|LETTER TO EDITOR
|Year : 2020 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 390-393
Authors' reply to Kuriakose et al., Mallick et al., and Chaukar et al.
Alok Kumar Goel1, Anshul Singla2, Kumar Prabhash3
1 Department of Medical Oncology, HBCH, Sangrur, Punjab, India
2 Department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, HBCH, Sangrur, Punjab, India
3 Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
|Date of Submission||28-Mar-2020|
|Date of Decision||01-Apr-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||11-Apr-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||19-Jun-2020|
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Goel AK, Singla A, Prabhash K. Authors' reply to Kuriakose et al., Mallick et al., and Chaukar et al. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:390-3
We read with interest the letter from Kuriakose et al., Mallick Mallick et al., and Chaukar et al. for our article titled, “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oral cancer: Current status and future possibilities.” Unfortunately, hardly any of their opinions were backed by evidence. For instance, Kuriakose et al. have stated that the concept of technically unresectable or borderline resectable oral cancers has not been validated by other groups. The authors perhaps have not done a literature search before making this comment. We found multiple articles on technically unresectable oral cancers from South India,, Northern-Central India,, Sub-Himalayan region, Western India,,, and Eastern India., Consequently, these cancers are included in the current treatment guidelines. The outcomes reported in most of the studies are in line with those reported by Patil et al. In addition, multiple studies have used this concept, even internationally with induction chemotherapy ,, and induction chemoradiation. Hence, it is unimpeachable to say that this concept is accepted widely, both nationally and internationally.
We agree that there can be multiple ways of treating tumors, and our senior colleague from South India believes in performing upfront surgery for technically unresectable oral cancers. However, this strategy has very limited evidence. Kuriakose et al. have published a series on the outcomes of T4a and T4b oral cancers. Although 282 patients were accrued in the study, only 51 had Type 2 or Type 3 masticator space involvement; these should have been considered as cases of technically unresectable tumors. Considering that the authors work in a specialized head-and-neck cancer unit with a high patient load, it is surprising that in a period of 8 years (2009–2016), the authors could operate on only 51 patients. It is highly likely that these 51 patients were supraselected, unlike the consecutively selected 721 patients reported by Patil et al. over a period of 5 years. The authors reported an inconceivably low rate (6.8%) of positive margins in T4b patients. In the best of centers, the rate of positive pathological margins for oral cancers is in the range of 11%–51%, even for patients with T2–T4a tumors. Similarly, a clear margin status of only 71% in T4a patients was reported in an abstract presented at the Foundation for Head and Neck Oncology 2018 by a tertiary care cancer center from Kolkata. At the same conference, outcomes of 50 patients with borderline resectable oral cancer were reported from Ahmedabad. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 2–6 months. This suggests that the authors' results need validation and are applicable in select few patients.
Performing a radical compartmental resection, as proposed by the authors, in T4b tumors is a major surgery, with considerable postoperative morbidity (40%–63%) and deterioration in the quality of life.,, There is no evidence to suggest that this approach has been compared with current approach. The concept of futile surgery needs to be revisited here in view of these findings. Failure within 1 year of surgery is considered the definition of futile surgery., The authors have shown that for patients with T4b tumors with lateral pterygoid involvement, i.e., for cases with Type 2 masticator space involvement, the median DFS is in the range of 1 year [Figure 3]c in authors' study]. This suggests that surgery was a futile procedure in nearly 50% of the patients. Considering that the definition of DFS did not include death without recurrence as an event, there is a possibility of overestimation of DFS, thus suggesting that in >50% of the cases, such an effort is likely to be considered futile as per international definitions.
Further, the authors have commented that there is a widespread, irrational, and inappropriate use of chemotherapy; yet again, the comments have not been backed by published literature. These are the statements we should always avoid in public discourse by researchers. Considering the New England definition of futile surgery,, performing unnecessary surgery and deforming the face and impairing the functions of the oral cavity of patients is irrational and inappropriate; this has been validated in an international survey.
The authors have discredited the results of the mandibular preservation study. It was a well-planned Phase 2 study, and the long-term results will be presented at ASCO 2020, in the “poster highlight” session. The reporting of results must be reasonable and logical. The study, when presented in 2015, had a limited follow-up of 2 years, and hence, the publication was deferred until 5 years post recruitment of the last patient. We are surprised that Kuriakose et al. have discredited the subgroup analysis results of Licitra et al. However, their opinion that surgery should be the preferred treatment for oral cancer is also based on a subgroup analysis from a randomized study from Singapore. Overall, this randomized study on locally advanced, resectable head-and-neck cancers showed no difference between the outcomes of chemoradiation and surgery, followed by adjuvant therapy. The benefit of surgery in oral cancer was suggested based on an unplanned subgroup analysis without any multiplicity correction. Therefore, it appears that the authors are willing to accept subgroup analyses if they favor surgery but not if they favor other treatment modalities. The authors have used a breast cancer analogy to suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) might leave behind microscopic disease. Again, it is surprising that the authors have discredited multiple randomized studies on breast cancer that have shown that despite the microscopic disease, there is no impact on the overall survival. Hence, NACT is an established treatment modality for breast cancer.
