Purpose: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA tumors actively integrating the E6 and E7 oncogenes have a distinct biologic behavior resulting in a more favorable prognosis. To which extent the viral integration by itself, and/or the associated wild-type (wt) TP53 status, and/or a functional p16 contribute to prognosis is unclear.Patients and Methods: To clarify how the presence of high-risk (HR) -HPV, TP53, and p16^INK4astatus interact with clinical outcome, we considered a retrospective series of 90 consecutive oropharyngeal cancer patients treated primarily with surgery.Results: Seventeen (19%) patients showed integrated HPV 16 DNA (HPV positive), wt TP53 in all but two patients, normal p16^INK4ain 15 assessable patients, and p16 expression in all 17 patients. Thirty-five patients (39%), two of whom were HPV positive, harbored TP53 mutations. p16^INK4adeletion and p16 null immunophenotype occurred in 28 and 58 patients, respectively, and was similarly distributed in both patients with mutated TP53 (48% and 82%, respectively) and in patients with wt TP53 (46% and 77%, respectively). Statistical analysis showed that HPV-positive status significantly affects all investigated end points: overall survival (P = .0018), incidence of tumor relapse (P = .0371), and second tumor (P = .0152), whereas TP53 and p16^INK4astatus and p16 expression were not prognostic by themselves.Conclusion: Our molecular and clinical results are in agreement with previous findings but provide additional information into the biologic mechanisms involved in HR-HPV oropharyngeal cancer in comparison to HPV-negative tumors. According to the reduced risk of relapse and second tumors associated with HR-HPV positivity of oropharyngeal cancer, the therapeutic strategy and follow-up procedures should be reviewed.

Nutritional status in oncological patients may differ according to several modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Knowledge of the epidemiology of malnutrition/cachexia/sarcopenia may help to manage these complications early in the course of treatment, potentially impacting patient quality of life, treatment intensity, and disease outcome. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to critically evaluate the current evidence on the combined impact of tumor- and treatment-related factors on nutritional status and to draw some practical conclusions to support the multidisciplinary management of malnutrition in cancer patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed from January 2010 to December 2020 using different combinations of pertinent keywords and a critical evaluation of retrieved literature papers was conducted. The results show that the prevalence of weight loss and associated symptoms is quite heterogeneous and needs to be assessed with recognized criteria, thus allowing a clear classification and standardization of therapeutic interventions. There is a large range of variability influenced by age and social factors, comorbidities, and setting of cures (community-dwelling versus hospitalized patients). Tumor subsite is one of the major determinants of malnutrition, with pancreatic, esophageal, and other gastroenteric cancers, head and neck, and lung cancers having the highest prevalence. The advanced stage is also linked to a higher risk of developing malnutrition, as an expression of the relationship between tumor burden, inflammatory status, reduced caloric intake, and malabsorption. Finally, treatment type influences the risk of nutritional issues, both for locoregional approaches (surgery and radiotherapy) and for systemic treatment. Interestingly, personalized approaches based on the selection of the most predictive malnutrition definitions for postoperative complications according to cancer type and knowledge of specific nutritional problems associated with some new agents may positively impact disease course. Sharing common knowledge between oncologists and nutritionists may help to better address and treat malnutrition in this population.

The cancer burden is rising globally, exerting significant strain on populations and health systems at all income levels. In May 2017, world governments made a commitment to further invest in cancer control as a public health priority, passing the World Health Assembly Resolution 70.12 on cancer prevention and control within an integrated approach. In this manuscript, the 2016 European Society for Medical Oncology Leadership Generation Programme participants propose a strategic framework that is in line with the 2017 WHO Cancer Resolution and consistent with the principle of universal health coverage, which ensures access to optimal cancer care for all people because health is a basic human right. The time for action is now to reduce barriers and provide the highest possible quality cancer care to everyone regardless of circumstance, precondition or geographic location. The national actions and the policy recommendations in this paper set forth the vision of its authors for the future of global cancer control at the national level, where the WHO Cancer Resolution must be implemented if we are to reduce the cancer burden, avoid unnecessary suffering and save as many lives as possible.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for prevention and management of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw secondary to head and neck radiation therapy in patients with cancer. METHODS: The International Society of Oral Oncology-Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (ISOO-MASCC) and ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies, published between January 1, 2009, and December 1, 2023. The guideline also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by ISOO-MASCC, which included studies published from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2008. RESULTS: A total of 1,539 publications were initially identified. There were 487 duplicate publications, resulting in 1,052 studies screened by abstract, 104 screened by full text, and 80 included for systematic review evaluation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to limitations of available evidence, the guideline relied on informal consensus for some recommendations. Recommendations that were deemed evidence-based with strong evidence by the Expert Panel were those pertaining to best practices in prevention of ORN and surgical management. No recommendation was possible for the utilization of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin or photobiomodulation for prevention of ORN. The use of hyperbaric oxygen in prevention and management of ORN remains largely unjustified, with limited evidence to support its practice. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines .