PURPOSE: The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has risen rapidly, because of an epidemic of human papillomavirus infection. The optimal management of early-stage OPSCC with surgery or radiation continues to be a clinical controversy. Long-term randomized data comparing these paradigms are lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with T1-T2, N0-2 (≤ 4 cm) OPSCC to radiotherapy (RT) (with chemotherapy if N1-2) versus transoral robotic surgery plus neck dissection (TORS + ND) (with or without adjuvant therapy). The primary end point was swallowing quality of life (QOL) at 1-year using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory. Secondary end points included adverse events, other QOL outcomes, overall survival, and progression-free survival. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned (n = 34 per arm) between August 10, 2012, and June 9, 2017. Median follow-up was 45 months. Longitudinal MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory analyses demonstrated statistical superiority of RT arm over time ( P = .049), although the differences beyond 1 year were of smaller magnitude than at the 1-year timepoint (year 2: 86.0 ± 13.5 in the RT arm v 84.8 ± 12.5 in the TORS + ND arm, P = .74; year 3: 88.9 ± 11.3 v 83.3 ± 13.9, P = .12). These differences did not meet the threshold to qualify as a clinically meaningful change at any timepoint. Certain differences in QOL concerns including more pain and dental concerns in the TORS + ND arm seen at 1 year resolved at 2 and 3 years; however, TORS patients started to use more nutritional supplements at 3 years ( P = .015). Dry mouth scores were higher in RT patients over time ( P = .041). CONCLUSION: On longitudinal analysis, the swallowing QOL difference between primary RT and TORS + ND approaches persists but decreases over time. Patients with OPSCC should be informed about the pros and cons of both treatment options (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01590355 ).

Background: The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has markedly increased over the last three decades due to newly found associations with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Primary radiotherapy (RT) is the treatment of choice for OPSCC at most centers, and over the last decade, the addition of concurrent chemotherapy has led to a significant improvement in survival, but at the cost of increased acute and late toxicity. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has emerged as a promising alternative treatment, with preliminary case series demonstrating encouraging oncologic, functional, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes. However, comparisons of TORS and RT in a non-randomized fashion are susceptible to bias. The goal of this randomized phase II study is to compare QOL, functional outcomes, toxicity profiles, and survival following primary RT (± chemotherapy) vs. TORS (± adjuvant [chemo] RT) in patients with OPSCC. Methods/Design: The target patient population comprises OPSCC patients who would be unlikely to require chemotherapy post-resection: Tumor stage T1-T2 with likely negative margins at surgery; Nodal stage N0-2, ≤3 cm in size, with no evidence of extranodal extension on imaging. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between Arm 1 (RT ± chemotherapy) and Arm 2 (TORS ± adjuvant [chemo] RT). In Arm 1, patients with N0 disease will receive RT alone, whereas N1-2 patients will receive concurrent chemoradiation. In Arm 2, patients will undergo TORS along with selective neck dissections, which may be staged. Pathologic high-risk features will be used to determine the requirement for adjuvant radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is QOL score using the M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), with secondary endpoints including survival, toxicity, other QOL outcomes, and swallowing function. A sample of 68 patients is required. Discussion: This study, if successful, will provide a much-needed randomized comparison of the conventional strategy of primary RT vs. the novel strategy of primary TORS. The trial is designed to provide a definitive QOL comparison between the two arms, and to inform the design of an eventual phase III trial for survival outcomes. Trial registration: NCT01590355

Background: Patients with human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) have substantially better treatment response and overall survival (OS) than patients with HPV-negative disease. Treatment options for HPV+ OPC can involve either a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach (± concomitant chemotherapy) or a primary surgical approach (± adjuvant radiation) with transoral surgery (TOS). These two treatment paradigms have different spectrums of toxicity. The goals of this study are to assess the OS of two de-escalation approaches (primary radiotherapy and primary TOS) compared to historical control, and to compare survival, toxicity and quality of life (QOL) profiles between the two approaches. Methods: This is a multicenter phase II study randomizing one hundred and forty patients with T1–2 N0–2 HPV+ OPC in a 1:1 ratio between de-escalated primary radiotherapy (60 Gy) ± concomitant chemotherapy and TOS ± de-escalated adjuvant radiotherapy (50–60 Gy based on risk factors). Patients will be stratified based on smoking status (< 10 vs. ≥ 10 pack-years). The primary endpoint is OS of each arm compared to historical control; we hypothesize that a 2-year OS of 85% or greater will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, QOL and toxicity. Discussion: This study will provide an assessment of two de-escalation approaches to the treatment of HPV+ OPC on oncologic outcomes, QOL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03210103. Date of registration: July 6, 2017, Current version: 1.3 on March 15, 2019.

Radiotherapy (RT) and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) are both curative-intent treatment options for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Herein, we report the final outcomes of the ORATOR trial comparing these modalities, 5 years after enrollment completion. We randomly assigned 68 patients with T1-2N0-2 OPSCC to RT (with chemotherapy if node-positive) versus TORS plus neck dissection (± adjuvant RT/chemoradiation). The primary end point was swallowing quality of life (QOL) assessed with the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). Secondary end points included overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS), adverse events (AEs), and other QOL metrics. The primary end point has been previously reported (Nichols 2019). In this report, the median follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR, 5.0-5.3 years). MDADI total scores converged by 5 years and were not significantly different across the follow-up period ( P = .11). EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35 scores demonstrated differing profiles, including worse dry mouth in the RT arm ( P = .032) and worse pain in the TORS arm ( P = .002). Grade 2-5 AE rates did not differ between arms (91% [n = 31] v 97% [n = 33] respectively, P = .61), with more neutropenia and hearing loss in the RT arm, and more dysphagia and other pain in the TORS arm based on grades 2-5 (all P < .05). There were no differences in OS or PFS. In conclusion, toxicity and QOL profiles differ in some domains between RT and TORS, but oncologic outcomes were excellent in both arms. Choice of treatment should remain a shared decision between the patient and their providers.

Objectives: In those undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC), sarcopenia is a strong prognostic factor for outcomes and mortality. This review identified working definitions and methods used to objectively assess sarcopenia in HNC. Method: The scoping review was performed in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage methodology and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Information sources: Eligible studies were identified using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases. Study selection: Inclusion criteria represented studies of adult HNC patients in which sarcopenia was listed as an outcome, full-text articles written in English, and empirical research studies with a quantitative design. Data extraction: Eligible studies were assessed using a proprietary data extraction form. General information, article details and characteristics, and details related to the concept of the scoping review were extracted in an iterative process. Results: Seventy-six studies published internationally from 2016 to 2021 on sarcopenia in HNC were included. The majority were retrospective (n = 56; 74%) and the prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 3.8% to 78.7%. Approximately two-thirds of studies used computed tomography (CT) to assess sarcopenia. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the third lumbar vertebra (L3) (n = 53; 70%) was the most prevalent metric used to identify sarcopenia, followed by SMI at the third cervical vertebra (C3) (n = 4; 5%). Conclusions: Currently, the most effective strategy to assess sarcopenia in HNC depends on several factors, including access to resources, patient and treatment characteristics, and the prognostic significance of outcomes used to represent sarcopenia. Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) measured at C3 may represent a practical, precise, and cost-effective biomarker for the detection of sarcopenia. However, combining SMM measurements at C3 with other sarcopenic parameters—including muscle strength and physical performance–may provide a more accurate risk profile for sarcopenia assessment and allow for a greater understanding of this condition in HNC.