Surgeon practice patterns in transoral robotic surgery for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer. (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Celeste; Martinez, Eduardo; Kulich, Marta; Swanson, Mark S.
• Is Part Of: Oral oncology. Volume 121(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: Oropharyngeal Cancer -- Human Papillomavirus -- Robotic Surgical Procedures; OPSCC Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma -- HPV Human Papillomavirus -- CRT chemoradiation therapy -- TORS transoral robotic surgery -- RT radiation therapy -- ECS extracapsular spread -- LN lymph node; Mouth -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Mouth -- Tumors -- Periodicals; Mouth Diseases -- Periodicals; Mouth Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Bouche -- Cancer -- Périodiques; Bouche -- Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9943105
• DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105460
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1368-8375

Abstract

Highlights: HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer management decisions vary depending on surgeon demographics. T1/T2 tumors are often treated using transoral robotic surgery and T3 using radiation therapy. Transoral robotic surgery often provides better quality of life and fewer adverse sequelae. Abstract: Objectives: Analyze how otolaryngologists approach HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer in terms of patient selection for transoral surgery, perceptions of treatment related risks and benefits, and adjuvant treatment decisions. Materials and Methods: A survey on HPV-related cancer management was distributed to otolaryngologists in the US through RedCap. Differences in responses were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. Results: A total of 111 out of 143 (77.6%) otolaryngologists completed the survey. Overall, most prefer treating T1/T2 tumors using transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and T3 tumors through primary radiation therapy (RT), though there were significant differences between cohorts. Non-fellowship-trained surgeons and those in community practices favored RT for T1/T2 more than their fellowship-trained and academic counterparts, respectively. For adjuvant treatment, non-fellowship-trained surgeons favored adjuvant CRT, whereas fellowship-trained surgeons preferred only adjuvant RT, for patients with lymphovascular or perineural invasion, >1 lymph node involvement, or close deep margins. TORS was viewed as having less adverse sequelae (i.e. dysphagia, dysphonia, xerostomia). Though the two modalities had similar oncologic outcomes, TORS was perceived as providing better quality of life (QOL). Conclusions: There are variations in HPV-related OPSCC management based on surgeon background and preferences across the US. TORS and primary RT are believed to offer similar oncologic control, but the former provides lesser adverse sequelae and better QOL. Additionally, surgeon demographics (i.e. fellowship status, practice type, and region) can affect management decisions, including patient selection for TORS and adjuvant therapy decisions. Further study is required to better understand and standardize appropriate HPV-positive OPSCC management.