This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck Cancers focuses on glottic laryngeal cancer, which is the most common type of laryngeal cancer and has an excellent cure rate. The lymphatic drainage of the glottis is sparse, and early stage primaries rarely spread to regional nodes. Because hoarseness is an early symptom, most glottic laryngeal cancer is early stage at diagnosis. Updates to these guidelines for 2014 include revisions to “Principles of Radiation Therapy” for each site and “Principles of Surgery,” and the addition of a new section on “Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management.”

Abstract

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck Cancers focuses on glottic laryngeal cancer, which is the most common type of laryngeal cancer and has an excellent cure rate. The lymphatic drainage of the glottis is sparse, and early stage primaries rarely spread to regional nodes. Because hoarseness is an early symptom, most glottic laryngeal cancer is early stage at diagnosis. Updates to these guidelines for 2014 include revisions to “Principles of Radiation Therapy” for each site and “Principles of Surgery,” and the addition of a new section on “Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management.”

NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus

Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.

All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.

Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.

Overview

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers focuses on glottic laryngeal cancer, which is the most common type of laryngeal cancer and has an excellent cure rate. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for H&N Cancers addresses tumors arising in the upper aerodigestive tract, including the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, glottic and supraglottic larynx, and paranasal sinuses, and addresses occult primary cancer, salivary gland cancer, and mucosal melanoma.1,2 The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for H&N Cancers is available at NCCN.org.

Updates to these guidelines for 2014 include revisions to “Principles of Radiation Therapy” for each site and “Principles of Surgery” (to view the most recent and complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for H&N Cancers, visit NCCN.org). A new section on “Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management” was also added (see DENT-A, page 1464). A brief overview of the epidemiology and management of H&N cancers is provided in the following section. A recent review discusses the progress that has been made during the past 10 years in understanding the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of H&N cancers.3 By definition, the NCCN Guidelines cannot incorporate all possible clinical variations and are not intended to replace good clinical judgment or individualization of treatments. Exceptions to the rule were discussed among the panel members while developing these NCCN Guidelines. A 5% rule (omitting clinical scenarios that comprise less than 5% of all cases) was used to eliminate uncommon clinical occurrences or conditions from these NCCN Guidelines.

F1NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0142

F2NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0142

F3NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0142

F4NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0142

F5NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0142

Incidence and Etiology

In 2014, an estimated 12,630 new cases and 3610 deaths from laryngeal cancers will occur in the United States.4 Squamous cell carcinoma or a variant is the histologic type in more than 90% of H&N cancers. Alcohol and tobacco abuse are common causative factors in H&N cancers. Because the entire aerodigestive tract epithelium may be exposed to these carcinogens, patients with H&N cancers are at risk for developing second primary neoplasms of the H&N, lung, esophagus, and other sites that share these risk factors.

Staging

Stage at diagnosis predicts survival rates and guides management in patients with laryngeal cancer. The 2010 AJCC staging classification (7th edition) was used as a basis for the NCCN recommendations for glottic laryngeal cancer.5,6 The TNM staging system developed by the AJCC for the larynx (glottis and supraglottis) is available online (see Table 3 online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org [ST-6]).6 T stage is based on subsite involvement and is specific to each subsite for the glottic larynx and supraglottic larynx. Definitions for regional lymph node (N) involvement and spread to distant metastatic sites (M) are described in the AJCC staging table. In general, stage I or II disease defines a small primary tumor with no nodal involvement. Stage III or IV cancers include larger primary tumors, which may invade underlying structures and/or spread to regional nodes. Distant metastases are uncommon at presentation. More advanced TNM stages are associated with worse survival. Protocols for the specific sites from the College of American Pathologists may also be useful.

In the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual, the words resectable (T4a) and unresectable (T4b) were replaced by the terms moderately advanced (T4a) and very advanced (T4b).5 These changes were made, because many resectable advanced-stage malignancies of the H&N are being treated nonsurgically. A clear consensus in criteria for resectability can be difficult to obtain. Some tumors deemed unresectable are in fact anatomically resectable, but surgery is not pursued because of medical contraindications to surgery or because it is anticipated that surgery will not improve prognosis (see “Resectable Versus Unresectable Disease,” facing page). This change in terminology allows the revision of stage IV disease into moderately advanced local/regional disease (stage IVA), very advanced local/regional disease (stage IVB), and distant metastatic disease (stage IVC) for the larynx. A designation of stage IV disease does not necessarily mean the disease is incurable, particularly in the absence of distant metastases.

Management Approaches

Treatment is complex for patients with H&N cancers. The specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guide treatment (ie, the appropriate surgical procedure, radiation targets, dose and fractionation, and indications for chemotherapy). Single-modality treatment with surgery or radiation therapy (RT) is generally recommended for patients who present with early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer (stage I or II) (see GLOT-2, page 1457). The 2 modalities result in similar survival in these individuals. Combined modality therapy is generally recommended for patients with locally or regionally advanced disease at diagnosis. The treatment of patients with locally advanced T4b or unresectable nodal disease, metastatic disease, or recurrent disease for the glottic larynx is addressed in the algorithm (see “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancers” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN. org). Participation in clinical trials is a preferred or recommended treatment option in many situations. In formulating these NCCN Guidelines, panel members have tried to make them evidence-based while providing a statement of consensus as to the acceptable range of treatment options.

