk to people about her grief over her diagnosis, but treatment led to her throat becoming swollen and she lost the ability to communicate. “She felt very isolated and lonely. She really highlighted the emotional and psychosocial barriers in cancer care. Her treatment inherently leaves her feeling very isolated and lonely, and she had such a hard time connecting with a psychotherapist,” Dr. Noel said.

Another common issue revolved around efforts to communicate about symptoms and adverse effects of treatment. Resources often aren’t available on evenings or weekends, and it can take time for a nurse to call them back. Patients wanted to see more modern approaches, such as use of email or apps.

The patients in the study recommended 11 health care improvements.

• 1. Nurse navigator teams should have hours extended to evenings and weekends.
• 2. Patient communication methods should be expanded, using methods like email or apps.
• 3. HNC resources should be more broadly disseminated.
• 4. Education and information approaches should be individualized to the patient.
• 5. All HNC patients should be offered psychological resources.
• 6. Mental health needs should be assessed repeatedly throughout treatment and extended care.
• 7. Physicians should recognize the added symptom burden often faced by patients who travel extensively for treatment.
• 8. Partners and caregivers should be included as part of the treatment team.
• 9. Share symptom data with patients, which can improve engagement.
• 10. Review symptom scores and act on them regularly.
• 11. A member of the care team should be identified to oversee symptom management.

Dr. Noel had no relevant financial disclosures.

A qualitative analysis of 20 people with head and neck cancer (HNC) has led to recommendations for improvements in care.

HNC has a high burden of treatment-related adverse events, along with frequent trouble with speech, swallowing, facial disfigurement, and psychological distress.

Among cancer patients, “they have the highest rates of emergency department use and hospitalization during treatment. They also have the highest rates of psychological distress. We have some Ontario data that shows they’ve got the highest rates of suicide and self-harm. So I think this is a really special population that we need to support,” Christopher Noel, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Noel was the lead author of the study, which was published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

These issues can strongly affect quality of life, and even patient outcomes. “Even a 1-day interruption in treatment has been shown to impact oncologic outcomes. This is a very big issue whether you’re a surgeon, a medical oncologist, or a radiation oncologist,” said Dr. Noel, who is a resident physician at the University of Toronto.

He advocates that physicians interview patients and review the results in a structured way and then act on it. “If we just rely on patient [provided] communication, we’re going to miss about 50% of patient symptoms,” he said.

The researchers aimed for the patient’s perspective on treatment. “What is the patient’s perception of going through head neck cancer and their treatment, and managing their symptoms at home? And where do they think that we could do better?” Dr. Noel asked.

The most pressing issue was that patients felt their emotional and informational needs often were not met. That challenge is even harder for patients who have trouble communicating, which in turn makes them more prone to isolation and loneliness. Many felt that they had to get the information on their own. “They wanted it to be a more effortless process,” said Dr. Noel.

He described one patient with oropharynx cancer who was able to talk to people about her grief over her diagnosis, but treatment led to her throat becoming swollen and she lost the ability to communicate. “She felt very isolated and lonely. She really highlighted the emotional and psychosocial barriers in cancer care. Her treatment inherently leaves her feeling very isolated and lonely, and she had such a hard time connecting with a psychotherapist,” Dr. Noel said.

Another common issue revolved around efforts to communicate about symptoms and adverse effects of treatment. Resources often aren’t available on evenings or weekends, and it can take time for a nurse to call them back. Patients wanted to see more modern approaches, such as use of email or apps.

The patients in the study recommended 11 health care improvements.

• 1. Nurse navigator teams should have hours extended to evenings and weekends.
• 2. Patient communication methods should be expanded, using methods like email or apps.
• 3. HNC resources should be more broadly disseminated.
• 4. Education and information approaches should be individualized to the patient.
• 5. All HNC patients should be offered psychological resources.
• 6. Mental health needs should be assessed repeatedly throughout treatment and extended care.
• 7. Physicians should recognize the added symptom burden often faced by patients who travel extensively for treatment.
• 8. Partners and caregivers should be included as part of the treatment team.
• 9. Share symptom data with patients, which can improve engagement.
• 10. Review symptom scores and act on them regularly.
• 11. A member of the care team should be identified to oversee symptom management.

Dr. Noel had no relevant financial disclosures.

A qualitative analysis of 20 people with head and neck cancer (HNC) has led to recommendations for improvements in care.

HNC has a high burden of treatment-related adverse events, along with frequent trouble with speech, swallowing, facial disfigurement, and psychological distress.

