Adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC), a rare heterogenous disease, presents diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic challenges. To obtain more knowledge, we conducted a retrospective study on a cohort of 155 patients diagnosed in 2000–2022 with AdCC of the head and neck in Stockholm and investigated several clinical parameters in correlation to treatment and prognosis in the 142/155 patients treated with curative intent. The strongest favourable prognostic factors were early disease stage (stage I and II) as compared to late disease (stage III and IV) and major salivary gland subsite as compared to other subsites, with the best prognosis in the parotid gland, irrespective of the stage of the disease. Notably, in contrast to some studies, a significant correlation to survival was not found for perineural invasion or radical surgery. However, similar to others, we confirmed that other common prognostic factors, e.g., smoking, age, and gender, did not correlate to survival and should not be used for prognostication of AdCC of the head and neck. To conclude, in AdCC early disease stage, major salivary gland subsite and multimodal treatment were the strongest favourable prognostic factors, while this was not the case for age, gender and smoking nor perineural invasion and radical surgery.

An aetiological role of human papillomavirus (HPV) and/or human polyomaviruses (HPyVs) has been proposed in adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC). Moreover, HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma (HMSC) was recently introduced as an emerging entity of the sinonasal region. Here, we primarily want to study the role of HPV/HPyV in a large AdCC cohort and, secondly, possibly identify and characterize HMSC. Tumour DNA from 68 patients initially diagnosed with AdCC between 2000 and 2012 was, therefore, tested for 27 HPV types and 10 HPyVs. HPV DNA-positive samples were micromorphologically re-evaluated, further stained for p16^INK4a, S100, p63 and CD117 and tested for the presence of the MYB-NFIB fusion transcript. Notably, no samples were HPyV-positive, while one sinonasal and two tonsillar carcinomas were HPV- and p16-positive. After re-evaluating the micromorphology, immunohistochemistry and presence of fusion transcripts, all tumours had the same appearance and fitted within the diagnosis of HMSC, but in all these three cases, the morphology of the HMSC and basaloid squamous cell carcinoma was overlapping. We conclude that HPV and HPyV have no major role in AdCC. However, based on our data, we also suggest that HMSC should be considered as a basaloid variant of squamous cell carcinoma, and not its own entity, until better characterized.

Previous studies on dose-escalated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer have shown mixed results, and it is not established which patients would benefit from dose escalation. Further, while dose escalation does not appear to increase late toxicity, this needs to be confirmed with longer follow-up. In this study, we analysed treatment outcome and toxicity in 215 patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (>72 Gy, EQD2, α/β = 10 Gy, boost by brachytherapy or simultaneous integrated boost) and a matched cohort of 215 patients treated with standard dose external-beam radiotherapy (68 Gy) between 2011 and 2018 at our institution. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 77.8% (72.4–83.6) and 73.7% (67.8–80.1) in the dose-escalated and standard dose group, respectively (p = 0.24). Median follow-up was 78.1 (49.2–98.4) and 60.2 (38.9–89.4) months in the dose-escalated and standard dose groups, respectively. Grade ≥3 osteoradionecrosis (ORN) and late dysphagia were more common in the dose-escalated group compared to the standard dose group, with 19 (8.8%) vs. 4 (1.9%) patients developing grade ≥3 ORN (p = 0.001), and 39 (18.1%) vs. 21 (9.8%) patients developing grade ≥3 dysphagia (p = 0.01). No predictive factors to help select patients for dose-escalated radiotherapy were found. However, the remarkably good OS in the dose-escalated cohort, despite a predominance of advanced tumour stages, encourages further attempts to identify such factors.

The leading cause of death for patients with HPV associated squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) after treatment with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) nowadays is peripheral metastasis. This study investigated whether induction chemotherapy (IC) could improve progression free survival (PFS) and impact on relapse pattern after CRT. Methods: Eligible patients in this multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial had p16-positive locoregionally advanced SCCHN. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either RT with cetuximab (arm B) versus the same regimen preceded by two cycles of taxotere/cisplatin/5-FU (arm A). The RT dose was escalated to 74.8 Gy for large volume primary tumors. Eligibility criteria included patients of 18–75 years, an ECOG performance status 0–1, and adequate organ functions. Results: From January 2011 to February 2016, 152 patients, all with oropharyngeal tumors were enrolled, 77 in arm A and 75 in arm B. Two patients, one in each group, withdrew their consent after randomization, leaving 150 patients for the ITT analysis. PFS at 2 years was 84.2% (95% CI 76.4–92.8) in arm A and 78.4% (95% CI 69.5–88.3) in arm B (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.69–2.79, p = 0.40). At the time of analysis, there were 26 disease failures, 9 in arm A and 17 in arm B. In arm A, 3 patients had local, 2 regional, and 4 distant relapses as first sites of recurrence, and in arm B, 4, 4, and 9 relapses in corresponding sites. Eight out of 26 patients with disease progression had salvage therapy and 7 were alive NED (no evidence of disease), at 2 years. Locoregional control was 96% in arm A and 97.3% in arm B and OS 93% and 90.5%, respectively. Local failure as first site of recurrence was low, in 4.6% of patients and was similar for T1/T2 and T3/T4 tumors (n.s). Nevertheless, out of 7 patients with primary local failures, 4 were treated with the escalated RT dose. Toxicity was low and similar in the treatment arms. There was one fatal event in arm A where the combined effects of the drugs used in chemotherapy and cetuximab could not be ruled out. Conclusions: PFS, locoregional control and toxicity did not differ between the two arms, OS was high, and there were few local relapses. In arm B, more than twice as many patients had distant metastasis as the first site of relapse compared to arm A. The response to IC was found to define 29% of patients in arm A who did not have a tumor relapse during follow-up. An escalated dose of 74.8 Gy could mitigate the negative impact of large tumor volume but for some patients, even this intensified treatment was insufficient.

Background and purpose: The aim of this study is to validate an Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) model for xerostomia in a large quality-registry cohort, enabling its future use in individualized NTCP-based treatment planning. Material and methods: A model predicting grade ≥ 2 xerostomia (6 months post-radiotherapy) was selected for validation, including the mean dose to both the parotid and the submandibular glands, in addition to the baseline score for xerostomia, as predictors. Our local validation cohort consisted of 674 patients (204 events), treated between 2012 and 2024, with a median follow-up of 10.3 months (range 5–24). A closed testing procedure was performed to investigate the need for model updating, and the performance of the models was assessed with calibration curves, discrimination, the Brier score, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Results: The calibration curve demonstrated that the model predicted the dose–response relationship well. The validation cohort showed a slightly stronger dose response, with a slope of 1.16. The calibration intercept of −0.12 revealed an overestimation of xerostomia. However, the closed testing procedure indicated that a recalibration of the model was needed, and the HL-test showed a significant deviation. The recalibrated model showed perfect calibration but still limited discrimination (Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.62). Conclusion: The validated model performed well in our real-life dataset despite the differences between the training and validation cohorts, particularly considering the lack of baseline score in our cohort. This highlights the potential for improved performance with baseline inclusion but still suggests that an individualized NTCP-based treatment-planning protocol can be developed using the recalibrated published model.