Multidisciplinary Team Involvement

The initial evaluation and development of a plan for treating the patient with H&N cancer requires a multidisciplinary team of health care providers with expertise in caring for these patients. Similarly, managing and preventing sequelae after radical surgery, RT, and chemotherapy (eg, pain, xerostomia, speech and swallowing problems, depression) requires professionals familiar with the disease.7,8 Follow-up for these sequelae should include a comprehensive H&N examination. Adequate nutritional support can help prevent severe weight loss in patients receiving treatment for H&N cancers; therefore, patients should be encouraged to see a dietician (see “Principles of Nutrition: Management and Supportive Care” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).9 A new section on “Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management” was added in the 2014 update (see DENT-A, page 1464).

Patients should also be encouraged to stop smoking (and remain smoke-free) and to modify alcohol consumption if excessive, because these habits may decrease the efficacy of treatment and adversely affect other health outcomes.10,11 Programs using behavioral counseling combined with medications that promote smoking cessation (approved by the FDA) can be very useful (1-800-QUIT-NOW is the national access number to state-based quit line services; www.smokefree.gov).

Patients are at risk for depression from H&N cancer and its sequela, and therefore screening for depression is advised (see the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management; to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit NCCN.org).12-15 Specific components of patient support and follow-up are listed in the algorithm (see “Team Approach” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org [TEAM-1]). Panel members also recommend referring to the NCCN Guidelines for Supportive Care as needed (available at NCCN.org).

Comorbidity and Quality of Life

Comorbidity refers to the presence of concomitant disease (in addition to H&N cancers) that may affect diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.16-18 Documentation of comorbidity is important to facilitate optimal treatment selection. Comorbidity is known to be a strong independent predictor for mortality in patients with H&N cancers,18-25 and comorbidity also influences costs and utilization of care, and quality of life.26-28 Traditional indices of comorbidity include the Charlson index17 and the Kaplan-Feinstein Index and its modifications.18,29 The Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) is specific for H&N cancers and has excellent emerging reliability and validity.30,31

Health-related quality-of-life issues are paramount in H&N cancers. These tumors affect basic physiologic functions, the senses, and uniquely human characteristics, such as appearance and voice. Health status describes an individual’s physical, emotional, and social capabilities and limitations. Function and performance refer to how well an individual is able to perform important roles, tasks, or activities. Quality of life differs, because the central focus is on the value (determined by the patient alone) that individuals place on their health status and function.32 An NIH-sponsored conference33 recommended the use of patient-completed scales to measure quality of life. For H&N cancer-specific issues, the 3 validated and accepted measures are (1) the University of Washington Quality of Life scale (UW-QOL)34; (2) the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-H&N35)35; and (3) the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N).36 The Performance Status Scale is a clinician-rated performance scale that is widely used for patients with H&N cancers.37

H&N Surgery

Principles of Surgery

All patients should be evaluated by an H&N surgical oncologist before treatment. It is critical that multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment be well coordinated. Evaluation, integration of therapy, assessment of resectability, primary tumor resection, margins, surgical management of cranial nerves (VII, X-XII), neck management, management of recurrences, and surveillance (including posttreatment neck evaluation) are discussed in the algorithm (see “Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).38,39 Resectable disease, neck dissection, postoperative management, and salvage surgery for high-risk disease are discussed in the following sections. Minimally invasive surgery may be useful for decreasing morbidity.40,41 Use of robotic surgery is increasing in the United States. For H&N cancer surgery, transoral resection using robotic, endoscopic, or direct access surgery may offer advantages over conventional methods42,43 (see the revised “Principles of Surgery” section online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).

Resectable Versus Unresectable Disease

The term unresectable has resisted formal definition by H&N cancer specialists. The experience of the surgeon and the support available from reconstructive surgeons, physiatrists, and prosthodontists often strongly influence recommendations, especially in institutions where only a few patients with locally advanced H&N cancers are treated. The NCCN Member Institutions have teams experienced in the treatment of H&N cancers and maintain the multidisciplinary infrastructure needed for reconstruction and rehabilitation. A patient’s cancer is deemed unresectable if H&N surgeons at NCCN Member Institutions do not think they can remove all gross tumor on anatomic grounds or if they are certain that local control will not be achieved after surgery (even with the addition of RT to the treatment approach). Typically, these unresectable tumors densely involve the cervical vertebrae, brachial plexus, deep muscles of the neck, or carotid artery (see “Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). Tumor involvement of certain sites is associated with poor prognosis (ie, direct extension of neck disease to involve the external skin; direct extension to mediastinal structures, prevertebral fascia, or cervical vertebrae).

Unresectable tumors—those tumors that cannot be removed without causing unacceptable morbidity—should be distinguished from inoperable tumors in patients whose constitutional state precludes an operation (even if the cancer could be readily resected with few sequelae). A subgroup of patients will refuse surgical management, but their tumors should also not be deemed unresectable. Although local and regional disease may be surgically treatable, patients with distant metastases are usually treated as though the primary tumor was unresectable. Patient choice or a physician’s expectations regarding cure and morbidity will influence or determine treatment. Patients with resectable tumors who can also be adequately treated without surgery represent a very important group. Definitive treatment with RT alone or RT combined with chemotherapy may represent equivalent or preferable approaches to surgery in these individuals. Although these patients may not undergo surgery, their tumors should not be labeled as unresectable. Their disease is usually far less extensive than patients with disease that truly cannot be removed.

Neck Dissection

Historically, cervical lymph node (ie, neck) dissections have been classified as radical or modified radical procedures. The less radical procedures preserved the sternocleidomastoid muscle, jugular vein, spinal accessory nerve, or selective lymph node levels. The NCCN Panel prefers to classify cervical lymphadenectomy using contemporary nomenclature; thus, cervical lymph node dissections are classified as either comprehensive or selective.44 A comprehensive neck dissection is one that removes all lymph node groups that would be included in a classic radical neck dissection. Whether the sternocleidomastoid muscle, jugular vein, or spinal accessory nerve is preserved does not affect whether the dissection is classified as comprehensive. Comprehensive neck dissection is often recommended for N3 disease (see GLOT-4, page 1459 and “Neck Management in Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).