Among cancer patients, “they have the highest rates of emergency department use and hospitalization during treatment. They also have the highest rates of psychological distress. We have some Ontario data that shows they’ve got the highest rates of suicide and self-harm. So I think this is a really special population that we need to support,” Christopher Noel, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Noel was the lead author of the study, which was published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

These issues can strongly affect quality of life, and even patient outcomes. “Even a 1-day interruption in treatment has been shown to impact oncologic outcomes. This is a very big issue whether you’re a surgeon, a medical oncologist, or a radiation oncologist,” said Dr. Noel, who is a resident physician at the University of Toronto.

He advocates that physicians interview patients and review the results in a structured way and then act on it. “If we just rely on patient [provided] communication, we’re going to miss about 50% of patient symptoms,” he said.

The researchers aimed for the patient’s perspective on treatment. “What is the patient’s perception of going through head neck cancer and their treatment, and managing their symptoms at home? And where do they think that we could do better?” Dr. Noel asked.

The most pressing issue was that patients felt their emotional and informational needs often were not met. That challenge is even harder for patients who have trouble communicating, which in turn makes them more prone to isolation and loneliness. Many felt that they had to get the information on their own. “They wanted it to be a more effortless process,” said Dr. Noel.

He described one patient with oropharynx cancer who was able to talk to people about her grief over her diagnosis, but treatment led to her throat becoming swollen and she lost the ability to communicate. “She felt very isolated and lonely. She really highlighted the emotional and psychosocial barriers in cancer care. Her treatment inherently leaves her feeling very isolated and lonely, and she had such a hard time connecting with a psychotherapist,” Dr. Noel said.

Another common issue revolved around efforts to communicate about symptoms and adverse effects of treatment. Resources often aren’t available on evenings or weekends, and it can take time for a nurse to call them back. Patients wanted to see more modern approaches, such as use of email or apps.

The patients in the study recommended 11 health care improvements.

• 1. Nurse navigator teams should have hours extended to evenings and weekends.
• 2. Patient communication methods should be expanded, using methods like email or apps.
• 3. HNC resources should be more broadly disseminated.
• 4. Education and information approaches should be individualized to the patient.
• 5. All HNC patients should be offered psychological resources.
• 6. Mental health needs should be assessed repeatedly throughout treatment and extended care.
• 7. Physicians should recognize the added symptom burden often faced by patients who travel extensively for treatment.
• 8. Partners and caregivers should be included as part of the treatment team.
• 9. Share symptom data with patients, which can improve engagement.
• 10. Review symptom scores and act on them regularly.
• 11. A member of the care team should be identified to oversee symptom management.

Dr. Noel had no relevant financial disclosures.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

A new consensus statement from the American Head and Neck Society Endocrine Surgery Section and International Thyroid Oncology Group focuses on a definition of advanced thyroid cancer and outlines strategies for mutation testing and targeted treatment.

Mutation testing should not be pursued if cancer burden and disease threat is low, since most thyroid cancers have a very good prognosis and are highly treatable. But 15% of differentiated thyroid cancer cases are locally advanced, and radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival below 50%.

More generally, advanced thyroid cancer has not been well defined clinically. Physicians with experience diagnosing advanced disease may recognize it, but there is no widely accepted definition. “This may be the first time that an expert group of physicians has attempted to define what advanced thyroid cancer is,” said David Shonka, MD, who is a coauthor of the consensus statement, which was published online in Head & Neck. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology/head and neck surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“All patients with advanced thyroid disease and most patients with incurable radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer should undergo somatic mutational testing,” the authors wrote. “Next-generation sequencing can reveal targetable mutations and potentially give patients affected by advanced thyroid carcinoma systemic treatment options that can prolong survival. These new innovative approaches are changing the landscape of clinical care for patients with advanced thyroid cancer.”

For differentiated thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid carcinoma, the authors created a definition that combines structural factors on imaging, along with surgical findings, and biochemical, histologic, and molecular factors. Anaplastic thyroid cancer should always be considered advanced, even after a complete resection and incidental pathological identification.

The statement also summarizes recent advances in thyroid cancer that have revealed molecular markers which contribute to oncogenesis. Initially, those approaches were applied to indeterminate fine needle biopsies to improve diagnosis. More recent studies used them to match patients to targeted therapies. There are Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies targeting the BRAF and RET mutations, but advanced thyroid cancer is also included in some “basket” trials that test targeted agents against driver mutations across multiple tumor types.

Radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer had few treatments as recently as 10 years ago. But recent research has shown that multikinase inhibitors improve outcomes, and a range of mutations have been found in this type of thyroid cancer, including BRAF V600E, RET, PIK3CA, and PTEN, and fusions involving RET, NTRK, and ALK. Other mutations have been linked to more aggressive disease. Efforts to personalize treatment also include microsatellite stability status, tumor mutational burden, and programmed death–ligand 1 status as indicators for immunotherapy. “With discovery of many other molecular targets, and emerging literature showcasing promise of matched targeted therapies, we recommend that all patients with advanced thyroid cancer have comprehensive genomic profiling on tumor tissue through (next generation sequencing),” the authors wrote.