The authors have commented that the mortality with NACT in a community setting could be as high as 15.3%, and hence, NACT cannot be used. Again, the author has not provided a reference for this mortality rate. This figure is reported from the United States of America, in susceptible patients. Multiple community series from India have confirmed that the mortality with NACT is well below 5%. Selection of a patient is key for any treatment modality. Surgical complications in fragile patients can lead to a mortality of >8%–10%.,, Therefore, by the authors' logic, performing surgery on fragile patients would be highly questionable. A Phase II trial from SGPGI, Lucknow, India, reported a mortality rate of >15% with chemoradiation in patients with head-and-neck cancer. This suggests that regardless of the setting, appropriate patient selection is the key to treatment.
”[Table 1]” in Kuriakose et al.'s opinion piece has a factual error. The authors have commented that carboplatin +5-fluorouracil is not a standard concurrent chemotherapy schedule. We would like to refute this claim. The MACH-NC analysis had suggested two schedules with consistent and similar survival benefits as radiation;, the first was cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 3 weekly, and the other was the carboplatin-5-FU schedule. These two schedules have never been compared with each other, but in an indirect comparison through meta-analysis, both have shown similar effectiveness and hence are considered category one recommendation by multiple international guidelines.,,
We respect the opinion of our senior colleagues and appreciate their criticism. However, the best way to settle this discourse is through collaborative studies. Multiple studies directed at answering these questions are either ongoing or will commence soon at the Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai. We would greatly appreciate the contribution of our colleagues toward these studies. Collectively, we could move toward the betterment of our patients.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Kuriakose MA, Thankappan K, Sood R, Abraham SL, George P. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oral cancer: A Hydra that keeps coming back. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:385-7. [Full text]
Mallick S, Giridhar P. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oral cavity cancer: A new horizon? Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:388-9. [Full text]
Chaukar D, Thiagarajan S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oral cancer: Current status and future possibilities - Its benefit for T4 oral cancer is yet to be tested. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:389-90. [Full text]
Goel A, Singla A, Prabhash K. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oral cancer: Current status and future possibilities. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:51-9. [Full text]
Patil VM, Chakraborty S, Shenoy PK, Manuprasad A, Sajith Babu TP, Shivkumar T, et al
. Tolerance and toxicity of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin and 5 fluorouracil regimen in technically unresectable oral cancer in resource limited rural based tertiary cancer center. Indian J Cancer 2014;51:69-72.
] [Full text]
Rudresha AH, Chaudhuri T, Lakshmaiah KC, Babu KG, Dasappa L, Jacob LA, et al
. Induction chemotherapy in technically unresectable locally advanced T4a oral cavity squamous cell cancers: Experience from a regional cancer center of South India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2017;38:490-4.
] [Full text]
Kumar A, Patel NK, Patel LM. Carboplatin and paclitaxel as induction chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer patients. IOSR J Dent Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS). Februrary 2019;18:17-21.
Jain R, Pounikar T. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in unresectable locally advanced oral cavity cancers: A retrospective analysis. IOSR J Dent Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS). 2018;17:56-60.
Nautiyal V, Bansal S, Pattanayak M, Pruthi DS, Ahmad M, Saini S. Induction chemotherapy as a predictor for definitive treatment in bulky locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A schedule more suited to sub Himalayan region. J Cancer Tumor Int 2017;13:1-10.
Gujarat Cancer Research Institute, Ahmedabad, India. Surgical outcomes post neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Stage IV cancers of Oral Cavity. Gulf J Oncolog 2017;1:57-62.
Patel P, Mandlik D. Compartmental ITF clearance in advanced bucco-alveolar complex carcinoma (T4b). J Head Neck Physicians Surg 2018;6:S31. [Full text]
Mishal Shah RP. Role of Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced borderline resectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Head Neck Physicians Surg 2018;6:S2-3.
Banerjee S, Ghosh B, Deb AR. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on local control and survival in head neck cancer patients in a tertiary care hospital in India: A retrospective analysis. J Head Neck Physicians Surg 2018;6:S47.
Das AK, Kakati K, Baishya N, Roy PS, Kataki AC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cancers of oral cavity. Clin Cancer Investig J. 2017;6:116.
Chaturvedi P, Prabhash K, Babu G, Kuriakose M, Birur P, Anand AK, et al
. Indian clinical practice consensus guidelines for the management of oral cavity cancer. Indian J Cancer 2020;57:S6-8.
Patil VM, Prabhash K, Noronha V, Joshi A, Muddu V, Dhumal S, et al
. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery in very locally advanced technically unresectable oral cavity cancers. Oral Oncol 2014;50:1000-4.
Chiu TJ, Luo SD, Chien CY, Su YY, Huang TL, Lin WC, et al
. Treatment outcome of patients with unresectable Stage IVB head and neck squamous cell carcinoma receiving induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil. Int J Head Neck Sci 2017;1:121-30.