Selective neck dissections have been developed based on the common pathways for spread of H&N cancers to regional nodes (see Figure 2 [MS-39] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).45,46 Selective neck dissection is often recommended for N0 disease (see GLOT-3, page 1458, and “Neck Management in Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). To remove the nodes most commonly involved with metastases from the larynx, a selective neck dissection is recommended that includes the nodes in levels II to IV, and level VI when appropriate.44 Elective level VI dissections are often considered appropriate for infraglottic laryngeal cancers. H&N squamous cell cancer with no clinical nodal involvement rarely presents with nodal metastasis beyond the confines of an appropriate selective neck dissection (<10% of the time).47-49

The chief role of selective neck dissections in these NCCN Guidelines is to determine which patients are candidates for possible adjuvant chemotherapy/RT or adjuvant RT, although selective neck dissections may be used as treatment when neck tumor burden is low.50 Patients undergoing selective neck dissection should not have clinical nodal disease; however, selective neck dissection may prevent morbidity in patients with nodal disease and may be appropriate in certain patients with N1 to N2 disease.51-53 In these NCCN Guidelines, patients with cervical node metastases who undergo operations with therapeutic intent are generally treated with comprehensive neck dissections, because often they have disease outside the bounds of selective neck dissections. Determining whether an ipsilateral or bilateral neck dissection is needed depends on tumor thickness, the extent of the tumor, and the site of the tumor.38 For example, bilateral neck dissection is often recommended for tumors at or near the midline and/or for tumor sites with bilateral drainage.

Careful and regular follow-up examinations by a trained H&N surgical oncologist are recommended for patients undergoing nonsurgical primary treatment so that any local or regional recurrence can be detected early, and salvage surgery (and neck dissection as indicated) can be performed. After either RT or chemoradiation, posttreatment evaluation with imaging (ie, CT and/or MRI with contrast, PET/CT) guides the use of neck dissection (see “Post Chemoradiation or RT Neck Evaluation in the Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).54-57 If PET/CT is used for follow-up, the first scan should be performed at a minimum of 12 weeks after treatment to reduce the false-positive rate.55,58

A complete clinical response (ie, clinically negative) may be defined as no visible or palpable neck disease and no radiographic findings (ie, the absence of either focally abnormal lymph nodes or large nodes [>1.5 cm])54,59; a complete pathologic response requires pathologic confirmation. If a complete clinical response has been achieved in patients who were N0 at initial staging, all of the panel members recommend observing the patient.54,59,60 In patients who have a clinically negative neck, a negative PET/CT is 90% reliable and further imaging is optional.61-63 Panel members also concur that any patient with residual disease or suspected progression in the neck after RT or chemoradiation should undergo a neck dissection.54 For patients with more equivocal PET/CT scan results in the neck, a recent study suggests that a repeat PET/CT scan 4 to 6 weeks later may help identify those who can be safely observed without surgery to the neck.64

Postoperative Management of High-Risk Disease

Many factors influence survival and locoregional tumor control in patients with H&N cancers. The role of chemotherapy/RT in the postoperative management of the patient with adverse prognostic risk factors has been clarified by 2 separate multicenter randomized trials for patients with high-risk cancers of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx65,66; long-term follow-up was recently reported for one of the trials.67 A combined analysis of data from the 2 trials has been performed.68

The US Intergroup trial (RTOG 9501) randomly assigned patients with 2 or more involved nodes, positive margins, or extracapsular nodal spread of tumor to receive standard postoperative RT or the same RT plus cisplatin (100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 3 doses).66 Long-term results from RTOG 9501 were recently published.67 The European trial (EORTC 22931) was designed using the same chemotherapy treatment and similar RT dosing but also included as high-risk factors the presence of perineural or perivascular disease and nodal involvement at levels 4 and 5 from an oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer.65 The RTOG trial showed statistically significant improvement in locoregional control and disease-free survival but not overall survival, whereas the EORTC trial found significant improvement in survival and the other outcome parameters. A schedule using cisplatin at 50 mg intravenously weekly has also been shown to improve survival in this setting in a randomized trial.69

To better define risk, a combined analysis of prognostic factors and outcome from the 2 trials was performed. This analysis showed that patients in both trials with extracapsular nodal spread of tumor and/or positive resection margins benefited from the addition of cisplatin to postoperative RT. For those with multiple involved regional nodes without extracapsular spread, no survival advantage was seen.67,68 The combined analysis was considered exploratory by the authors, because it was not part of the initial protocol design.68 These publications form the basis for the NCCN recommendations.

In NCCN Member Institutions, patients with extracapsular nodal spread and/or positive surgical margins receive adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after surgery.69-75 The presence of other adverse risk factors—multiple positive nodes (without extracapsular nodal spread), vascular/perineural invasion, and pT4 primary—are established indications for postoperative RT. Because patients with these other adverse features were also included in the EORTC 22931 trial that showed a survival advantage for patients receiving cisplatin concurrent with postoperative RT compared with RT alone, the NCCN Panel added “consider chemoradiation” for these features.65

Salvage Surgery

Patients with advanced carcinoma (any T,N2-3) who undergo nonsurgical primary treatment, such as concurrent chemotherapy/RT, need very close follow-up both to evaluate for local recurrence and to assess for ipsilateral or contralateral neck recurrence (see FOLL-A, page 1463). For patients who do not have a complete clinical response to chemotherapy/RT, salvage surgery plus neck dissection is recommended as indicated. However, all panel members emphasized that it may be difficult to detect local or regional recurrence because of radiation-related tissue changes, and this may result in a delayed diagnosis of persistent or recurrent disease.