These newer and novel therapies have presented physicians with options outside of surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, which have low efficacy against advanced thyroid cancer. “It is an area in which there has been substantial change. Even 5-7 years ago, patients with advanced thyroid cancer that was not responsive to radioactive iodine or surgery really didn’t have a lot of options. This is a really an exciting and growing field,” Dr. Shonka said.

He specifically cited anaplastic thyroid cancer, which like radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer has had few treatment options until recently. “Now, if you see a patient with anaplastic thyroid cancer, your knee-jerk reaction should be ‘let’s do molecular testing on this, this is definitely advanced disease.’ If they have a BRAF mutation, that’s targetable, and we can treat this patient with combination therapy that actually improves their survival. So, there’s some exciting stuff happening and probably more coming down the road as we develop new drugs that can target these mutations that we’re identifying.”

Dr. Shonka has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new consensus statement from the American Head and Neck Society Endocrine Surgery Section and International Thyroid Oncology Group focuses on a definition of advanced thyroid cancer and outlines strategies for mutation testing and targeted treatment.

Mutation testing should not be pursued if cancer burden and disease threat is low, since most thyroid cancers have a very good prognosis and are highly treatable. But 15% of differentiated thyroid cancer cases are locally advanced, and radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival below 50%.

More generally, advanced thyroid cancer has not been well defined clinically. Physicians with experience diagnosing advanced disease may recognize it, but there is no widely accepted definition. “This may be the first time that an expert group of physicians has attempted to define what advanced thyroid cancer is,” said David Shonka, MD, who is a coauthor of the consensus statement, which was published online in Head & Neck. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology/head and neck surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“All patients with advanced thyroid disease and most patients with incurable radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer should undergo somatic mutational testing,” the authors wrote. “Next-generation sequencing can reveal targetable mutations and potentially give patients affected by advanced thyroid carcinoma systemic treatment options that can prolong survival. These new innovative approaches are changing the landscape of clinical care for patients with advanced thyroid cancer.”

For differentiated thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid carcinoma, the authors created a definition that combines structural factors on imaging, along with surgical findings, and biochemical, histologic, and molecular factors. Anaplastic thyroid cancer should always be considered advanced, even after a complete resection and incidental pathological identification.

The statement also summarizes recent advances in thyroid cancer that have revealed molecular markers which contribute to oncogenesis. Initially, those approaches were applied to indeterminate fine needle biopsies to improve diagnosis. More recent studies used them to match patients to targeted therapies. There are Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies targeting the BRAF and RET mutations, but advanced thyroid cancer is also included in some “basket” trials that test targeted agents against driver mutations across multiple tumor types.

Radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer had few treatments as recently as 10 years ago. But recent research has shown that multikinase inhibitors improve outcomes, and a range of mutations have been found in this type of thyroid cancer, including BRAF V600E, RET, PIK3CA, and PTEN, and fusions involving RET, NTRK, and ALK. Other mutations have been linked to more aggressive disease. Efforts to personalize treatment also include microsatellite stability status, tumor mutational burden, and programmed death–ligand 1 status as indicators for immunotherapy. “With discovery of many other molecular targets, and emerging literature showcasing promise of matched targeted therapies, we recommend that all patients with advanced thyroid cancer have comprehensive genomic profiling on tumor tissue through (next generation sequencing),” the authors wrote.

These newer and novel therapies have presented physicians with options outside of surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, which have low efficacy against advanced thyroid cancer. “It is an area in which there has been substantial change. Even 5-7 years ago, patients with advanced thyroid cancer that was not responsive to radioactive iodine or surgery really didn’t have a lot of options. This is a really an exciting and growing field,” Dr. Shonka said.

He specifically cited anaplastic thyroid cancer, which like radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer has had few treatment options until recently. “Now, if you see a patient with anaplastic thyroid cancer, your knee-jerk reaction should be ‘let’s do molecular testing on this, this is definitely advanced disease.’ If they have a BRAF mutation, that’s targetable, and we can treat this patient with combination therapy that actually improves their survival. So, there’s some exciting stuff happening and probably more coming down the road as we develop new drugs that can target these mutations that we’re identifying.”

Dr. Shonka has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new consensus statement from the American Head and Neck Society Endocrine Surgery Section and International Thyroid Oncology Group focuses on a definition of advanced thyroid cancer and outlines strategies for mutation testing and targeted treatment.