Chang PM, Lu HJ, Wang LW, Tai SK, Chen MH, Chu PY, et al
. Effectiveness of incorporating cetuximab into docetaxel/cisplatin/fluorouracil induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy for inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: A phase II study. Head Neck 2017;39:1333-42.
Liao CT, Wen YW, Lee SR, Liu TW, Tsai ST, Tsai MH, et al
. Clinical outcomes of taiwanese patients with cT4 oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Toward the identification of the optimal initial treatment approach for cT4b patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:785-93.
Fang FM, Chuang HC, Chou SY, Huang TL, Wang CJ, Lin YT, et al
. The therapeutic benefit of radical resection for T4b oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma with partial or complete response after radical chemo-intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23:866-73.
Pillai V, Yadav V, Kekatpure V, Trivedi N, Chandrashekar NH, Shetty V, et al
. Prognostic determinants of locally advanced buccal mucosa cancer: Do we need to relook the current staging criteria? Oral Oncol 2019;95:43-51.
Akheel M, George RK, Jain A, Chahwala Q, Wadhwania A. Surgical margins and nodal metastasis are prognostic factors in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Clinical Cancer Investig J 2019;8:47.
Jain PV, Sharan R, Manikantan K, Chatterjee S, Mallick I, Arun P. Clinicopathologic determinants of outcome in pathologic T4a squamous cell carcinoma of the gingivo-buccal subsite of the oral cavity. J Head Neck Physicians Surg. 2018;6(Supp 1):S52.
Desai SA, Gupta N, Upadhyay N, Trivedi N. Early oncological outcome of locally very advanced cases of head and neck cancer, treated by selectively radical surgery (compartment resection) technically unresectable: 50 Cases-Retrospective study. J Head Neck Physicians Surg 2018;6:s26.
Kolokythas A. Long-term surgical complications in the oral cancer patient: A comprehensive review. Part II. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2010;1:e2.
Tripathi M, Parshad S, Karwasra RK, Singh V. Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap in head and neck reconstruction: An experience in 100 consecutive cases. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2015;6:37-41.
] [Full text]
Shah JP, Haribhakti V, Loree TR, Sutaria P. Complications of the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap in head and neck reconstruction. Am J Surg 1990;160:352-5.
van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA, et al
. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: The PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359:1388-93.
Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, Larsen S, Loft A, Bertelsen A, et al
. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET-CT. N Engl J Med 2009;361:32-9.
Kreeft A, Tan IB, van den Brekel MW, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ. The surgical dilemma of 'functional inoperability' in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: current consensus on operability with regard to functional results. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:140-6.
Licitra L, Grandi C, Guzzo M, Mariani L, Lo Vullo S, Valvo F, et al
. Primary chemotherapy in resectable oral cavity squamous cell cancer: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:327-33.
Iyer NG, Tan DS, Tan VK, Wang W, Hwang J, Tan NC, et al
. Randomized trial comparing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced, nonmetastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: 10-year update and subset analysis. Cancer. 2015;121:1599-607.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:27-39.
Goetz MP, Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Abraham J, Aft R, Allison KH, et al
. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 3.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17:118-26.
L'Esperance HE, Kallogjeri D, Yousaf S, Piccirillo JF, Rich JT. Prediction of mortality and morbidity in head and neck cancer patients 80 years of age and older undergoing surgery. Laryngoscope 2018;128:871-7.
Mascarella MA, Richardson K, Mlynarek A, Forest VI, Hier M, Sadeghi N, et al
. Evaluation of a preoperative adverse event risk index for patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;145:345-51.
Fancy T, Huang AT, Kass JI, Lamarre ED, Tassone P, Mantravadi AV et al
. Complications, Mortality, and Functional Decline in Patients 80 Years or Older Undergoing Major Head and Neck Ablation and Reconstruction. JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2019;145:1150-7.
Kumar S, Pandey M, Lal P, Rastogi N, Maria Das KJ, Dimri K. Concomitant boost radiotherapy with concurrent weekly cisplatin in advanced head and neck cancers: A phase II trial. Radiother Oncol 2005;75:186-92.
Pignon JP, le Maître A, Maillard E, Bourhis J, MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): An update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. Radiother Oncol 2009;92:4-14.
Blanchard P, Baujat B, Holostenco V, Bourredjem A, Baey C, Bourhis J, et al
. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): A comprehensive analysis by tumour site. Radiother Oncol 2011;100:33-40.
Pfister DG, Spencer S, Brizel DM, Burtness B, Busse PM, Caudell JJ, et al
. Head and neck cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015;13:847-55.
D'cruz A, Lin T, Anand AK, Atmakusuma D, Calaguas MJ, Chitapanarux I, et al
. Consensus recommendations for management of head and neck cancer in Asian countries: A review of international guidelines. Oral Oncol 2013;49:872-7.
Grégoire V, Lefebvre JL, Licitra L, Felip E, EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Guidelines Working Group. Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010;21 Suppl 5:v184-6.
Noronha V. Making a case for cancer research in India. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2018;1:71-4. [Full text]