Panel members also emphasized the increased risk of complications when salvage surgery is attempted. Some of these patients may require microvascular free-flap reconstruction to cover the defects at the primary site. The patients undergoing neck dissection may develop complications related to delayed wound healing, skin necrosis, or carotid exposure.

H&N Radiotherapy

RT for H&N cancers has grown increasingly complex. The availability and technical precision of intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) has markedly increased, perhaps beyond the current ability to estimate the location of small subsites of microscopic disease. A thorough understanding of natural history, anatomy, clinical circumstances, and imaging continue to guide the use of radiation as primary or adjuvant treatment. The “Principles of Radiation Therapy” for each site in the NCCN Guidelines are not all-inclusive (available online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). Although technical guidelines are rapidly evolving and becoming more specific, advanced technologies provide much opportunity for variations and individualization in targeting and dose delivery, challenging traditional notions of standard fields and targets. Guidelines from the American College of Radiology may be useful for technical details.

Recent Updates

For the 2014 update, the “Principles of Radiation Therapy” were revised for each site, including glottic larynx (see GLOT-A, page 1462). The maximum dose limits for definitive standard fractionation for areas at high risk for recurrence (ie, primary tumor and high-risk level lymph nodes) were decreased for many sites. For example, the maximum dose limits were decreased to 70 Gy (2 Gy/fraction) for glottic larynx. For sites of suspected subclinical spread (at low to intermediate risk of recurrence), the doses for IMRT or 3-dimensional conformal RT were clarified for many sites, including glottic larynx.

A new section on “Palliative RT” was added in 2013 and revised for 2014 (see “Radiation Techniques” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN. org). For 2013, the RT sections for each site were revised to include contemporary nomenclature (eg, planning target volume) and the fractionation was revised for clarity. Instead of using the phrase primary and gross adenopathy, the high-risk sites are now specified as primary tumor and involved lymph nodes. Instead of using the phrase uninvolved nodal stations, the intermediate-risk and low-risk sites are now specified as sites of suspected subclinical spread. Minimum and maximum dose limits are precisely defined for high-risk sites and intermediate- and low-risk sites.

Radiation Doses

Selection of radiation total dose depends on the primary tumor and neck node size, fractionation, and clinical circumstances, including whether to use concurrent chemotherapy (see GLOT-A, page 1462, and “Radiation Techniques” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). When using conventional definitive fractionation, the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes (ie, high-risk sites) generally require a total of 66 Gy (2.2 Gy/fraction) to 70 Gy (2.0 Gy/fraction).76-78 For doses greater than 70 Gy, some clinicians feel that the fractionation should be slightly modified (eg, <2.0 Gy/fraction for at least some of the treatment) to minimize toxicity; an additional 2 to 3 doses can be added depending on clinical circumstances. External-beam radiation doses exceeding 72 Gy using conventional fractionation (2.0 Gy/fraction) may lead to unacceptable rates of normal tissue injury.76,79-83 When using hyperfractionation, high-risk sites generally require up to 81.6 Gy (1.2 Gy/fraction).76,77

Elective irradiation to low-risk and intermediate-risk sites requires 44 Gy (2.0 Gy/fraction) to 63 Gy (1.6-1.8 Gy/fraction), depending on the estimated level of tumor burden, and on whether 3-dimensional conformal RT or IMRT is used. For 3-dimensional conformal RT and sequentially planned IMRT, suggest 44 to 50 Gy (2.0 Gy/fraction).84,85 For IMRT, suggest 54 to 63 Gy (1.6-1.8 Gy/fraction).85-87 Postoperative irradiation is recommended based on stage, histology, and surgical-pathologic findings. Postoperative RT is recommended for selected risk factors, including advanced T stage, depth of invasion, multiple positive nodes (without extracapsular nodal spread), and perineural/lymphatic/vascular invasion. Higher doses of postoperative RT alone (60-66 Gy), or with chemotherapy, are recommended for the high-risk features of extracapsular disease and/or positive margins.67,68 The preferred interval is 6 weeks or less between resection and commencement of postoperative RT.

Fractionation in RT Alone

No single fractionation schedule has proven to be best for all tumors. Data strongly indicate that squamous cancers of the H&N can grow rapidly and may compensate for RT-induced cell loss through the mechanism of accelerated repopulation.88-90 Especially in RT alone settings, schedules delivering at least 1000 cGy/wk are recommended.91-95 Trials in early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer have shown higher recurrence rates with daily fraction sizes less than 200 cGy, with a cumulative weekly dose less than 1000 cGy.96,97