Mutation testing should not be pursued if cancer burden and disease threat is low, since most thyroid cancers have a very good prognosis and are highly treatable. But 15% of differentiated thyroid cancer cases are locally advanced, and radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival below 50%.

More generally, advanced thyroid cancer has not been well defined clinically. Physicians with experience diagnosing advanced disease may recognize it, but there is no widely accepted definition. “This may be the first time that an expert group of physicians has attempted to define what advanced thyroid cancer is,” said David Shonka, MD, who is a coauthor of the consensus statement, which was published online in Head & Neck. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology/head and neck surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“All patients with advanced thyroid disease and most patients with incurable radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer should undergo somatic mutational testing,” the authors wrote. “Next-generation sequencing can reveal targetable mutations and potentially give patients affected by advanced thyroid carcinoma systemic treatment options that can prolong survival. These new innovative approaches are changing the landscape of clinical care for patients with advanced thyroid cancer.”

For differentiated thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid carcinoma, the authors created a definition that combines structural factors on imaging, along with surgical findings, and biochemical, histologic, and molecular factors. Anaplastic thyroid cancer should always be considered advanced, even after a complete resection and incidental pathological identification.

The statement also summarizes recent advances in thyroid cancer that have revealed molecular markers which contribute to oncogenesis. Initially, those approaches were applied to indeterminate fine needle biopsies to improve diagnosis. More recent studies used them to match patients to targeted therapies. There are Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies targeting the BRAF and RET mutations, but advanced thyroid cancer is also included in some “basket” trials that test targeted agents against driver mutations across multiple tumor types.

Radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer had few treatments as recently as 10 years ago. But recent research has shown that multikinase inhibitors improve outcomes, and a range of mutations have been found in this type of thyroid cancer, including BRAF V600E, RET, PIK3CA, and PTEN, and fusions involving RET, NTRK, and ALK. Other mutations have been linked to more aggressive disease. Efforts to personalize treatment also include microsatellite stability status, tumor mutational burden, and programmed death–ligand 1 status as indicators for immunotherapy. “With discovery of many other molecular targets, and emerging literature showcasing promise of matched targeted therapies, we recommend that all patients with advanced thyroid cancer have comprehensive genomic profiling on tumor tissue through (next generation sequencing),” the authors wrote.

These newer and novel therapies have presented physicians with options outside of surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, which have low efficacy against advanced thyroid cancer. “It is an area in which there has been substantial change. Even 5-7 years ago, patients with advanced thyroid cancer that was not responsive to radioactive iodine or surgery really didn’t have a lot of options. This is a really an exciting and growing field,” Dr. Shonka said.

He specifically cited anaplastic thyroid cancer, which like radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer has had few treatment options until recently. “Now, if you see a patient with anaplastic thyroid cancer, your knee-jerk reaction should be ‘let’s do molecular testing on this, this is definitely advanced disease.’ If they have a BRAF mutation, that’s targetable, and we can treat this patient with combination therapy that actually improves their survival. So, there’s some exciting stuff happening and probably more coming down the road as we develop new drugs that can target these mutations that we’re identifying.”

Dr. Shonka has no relevant financial disclosures.

A humanized mouse model suggests that head and neck cancer growth may stem from chronic stress. The study found that animals had immunophenotypic changes and a greater propensity towards tumor growth and metastasis.

It is not uncommon for low-income patients with head and neck cancer to present with more aggressive disease at diagnosis. Other studies have shown this may be caused by the lack of access to health care services or poor quality care. but the difference remains even after adjusting for these factors, according to researchers writing in Head and Neck.

Led by Heather A. Himburg, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology with the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, researchers conducted a study of head and neck cancer models in which tumor cells were implanted into a mouse with a humanized immune system.

Their theory was that psychosocial stress may contribute to the growth of head and neck tumors. The stress of poverty, social deprivation and social isolation can lead to the up-regulation of proinflammatory markers in circulating blood leukocytes, and this has been tied to worse outcomes in hematologic malignancies and breast cancer. Many such studies examined social adversity and found an association with greater tumor growth rates and treatment resistance.

Other researchers have used mouse models to study the phenomenon, but the results have been inconclusive. For example, some research linked the beta-adrenergic pathway to head and neck cancer, but clinical trials of beta-blockers showed no benefit, and even potential harm, for patients with head and neck cancers. Those results imply that this pathway does not drive tumor growth and metastasis in the presence of chronic stress.

Previous research used immunocompromised or nonhumanized mice. However, neither type of model reproduces the human tumor microenvironment, which may contribute to ensuing clinical failures. In the new study, researchers describe results from a preclinical model created using a human head and neck cancer xenograft in a mouse with a humanized immune system.
 

How the study was conducted

The animals were randomly assigned to normal housing of two or three animals from the same litter to a cage, or social isolation from littermates. There were five male and five female animals in each arm, and the animals were housed in their separate conditions for 4 weeks before tumor implantation.

The isolated animals experienced increased growth and metastasis of the xenografts, compared with controls. The results are consistent with findings in immunodeficient or syngeneic mice, but the humanized nature of the new model could lead to better translation of findings into clinical studies. “The humanized model system in this study demonstrated the presence of both human myeloid and lymphoid lineages as well as expression of at least 40 human cytokines. These data indicate that our model is likely to well-represent the human condition and better predict human clinical responses as compared to both immunodeficient and syngeneic models,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also found that chronic stress may act through an immunoregulatory effect, since there was greater human immune infiltrate into the tumors of stressed animals. Increased presence of regulatory components like myeloid-derived suppressor cells or regulatory T cells, or eroded function of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, might explain this finding. The researchers also identified a proinflammatory change in peripheral blood monocular cells in the stressed group. When they analyzed samples from patients who were low income earners of less than $45,000 in annual household income, they found a similar pattern. “This suggests that chronic socioeconomic stress may induce a similar proinflammatory immune state as our chronic stress model system,” the authors wrote.

Tumors were also different between the two groups of mice. Tumors in stressed animals had a higher percentage of cancer stem cells, which is associated with more aggressive tumors and worse disease-free survival. The researchers suggested that up-regulated levels of the chemokine SDF-1 seen in the stressed animals may be driving the higher proportion of stem cells through its effects on the CXCR4 receptor, which is expressed by stem cells in various organs and may cause migration, proliferation, and cell survival.

The study was funded by an endowment from Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin and a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A humanized mouse model suggests that head and neck cancer growth may stem from chronic stress. The study found that animals had immunophenotypic changes and a greater propensity towards tumor growth and metastasis.

It is not uncommon for low-income patients with head and neck cancer to present with more aggressive disease at diagnosis. Other studies have shown this may be caused by the lack of access to health care services or poor quality care. but the difference remains even after adjusting for these factors, according to researchers writing in Head and Neck.

Led by Heather A. Himburg, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology with the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, researchers conducted a study of head and neck cancer models in which tumor cells were implanted into a mouse with a humanized immune system.

Their theory was that psychosocial stress may contribute to the growth of head and neck tumors. The stress of poverty, social deprivation and social isolation can lead to the up-regulation of proinflammatory markers in circulating blood leukocytes, and this has been tied to worse outcomes in hematologic malignancies and breast cancer. Many such studies examined social adversity and found an association with greater tumor growth rates and treatment resistance.

Other researchers have used mouse models to study the phenomenon, but the results have been inconclusive. For example, some research linked the beta-adrenergic pathway to head and neck cancer, but clinical trials of beta-blockers showed no benefit, and even potential harm, for patients with head and neck cancers. Those results imply that this pathway does not drive tumor growth and metastasis in the presence of chronic stress.

Previous research used immunocompromised or nonhumanized mice. However, neither type of model reproduces the human tumor microenvironment, which may contribute to ensuing clinical failures. In the new study, researchers describe results from a preclinical model created using a human head and neck cancer xenograft in a mouse with a humanized immune system.
 

How the study was conducted

The animals were randomly assigned to normal housing of two or three animals from the same litter to a cage, or social isolation from littermates. There were five male and five female animals in each arm, and the animals were housed in their separate conditions for 4 weeks before tumor implantation.

The isolated animals experienced increased growth and metastasis of the xenografts, compared with controls. The results are consistent with findings in immunodeficient or syngeneic mice, but the humanized nature of the new model could lead to better translation of findings into clinical studies. “The humanized model system in this study demonstrated the presence of both human myeloid and lymphoid lineages as well as expression of at least 40 human cytokines. These data indicate that our model is likely to well-represent the human condition and better predict human clinical responses as compared to both immunodeficient and syngeneic models,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also found that chronic stress may act through an immunoregulatory effect, since there was greater human immune infiltrate into the tumors of stressed animals. Increased presence of regulatory components like myeloid-derived suppressor cells or regulatory T cells, or eroded function of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, might explain this finding. The researchers also identified a proinflammatory change in peripheral blood monocular cells in the stressed group. When they analyzed samples from patients who were low income earners of less than $45,000 in annual household income, they found a similar pattern. “This suggests that chronic socioeconomic stress may induce a similar proinflammatory immune state as our chronic stress model system,” the authors wrote.

Tumors were also different between the two groups of mice. Tumors in stressed animals had a higher percentage of cancer stem cells, which is associated with more aggressive tumors and worse disease-free survival. The researchers suggested that up-regulated levels of the chemokine SDF-1 seen in the stressed animals may be driving the higher proportion of stem cells through its effects on the CXCR4 receptor, which is expressed by stem cells in various organs and may cause migration, proliferation, and cell survival.

The study was funded by an endowment from Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin and a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A humanized mouse model suggests that head and neck cancer growth may stem from chronic stress. The study found that animals had immunophenotypic changes and a greater propensity towards tumor growth and metastasis.

It is not uncommon for low-income patients with head and neck cancer to present with more aggressive disease at diagnosis. Other studies have shown this may be caused by the lack of access to health care services or poor quality care. but the difference remains even after adjusting for these factors, according to researchers writing in Head and Neck.

Led by Heather A. Himburg, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology with the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, researchers conducted a study of head and neck cancer models in which tumor cells were implanted into a mouse with a humanized immune system.

Their theory was that psychosocial stress may contribute to the growth of head and neck tumors. The stress of poverty, social deprivation and social isolation can lead to the up-regulation of proinflammatory markers in circulating blood leukocytes, and this has been tied to worse outcomes in hematologic malignancies and breast cancer. Many such studies examined social adversity and found an association with greater tumor growth rates and treatment resistance.

Other researchers have used mouse models to study the phenomenon, but the results have been inconclusive. For example, some research linked the beta-adrenergic pathway to head and neck cancer, but clinical trials of beta-blockers showed no benefit, and even potential harm, for patients with head and neck cancers. Those results imply that this pathway does not drive tumor growth and metastasis in the presence of chronic stress.

Previous research used immunocompromised or nonhumanized mice. However, neither type of model reproduces the human tumor microenvironment, which may contribute to ensuing clinical failures. In the new study, researchers describe results from a preclinical model created using a human head and neck cancer xenograft in a mouse with a humanized immune system.
 

How the study was conducted

The animals were randomly assigned to normal housing of two or three animals from the same litter to a cage, or social isolation from littermates. There were five male and five female animals in each arm, and the animals were housed in their separate conditions for 4 weeks before tumor implantation.

The isolated animals experienced increased growth and metastasis of the xenografts, compared with controls. The results are consistent with findings in immunodeficient or syngeneic mice, but the humanized nature of the new model could lead to better translation of findings into clinical studies. “The humanized model system in this study demonstrated the presence of both human myeloid and lymphoid lineages as well as expression of at least 40 human cytokines. These data indicate that our model is likely to well-represent the human condition and better predict human clinical responses as compared to both immunodeficient and syngeneic models,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also found that chronic stress may act through an immunoregulatory effect, since there was greater human immune infiltrate into the tumors of stressed animals. Increased presence of regulatory components like myeloid-derived suppressor cells or regulatory T cells, or eroded function of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, might explain this finding. The researchers also identified a proinflammatory change in peripheral blood monocular cells in the stressed group. When they analyzed samples from patients who were low income earners of less than $45,000 in annual household income, they found a similar pattern. “This suggests that chronic socioeconomic stress may induce a similar proinflammatory immune state as our chronic stress model system,” the authors wrote.

Tumors were also different between the two groups of mice. Tumors in stressed animals had a higher percentage of cancer stem cells, which is associated with more aggressive tumors and worse disease-free survival. The researchers suggested that up-regulated levels of the chemokine SDF-1 seen in the stressed animals may be driving the higher proportion of stem cells through its effects on the CXCR4 receptor, which is expressed by stem cells in various organs and may cause migration, proliferation, and cell survival.

The study was funded by an endowment from Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin and a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal Practitioner, in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), present the 2022 edition of Cancer Data Trends (click to view the digital edition). This special issue provides updates on some of the top cancers and related concerns affecting veterans through original infographics and visual storytelling.

 

In this issue:

• Exposure-Related Cancers
• Cancer in Women
• Genitourinary Cancers
• Gastrointestinal Cancers
• Telehealth in Oncology
•  Precision Oncology
•  Palliative and Hospice Care
•  Alcohol and Cancer
•  Lung Cancer
•  Oropharyngeal Cancer
• Hematologic Cancers

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this issue:

Anita Aggarwal, DO, PhD; Sara Ahmed, PhD; Katherine Faricy-Anderson, MD; Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, MS; Solomon A Graf, MD; Kate Hendricks Thomas, PhD; Michael Kelley, MD; Mark Klein, MD, Gina McWhirter, MSN, MBA, RN; Bruce Montgomery, MD; Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA; Thomas D Rodgers, MD; Vlad C Sandulache, MD, PhD; David H Wang, MD, PhD.

Federal Practitioner, in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), present the 2022 edition of Cancer Data Trends (click to view the digital edition). This special issue provides updates on some of the top cancers and related concerns affecting veterans through original infographics and visual storytelling.

 

In this issue:

• Exposure-Related Cancers
• Cancer in Women
• Genitourinary Cancers
• Gastrointestinal Cancers
• Telehealth in Oncology
•  Precision Oncology
•  Palliative and Hospice Care
•  Alcohol and Cancer
•  Lung Cancer
•  Oropharyngeal Cancer
• Hematologic Cancers

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this issue:

Anita Aggarwal, DO, PhD; Sara Ahmed, PhD; Katherine Faricy-Anderson, MD; Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, MS; Solomon A Graf, MD; Kate Hendricks Thomas, PhD; Michael Kelley, MD; Mark Klein, MD, Gina McWhirter, MSN, MBA, RN; Bruce Montgomery, MD; Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA; Thomas D Rodgers, MD; Vlad C Sandulache, MD, PhD; David H Wang, MD, PhD.

Federal Practitioner, in collaboration with the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), present the 2022 edition of Cancer Data Trends (click to view the digital edition). This special issue provides updates on some of the top cancers and related concerns affecting veterans through original infographics and visual storytelling.

 

In this issue:

• Exposure-Related Cancers
• Cancer in Women
• Genitourinary Cancers
• Gastrointestinal Cancers
• Telehealth in Oncology
•  Precision Oncology
•  Palliative and Hospice Care
•  Alcohol and Cancer
•  Lung Cancer
•  Oropharyngeal Cancer
• Hematologic Cancers

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this issue:

Anita Aggarwal, DO, PhD; Sara Ahmed, PhD; Katherine Faricy-Anderson, MD; Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, MS; Solomon A Graf, MD; Kate Hendricks Thomas, PhD; Michael Kelley, MD; Mark Klein, MD, Gina McWhirter, MSN, MBA, RN; Bruce Montgomery, MD; Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA; Thomas D Rodgers, MD; Vlad C Sandulache, MD, PhD; David H Wang, MD, PhD.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

Younger, nonsmoking oral cancer patients have a higher risk of death than that of young smokers, and the outcomes may be related to immune deficiencies. The finding comes from a database of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated between 1985 and 2015.

“Recent studies have shown an association between high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a marker for poor outcome in several different cancers. This ratio is a surrogate marker for a patient’s immune function. A high ratio indicates an impaired immune function. This means that the ability for the immune system to identify and eradicate abnormal cells which have the potential to form cancer cells is impaired. We don’t know why this is occurring,” said Ian Ganly, MD, PhD, a head and neck surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Ganly is lead author of the new study, published online March 5 in Oral Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware these patients may have impaired immunity and may have a more aggressive presentation and clinical behavior. Such patients may require more comprehensive staging investigations for cancer and may require more comprehensive treatment. Following treatment these patients should also have a detailed and regular follow-up examination with appropriate imaging to detect early recurrence,” he said in an interview.

The research also suggests that immunotherapy may be effective in this group. “However, our findings are only preliminary and further research into this area is required before such therapy can be justified,” Dr. Ganly said.

The study comprised 2,073 patients overall (median age, 62; 43.5% female) and 100 younger nonsmoking patients (median age, 34; 56.0% female). After multivariate analysis, compared to young smokers, nonsmokers with OSCC had a greater risk of mortality (P = .0229), although they had a lower mortality risk than both smokers and nonsmokers over 40. After adjustments, young nonsmokers had a mortality resembling that of older patients, while mortality among young smokers was distinctly lower than that of older patients.

In a subset of 88 young nonsmoking patients, there was a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (median, 2.456) than that of similarly aged patients with thyroid cancer (median, 2.000; P = .0093) or salivary gland benign pathologies (median, 2.158; P = .0343).

The researchers are now studying the genomics of tumors found in smokers and nonsmokers and comparing them to tumors in older smokers and nonsmokers with OSCCs. They are performing a similar comparison of the immune environment of the tumors and patients’ immune system function. “For the genomics aspect I am looking to see if there are any unique alterations in the young nonsmokers that may explain the biology of these cancers. If so, there may be some alterations that can be targeted with new drugs. For the immune aspect, our goal is to see if there are any specific alterations in immune function unique to this population. Then it may be possible to deliver specific types of immunotherapy that focus in on these deficiencies,” said Dr. Ganly.

The study was funded by Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ganly has no relevant financial disclosures.

Younger, nonsmoking oral cancer patients have a higher risk of death than that of young smokers, and the outcomes may be related to immune deficiencies. The finding comes from a database of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated between 1985 and 2015.

