To assess the incidence and to review experience with the treatment of mucosal melanoma of the head and neck (MMHN) in Slovenia between 1985 and 2013. The National Cancer Registry database and clinical records with outcome data of identified patients treated during the period 1985–2013 in Slovenia were reviewed. In a 29-year period, 61 patients with MMHN were identified, representing 0.5 % of all head and neck malignant tumors and 42 % of all mucosal melanomas in Slovenia. 72 % originated in the sinonasal tract and were predominantly (78 %) diagnosed as a local disease. Regional metastases at diagnosis were more frequent in patients with oral/oropharyngeal primary (44 %; sinonasal MMHN 11 %, p = 0.006). Curative intent treatment was given to 48 (79 %) patients. The overall survival (OS) rates at 2 and 5 years for the whole cohort were 43 % and 18 %, respectively, and for the curative intent group 53 % and 24 %, respectively. In the latter group, multivariate analyses showed postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) to be predictive for locoregional control (LRC) (hazard ratios [HR] for surgery with PORT vs. surgery alone: 1.0 vs. 3.9, p = 0.037), whereas only the World Health Organization performance status (HR for grade 0 vs. grade 1 vs. grade >1: 1.0 (p = 0.022) vs. 1.2 (p = 0.640) vs. 7.7 (p = 0.008)) significantly influenced OS. MMHN is a rare tumor with a poor prognosis. Combination of surgery and PORT offers the best prospects for LRC but without improvement of OS. Due to potential toxicity of high-dose RT such treatment is indicated in patients in whom LRC outweighs the risks of serious adverse effects.

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has recently become a standard part of the treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), although the response rates are low. Numerous preclinical and clinical studies have now illuminated several mechanisms by which radiotherapy (RT) enhances the effect of ICI. From RT-induced immunogenic cancer cell death to its effect on the tumor microenvironment and vasculature, the involved mechanisms are diverse and intertwined. Moreover, the research of these interactions is challenging because of the thin line between immunostimulatory and the immunosuppressive effect of RT. In the era of active research of immunoradiotherapy combinations, the significance of treatment and host-related factors that were previously seen as being less important is being revealed. The impact of dose and fractionation of RT is now well established, whereas selection of the number and location of the lesions to be irradiated in a multi-metastatic setting is something that is only now beginning to be understood. In addition to spatial factors, the timing of irradiation is as equally important and is heavily dependent on the type of ICI used. Interestingly, using smaller-than-conventional RT fields or even partial tumor volume RT could be beneficial in this setting. Among host-related factors, the role of the microbiome on immunotherapy efficacy must not be overlooked nor can we neglect the role of gut irradiation in a combined RT and ICI setting. In this review we elaborate on synergistic mechanisms of immunoradiotherapy combinations, in addition to important factors to consider in future immunoradiotherapy trial designs in R/M HNSCC.

Background: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) presents as locally advanced disease in a majority of patients and is prone to relapse despite aggressive treatment. Since immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown clinically significant efficacy in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC (R/M HNSCC), a plethora of trials are investigating their role in earlier stages of disease. At the same time, preclinical data showed the synergistic role of concurrently administered radiotherapy and ICIs (immunoradiotherapy) and explained several mechanisms behind it. Therefore, this approach is prospectively tested in a neoadjuvant, definitive, or adjuvant setting in non-R/M HNSCC patients. Due to the intricate relationship between host, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, each of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. In this narrative review we present the biological background of immunoradiotherapy, as well as a rationale for, and possible flaws of, each treatment approach, and provide readers with a critical summary of completed and ongoing trials. Conclusions: While immunotherapy with ICIs has already become a standard part of treatment in patients with R/M HNSCC, its efficacy in a non-R/M HNSCC setting is still the subject of extensive clinical testing. Irradiation can overcome some of the cancer’s immune evasive manoeuvres and can lead to a synergistic effect with ICIs, with possible additional benefits of concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the efficacy of this combination is not robust and details in trial design and treatment delivery seem to be of unprecedented importance.

Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) of the head and neck are rare and the experience scanty. The Cancer Registry of Slovenia database was used to identify cases of laryngeal and pharyngeal NECs diagnosed between 1995–2020. Biopsies were analyzed for the expression of standard neuroendocrine markers (synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD56), INSM1, Ki-67, p16, and PD-L1 (using the combined positive score, CPS). In situ hybridization for human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) was performed. Twenty patients (larynx, 12; pharynx, 8) were identified. One tumor was well differentiated (WD), five were moderately differentiated (MD), and 14 were poorly differentiated (PD). Disease control was achieved solely by surgery in 4/4 MD/PD T1-2N0-1 tumors. Eight patients died of the disease, seven of which were due to distant metastases. All three traditional markers were positive in 11/17 NECs and the INSM1 marker in all 20 tumors. Two of fourteen p16-positive tumors were HPV-positive, but all three nasopharyngeal NECs were EBV-negative. Three tumors had CPSs ≥ 1. In conclusion, INSM1 was confirmed to be a reliable marker of neuroendocrine differentiation. Except in WD and early-stage MD/PD tumors, aggressive multimodal therapy is needed; the optimal systemic therapy remains to be determined. p16, HPV, and EBV seem to bear no prognostic information.

In the current study, we sought to compare survival outcomes after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy alone in patients with stage I-IIA breast cancer, whose tumors are typically suitable for both locoregional treatments. The study cohort consisted of 1360 patients with stage I-IIA (T1–2N0 or T0–1N1) breast cancer diagnosed between 2001 and 2013 and treated with either BCT (n = 1021, 75.1%) or mastectomy alone (n = 339, 24.9%). Median follow-ups for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.9 years (range, 0.3–15.9) and 7.5 years (range, 0.2–25.9), respectively. Fifteen (1.1%), 14 (1.0%) and 48 (3.5%) patients experienced local, regional, and distant relapse, respectively. For the whole cohort of patients, the estimated 5-year DFS and OS were 96% and 97%, respectively. After stratification based on the type of local treatment, the estimated 5-year DFS for BCT was 97%, while it was 91% (p < 0.001) for mastectomy-only treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting matching based on confounding confirmed that mastectomy was associated with worse DFS (HR 2.839, 95% CI 1.760–4.579, p < 0.0001), but not with OS (HR 1.455, 95% CI 0.844–2.511, p = 0.177). In our study, BCT was shown to have improved disease-specific outcomes compared to mastectomy alone, emphasizing the important role of adjuvant treatments, including postoperative radiation therapy, in patients with early-stage breast cancer at diagnosis.