Randomized trials from Europe have reported improved locoregional control using altered fractionation. The EORTC protocol (22851) compared accelerated fractionation (1.6 Gy 3 times daily, or 72 Gy over 5 weeks) with conventional fractionation (1.8-2.0 Gy once daily, or 70 Gy over 7-8 weeks) in various intermediate to advanced H&N cancers. Patients in the accelerated fractionation arm had significantly better locoregional control at 5 years (P=.02). Disease-specific survival showed a trend in favor of the accelerated fractionation arm (P=.06). Acute and late toxicity were increased with acceleration, however, raising questions about the net advantages of accelerated fractionation.98 The RTOG reported the results of a 4-armed, phase III, randomized clinical trial (RTOG 90-03) comparing hyperfractionation and 2 variants of accelerated fractionation versus standard fractionation.76,77,99 After 2 years of follow-up, both accelerated fractionation with a concomitant boost (AFX-C) and hyperfractionation were associated with improved locoregional control and disease-free survival compared with standard fractionation. However, acute toxicity was increased with accelerated fractionation. No significant difference was shown in the frequency of grade 3 or worse late effects reported at 6 to 24 months after treatment start among the various treatment groups. Long-term follow-up confirmed a statistically significant improvement in locoregional control and overall survival with hyperfractionation compared with standard fractionation.77

A meta-analysis of updated individual patient data from 15 randomized trials analyzed the effect of hyperfractionated or accelerated RT on the survival of patients with H&N cancers.100 Standard fractionation constituted the control arm in all of the trials in this meta-analysis.78 An absolute survival benefit for altered fractionation of 3.4% at 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; P=.003) was reported. This benefit, however, was limited to patients younger than 60 years.100 Hyperfractionation was associated with a benefit of 8% after 5 years.101 However, the recent GORTEC 99-02 trial reported that altered fractionation did not improve outcomes compared with conventional fractionation.102,103 Consensus regarding altered fractionation schedules with concomitant boost or hyperfractionation for stage III or IV oral cavity, oropharynx, supraglottic larynx, and hypopharyngeal squamous cell cancers has not yet emerged among NCCN Member Institutions.100,104,105

Fractionation in Concurrent Chemoradiation

Panel members do not agree about the optimal radiation dose fractionation scheme to use with concurrent chemotherapy. Most published studies have used conventional fractionation (at 2.0 Gy/fraction, to a typical dose of 70 Gy in 7 weeks) with singleagent high-dose cisplatin (given every 3 weeks at 100 mg/m2).106 Other fraction sizes (eg, 1.8 Gy, conventional), cisplatin dosing schedules, single agents, multiagent chemotherapy, and altered fractionation with chemotherapy have been evaluated alone or in combination. Numerous trials have shown that modified fractionation and concurrent chemotherapy are more efficacious than modified fractionation alone.105,107-109 RTOG 0129 assessed accelerated fractionation with 2 cycles of concurrent cisplatin versus standard fractionation with 3 cycles of concurrent cisplatin. No significant difference was seen in overall survival between the arms.106,110

Concurrent chemoradiation increases acute toxicity compared with radiation alone, although an increase in late toxicity beyond that caused by RT alone is less clear.111-113 Altered fractionation and/or multiagent chemotherapy may further increase the toxicity burden.114 For any chemotherapeutic approach, close attention should be paid to published reports for the specific chemotherapy agent, dose, and schedule of administration. Chemoradiation should be performed by an experienced team and should include substantial supportive care.

IMRT and Palliative RT

The intensity of the radiation beam can be modulated to decrease doses to normal structures without compromising the doses to the cancer targets.115,116 IMRT is an advanced form of conformal RT permitting more precise cancer targeting while reducing dose to normal tissues.85,117-121 Xerostomia is a common long-term side effect of RT, which can be reduced with use of IMRT, drug therapy (eg, pilocarpine, cevimeline), salivary substitutes, and other novel approaches (eg, acupuncture).122-127

IMRT dose painting refers to the method of assigning different dose levels to different structures within the same treatment fraction (eg, 2.0 to gross tumor, 1.7 to microscopic tumor, <1.0 Gy to parotid gland) resulting in different total doses to different targets (eg, 70 Gy, 56 Gy, <26 Gy).128,129 Although dose painting has been used to simplify radiation planning, hot spots associated with higher toxicity can occur.129,130 Alternatively, separate dose plans for the low versus higher dose targets can be delivered sequentially (reduce target size and boost) or on the same day as separate fractions in twice-a-day schemas (see “Radiation Techniques” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).120,131

IMRT is now widely used in H&N cancers and is the predominant technique used at NCCN Member Institutions.132,133 It is useful in reducing long-term toxicity.86,123,124,134-141 Overall survival is similar between patients treated with IMRT and those receiving conventional RT.135,142-144 In-field recurrences, low-grade mucositis in areas away from the cancer targets, and posterior neck hair loss can occur with IMRT.145-148 The application of IMRT to the larynx is evolving.149-156

A new section on palliative RT was recently added to the NCCN Guidelines (see “Radiation Techniques” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN. org). Although several palliative RT regimens are provided, no single regimen is preferred; specific regimens vary widely among NCCN Member Institutions.157-159 Any palliative RT regimen that might cause severe toxicities should be avoided. More hypofractionated regimens may be useful for patients with end-stage disease.160

Follow-up After RT

For patients whose cancer has been treated with RT, the recommended follow-up (see FOLL-A, page 1463) includes an assessment of thyroid function (ie, the thyroid stimulating hormone [TSH] level should be determined every 6-12 months). Increased TSH levels have been detected in 20% to 25% of patients who received neck irradiation; patients are at increased risk of hypothyroidism.161-163

Principles of Nutrition and Supportive Care

A new section on “Principles of Nutrition” was recently added to these NCCN Guidelines (to view the most recent version, visit NCCN.org). This section outlines nutritional management and supportive care for patients with H&N cancers who are prone to weight loss, which can often be severe, as a result of treatment-related toxicity, disease, and health behaviors such as poor nutritional habits.7,164,165 Patients with H&N cancers are also at risk for dehydration. Multidisciplinary evaluation is integral to minimizing or decreasing weight loss and should involve a registered dietitian and a speech-language/swallowing therapist.

Patients who have experienced significant weight loss (>10% body weight) clearly need nutritional evaluation and close monitoring of their weight to prevent further weight loss.166,167 All patients should receive nutritional evaluation before and after treatment to assess the need for interventions (eg, enteral support via feeding tubes).168,169 Patients are also at risk for problems with speech. Treatment and/or the progression of their disease may cause deterioration in their ability to speak and/or swallow.170-172 Evaluation by a speech-language/swallowing therapist is valuable before and after treatment, because it can help mitigate potential problems.173-175 Patients are also at risk for dental problems (see DENT-A, page 1464, and “Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management,” next section).7

NCCN Panel Members agree that reactive feeding tube placement is appropriate in selected patients with H&N cancers.165,169 No consensus exists about whether prophylactic tube placement is appropriate, although this is commonly done if high-risk patients will be receiving intense multimodality therapy that is anticipated to cause severe problems (eg, concurrent chemoradiation).165,167,176 These NCCN Guidelines provide recommendations for prophylactic tube placement, which should be strongly considered in high-risk patients (eg, those with severe pretreatment weight loss, ongoing dehydration or dysphagia, significant comorbidities, severe aspiration, anticipated swallowing issues; see “Principles of Nutrition: Management and Supportive Care” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). These NCCN Guidelines do not recommend prophylactic tube placement in lower-risk patients (ie, those without significant pretreatment weight loss, significant aspiration, or severe dysphagia), although these patients need to carefully monitor their weight.

Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management

For the 2014 update, a new section on “Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management” was added (see DENT-A, page 1464). Patients with H&N are at risk of oral and dental complications after RT because of treatment-induced xerostomia and salivary gland dysfunction, which are associated with increased dental caries.177-179 RT to the dental hard tissues is also associated with bone demineralization and trismus of the masticatory muscles. Using IMRT and limiting the RT dose to the teeth have been shown to decrease xerostomia and damage to the teeth.177,178,180-187 Dental/oral evaluation and management can help decrease dental caries and associated problems, such as dentoalveolar infection and osteoradionecrosis.179,180,187-200

The recommended dental/oral evaluations before, during, and after RT are described in detail in the algorithm and summarized in this section. A dental/oral treatment plan must be implemented before RT and should include the following: (1) eliminating potential sources of infection; (2) performing any dental extractions at least 2 weeks before RT; (3) treating active dental caries and periodontal disease; (4) treating oral candidiasis; and (5) educating patients about preventive strategies.188 Some of the strategies to decrease oral and dental complications are to (1) decrease dry mouth (eg, by using salivary substitutes and stimulation);201-205 (2) decrease dental caries (eg, by using topical fluoride);189,206-210 (3) decrease dentoalveolar infection (eg, with frequent evaluations to detect and treat disease promptly); (4) decrease osteoradionecrosis (eg, by extracting teeth before RT);192 (5) decrease trismus of the masticatory muscles (eg, by using custom mouth opening devices to maintain range of motion);211-213 and (6) evaluate during and after treatment to help minimize complications.201,202,208,214,215

During and after treatment, the goals of dental/oral management include managing xerostomia, preventing trismus; and detecting and treating oral candidiasis.188 Additional goals after treatment include preventing and treating dental caries, preventing postradiation osteonecrosis, and preventing oral candidiasis.188

Cancer of the Larynx

These NCCN Guidelines focus on cancer of the glottic larynx, which is the most common type of laryngeal cancer. The larynx is divided into 3 regions: supraglottis, glottis, and subglottis. The distribution of cancers is as follows: 30% to 35% in the supraglottic region, 60% to 65% in the glottic region, and 5% in the subglottic region. Supraglottic laryngeal cancer is described in the complete version of these NCCN Guidelines (see “Cancer of the Supraglottic Larynx,” available online at NCCN.org). Subglottic laryngeal cancer is not discussed in these NCCN Guidelines, because it is so uncommon. The incidence and pattern of metastatic spread to regional nodes vary with the primary region. The lymphatic drainage of the glottis is sparse, and early-stage primaries rarely spread to regional nodes. Because hoarseness is an early symptom, most glottic laryngeal cancer is early stage at diagnosis. Thus, cancer of the glottic larynx has an excellent cure rate of 80% to 90%. Nodal involvement adversely affects survival rates.

Workup and Staging

Evaluation of the patient to determine tumor stage is shown in the algorithm (see GLOT-1, page 1456). Multidisciplinary consultation is critical because of the potential for loss of speech and, sometimes, for swallowing dysfunction (see “Principles of Nutrition: Management and Supportive Care” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). The 2010 AJCC staging classification (7th edition) for laryngeal primary tumors is determined by the number of subsites involved, vocal cord mobility, and the presence of metastases (see Table 3 online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org [ST-6]).5

Treatment

In the NCCN Guidelines, the treatment of patients with laryngeal cancer is divided into 2 categories: tumors of the glottic larynx and tumors of the supraglottic larynx. For the 2104 update, extensive revisions were made to the radiation guidelines for laryngeal cancer (see GLOT-A, page 1462).

For patients with carcinoma in situ of the larynx, recommended treatment options include endoscopic removal (ie, stripping, laser), which is preferred, or RT.216,217 For early-stage glottic cancer, surgery (partial laryngectomy) or RT have similar effectiveness (see GLOT-2, page 1457).218 The choice of treatment modality depends on anticipated functional outcome, the patient’s wishes, reliability of follow-up, and general medical condition. Adjuvant treatment depends on the presence (or absence) of adverse features. Based on the recent update of RTOG 95-01, the panel deleted the recommendation for “consider [adjuvant] chemotherapy/RT” for patients with T2,N0 glottic cancer with either other risk features or positive margins.67 The long-term update of RTOG 95-01 reported that locoregional control and disease-free survival were not improved with the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy/RT compared with RT alone in patients with 2 or more involved lymph nodes. However, an unplanned subgroup analysis did show improvement in locoregional control and disease-free survival in patients with extracapsular spread and/or positive margins.

Resectable, advanced-stage glottic primaries are usually managed with a combined modality approach (see GLOT-3, page 1458). If treated with primary surgery, total laryngectomy is usually indicated, although selected cases can be managed with conservation surgical techniques that preserve vocal function. Pulmonary function tests should be considered before surgery. If total laryngectomy is indicated but laryngeal preservation is desired, concurrent systemic therapy/RT is recommended.219,220 When using systemic therapy/RT, high-dose cisplatin (category 1) is preferred (at 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43).219

Induction chemotherapy with management based on response is an option (either category 2A or 2B, depending on the setting) for all but T1-2,N0 glottic cancer. Based on the long-term update of RTOG 91-11, panel members added an option for the use of induction chemotherapy when patients require (are amenable to) total laryngectomy (see GLOT-3, page 1458, and “The Induction Chemotherapy Controversy” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).219 The panel revised the recommendations for the use of induction chemotherapy from category 3 to category 2A for T3,N2-3 when patients require total laryngectomy (see GLOT-4, page 1459, and “The Induction Chemotherapy Controversy” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).219 Definitive RT (without chemotherapy) is an option for patients with T3,N0-1 disease who are medically unfit or refuse chemotherapy (see GLOT-3, page 1458). Surgery is reserved for managing the neck as indicated, for patients whose disease persists after chemotherapy/RT or RT, or for patients who develop a subsequent locoregional recurrence (see “Postchemoradiation or RT Neck Evaluation in Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).

The NCCN recommendations for managing locally advanced, resectable glottic cancers (in which total laryngectomy is indicated but laryngeal preservation is desired) with concurrent cisplatin and radiation are based on Intergroup trial R91-11.219,220 Before 2002, either induction chemotherapy with cisplatin/5-FU followed by RT (based on the VA Laryngeal Cancer Study Group trial221) or definitive RT alone (without chemotherapy) were the standard-of-care options recommended in these NCCN Guidelines. However, concurrent RT and systemic therapy (eg, cisplatin 100 mg/m2, preferred [category 1]) is now the recommended option for achieving laryngeal preservation.219,220 R91-11 was a successor trial to the VA trial and compared 3 nonsurgical regimens: (1) induction cisplatin/5-FU followed by RT (control arm and identical to that in the VA trial); (2) concurrent RT and high-dose cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43; and (3) RT alone. RT was uniform in all 3 arms (70 Gy/7 weeks, 2 Gy/fraction), as was the option of surgery (including total laryngectomy) for treatment failures in all arms. Patients with stage III and IV (M0) disease were eligible, excluding T1 primaries and high-volume T4 primaries (tumor extending more than 1 cm into the base of the tongue or tumor penetrating through cartilage).

The key findings of the R91-11 trial were (1) a statistically significant higher 2-year laryngeal preservation (local control) rate of 88% for concurrent RT with cisplatin, compared with 74% for induction chemotherapy and 69% for RT alone; (2) no significant difference in laryngeal preservation between induction and RT-alone treatments; and (3) similar survival for all treatment groups. These R91-11 results changed the standard of care to concurrent RT and systemic therapy (cisplatin preferred [category 1]) for achieving laryngeal preservation for most T3, any N glottic cancers.220 Recent long-term follow-up (10 years) of R91-11 indicates that laryngeal preservation continues to be better (ie, statistically different) with concurrent cisplatin/RT compared with either induction chemotherapy or RT alone.219 Overall survival was not statistically different for all treatment groups; more non-cancer-related mortality was seen among patients treated with concurrent cisplatin/RT.

For patients with glottic T4a tumors, the standard approach is total laryngectomy with thyroidectomy and neck dissection as indicated (depending on node involvement) followed by adjuvant treatment (see GLOT-6, page 1461, and “Principles of Surgery” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). For patients with glottic T4a laryngeal cancer, postoperative observation is an option for highly selected patients with good-risk features (eg, indolent histopathology). For selected patients with T4a tumors who decline surgery, the NCCN Panel recommends considering concurrent chemoradiation, clinical trials, or induction chemotherapy with additional management based on response.219,220

Follow-up/Surveillance

Recommendations for surveillance are provided in the algorithm (see FOLL-A, page 1463). Follow-up examinations in many of these patients may need to be supplemented with serial endoscopy or high-resolution, advanced radiologic imaging techniques because of the scarring, edema, and fibrosis that occur in the laryngeal tissues and neck after high-dose radiation.

Very Advanced H&N Cancers

Very advanced H&N cancers include (1) newly diagnosed locally advanced T4b (M0) tumors; (2) newly diagnosed unresectable nodal disease; (3) metastatic disease; (4) recurrent or persistent disease; or 5) patients unfit for surgery. The treatment goal is cure for patients with newly diagnosed but unresectable disease (see “Resectable Versus Unresectable Disease,” page 1467). For the recurrent disease group, the goal is cure (if surgery or radiation remains feasible) or palliation (if the patient has received previous RT and the disease is unresectable). For patients with metastatic disease, the goal is palliation or prolongation of life.