“Recent studies have shown an association between high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a marker for poor outcome in several different cancers. This ratio is a surrogate marker for a patient’s immune function. A high ratio indicates an impaired immune function. This means that the ability for the immune system to identify and eradicate abnormal cells which have the potential to form cancer cells is impaired. We don’t know why this is occurring,” said Ian Ganly, MD, PhD, a head and neck surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Ganly is lead author of the new study, published online March 5 in Oral Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware these patients may have impaired immunity and may have a more aggressive presentation and clinical behavior. Such patients may require more comprehensive staging investigations for cancer and may require more comprehensive treatment. Following treatment these patients should also have a detailed and regular follow-up examination with appropriate imaging to detect early recurrence,” he said in an interview.

The research also suggests that immunotherapy may be effective in this group. “However, our findings are only preliminary and further research into this area is required before such therapy can be justified,” Dr. Ganly said.

The study comprised 2,073 patients overall (median age, 62; 43.5% female) and 100 younger nonsmoking patients (median age, 34; 56.0% female). After multivariate analysis, compared to young smokers, nonsmokers with OSCC had a greater risk of mortality (P = .0229), although they had a lower mortality risk than both smokers and nonsmokers over 40. After adjustments, young nonsmokers had a mortality resembling that of older patients, while mortality among young smokers was distinctly lower than that of older patients.

In a subset of 88 young nonsmoking patients, there was a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (median, 2.456) than that of similarly aged patients with thyroid cancer (median, 2.000; P = .0093) or salivary gland benign pathologies (median, 2.158; P = .0343).

The researchers are now studying the genomics of tumors found in smokers and nonsmokers and comparing them to tumors in older smokers and nonsmokers with OSCCs. They are performing a similar comparison of the immune environment of the tumors and patients’ immune system function. “For the genomics aspect I am looking to see if there are any unique alterations in the young nonsmokers that may explain the biology of these cancers. If so, there may be some alterations that can be targeted with new drugs. For the immune aspect, our goal is to see if there are any specific alterations in immune function unique to this population. Then it may be possible to deliver specific types of immunotherapy that focus in on these deficiencies,” said Dr. Ganly.

The study was funded by Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ganly has no relevant financial disclosures.

Younger, nonsmoking oral cancer patients have a higher risk of death than that of young smokers, and the outcomes may be related to immune deficiencies. The finding comes from a database of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated between 1985 and 2015.

“Recent studies have shown an association between high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a marker for poor outcome in several different cancers. This ratio is a surrogate marker for a patient’s immune function. A high ratio indicates an impaired immune function. This means that the ability for the immune system to identify and eradicate abnormal cells which have the potential to form cancer cells is impaired. We don’t know why this is occurring,” said Ian Ganly, MD, PhD, a head and neck surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Ganly is lead author of the new study, published online March 5 in Oral Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware these patients may have impaired immunity and may have a more aggressive presentation and clinical behavior. Such patients may require more comprehensive staging investigations for cancer and may require more comprehensive treatment. Following treatment these patients should also have a detailed and regular follow-up examination with appropriate imaging to detect early recurrence,” he said in an interview.

The research also suggests that immunotherapy may be effective in this group. “However, our findings are only preliminary and further research into this area is required before such therapy can be justified,” Dr. Ganly said.

The study comprised 2,073 patients overall (median age, 62; 43.5% female) and 100 younger nonsmoking patients (median age, 34; 56.0% female). After multivariate analysis, compared to young smokers, nonsmokers with OSCC had a greater risk of mortality (P = .0229), although they had a lower mortality risk than both smokers and nonsmokers over 40. After adjustments, young nonsmokers had a mortality resembling that of older patients, while mortality among young smokers was distinctly lower than that of older patients.

In a subset of 88 young nonsmoking patients, there was a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (median, 2.456) than that of similarly aged patients with thyroid cancer (median, 2.000; P = .0093) or salivary gland benign pathologies (median, 2.158; P = .0343).

The researchers are now studying the genomics of tumors found in smokers and nonsmokers and comparing them to tumors in older smokers and nonsmokers with OSCCs. They are performing a similar comparison of the immune environment of the tumors and patients’ immune system function. “For the genomics aspect I am looking to see if there are any unique alterations in the young nonsmokers that may explain the biology of these cancers. If so, there may be some alterations that can be targeted with new drugs. For the immune aspect, our goal is to see if there are any specific alterations in immune function unique to this population. Then it may be possible to deliver specific types of immunotherapy that focus in on these deficiencies,” said Dr. Ganly.

The study was funded by Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ganly has no relevant financial disclosures.