Treatment

Participation in clinical trials is preferred for all patients with very advanced H&N cancers. For the 2014 update, extensive revisions were made to the radiation guidelines (see “Principles of Radiation Therapy” in “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancer” [ADV-A] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org, and “H&N Radiotherapy,” page 1470).

Newly Diagnosed Advanced Disease

For patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1, the standard treatment of newly diagnosed, very advanced disease is concurrent systemic therapy and RT (with high-dose cisplatin as the preferred [category 1] systemic agent).222 Other category 1 systemic therapy/RT options include carboplatin/5-FU or (2) cetuximab.102,223 Other recommended systemic therapy/RT options are listed in the guidelines (see “Principles of Systemic Therapy’ online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). The NCCN Panel had a major disagreement regarding whether induction chemotherapy (eg, cisplatin/docetaxel/5-FU) followed by RT or chemoradiation should be used for patients with a PS of 0 or 1, which is reflected in the category 3 recommendation (see also “The Induction Chemotherapy Controversy” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).224,225 Other options for patients with PS of 2 to 3 are described in the algorithm (see “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancer” [ADV-A] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).

Many randomized trials69,108,109,222,226-231 and meta-analyses of clinical trials232-235 show significantly improved overall survival, disease-free survival, and local control when a concomitant or alternating chemotherapy and radiation regimen is compared with RT alone for advanced disease. All combined chemoradiotherapy regimens are associated with mucosal toxicities, which require close monitoring of patients, ideally by a team experienced in treating patients with H&N cancers. Limited data are available comparing the efficacy of different chemoradiotherapy regimens. High-dose cisplatin plus RT is effective and easy to administer and typically uses conventional fractionation at 2.0 Gy per fraction to 70 Gy or more in 7 weeks with single-agent cisplatin given every 3 weeks at 100 mg/m2 (see “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancer” [ADV-A] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).222

Bonner et al236 randomly assigned 424 patients with locally advanced and measurable stage III to IV squamous cell carcinomas of the H&N to receive definitive RT with or without cetuximab. Locoregional control and median overall survival (49.0 vs. 29.3 months; P=.03) were significantly improved in patients treated with RT and cetuximab compared with RT alone. RT and cetuximab (category 1) may provide a therapeutic option for patients not considered medically fit for standard chemoradiotherapy regimens. Other chemoradiation options (eg, carboplatin/5-FU [category 1]) are also recommended by the NCCN Panel (see “Principles of Chemotherapy” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org).102,237,238 Limited data are available comparing combination chemoradiation versus using a single agent concurrently with RT.

Recurrent or Persistent Disease

Surgery is recommended for resectable recurrent or persistent locoregional disease; adjuvant therapy depends on the risk factors (see “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancer” [ADV-A] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). If the recurrence is unresectable and the patient did not have prior RT, then RT with concurrent systemic therapy is recommended, depending on the PS (see “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancer” [ADV-A] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). For patients with recurrent disease not amenable to curative-intent radiation or surgery, the treatment approach is the same as that for patients with metastatic disease; enrollment in a clinical trial is preferred. The “Principles of Radiation Therapy” were extensively revised for patients with very advanced H&N cancers (available online, in these guidelines; see also “H&N Radiotherapy,” page 1470).

Metastatic Disease

Palliative adjunctive measures include RT to areas of symptomatic disease, analgesics, and other measures to control other manifestations of disease spread (eg, hypercalcemia). Single agents and combination systemic chemotherapy regimens are both used (see “Principles of Chemotherapy” in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for H&N Cancers at NCCN.org).239 Unless otherwise specified, regimens or single agents can be used for non-nasopharyngeal cancer (see “Principles of Systemic Therapy” online, in these guidelines, at NCCN.org). Response rates to single agents range from 15% to 35%.240-242 Active and more commonly used single agents include cisplatin, carboplatin, paclitaxel, docetaxel, 5-FU, methotrexate, capecitabine, cetuximab (for non-nasopharyngeal cancer), and vinorelbine (for non-nasopharyngeal cancer).239,242-260 For the 2014 update, the panel revised the recommendations to category 2B for both ifosfamide and bleomycin because these agents are less commonly used; previously these agents had a category 2A recommendation.

Active combination regimens include (1) cisplatin or carboplatin, plus 5-FU with cetuximab (for non-nasopharyngeal cancer only) (category 1);261 (2) cisplatin or carboplatin, plus a taxane;262,263 (3) cisplatin with cetuximab (for non-nasopharyngeal cancer only);244 or (4) cisplatin with 5-FU.249,263 These combination regimens, on average, result in a doubling of response rates compared with single agents. Randomized trials assessing a cisplatin-based combination regimen (eg, cisplatin plus 5-FU) versus single-agent therapy with cisplatin, 5-FU, or methotrexate have shown significantly higher response rates, but no difference in overall survival, for the combination regimen.243,249,263-265 Historically, the median survival with chemotherapy is approximately 6 months for patients with metastatic disease, and the 1-year survival rate is approximately 20%. Complete response is associated with longer survival and, although infrequent, has been reported more often with combination regimens.249 A randomized phase III trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent H&N cancers found no significant difference in survival when comparing cisplatin plus 5-FU with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.263 Activation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) triggers a cascade of downstream intracellular signaling events important for regulation of epithelial cell growth. Overexpression of EGFR and/or common ligands has been observed in greater than 90% of squamous cell carcinomas of the H&N. This finding has led to the development of EGFR inhibitors, such as the monoclonal antibody cetuximab and small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ie, erlotinib, gefitinib).

Data from phase II studies indicate that in the cisplatin-refractory setting, the single-agent response rate of cetuximab is 12% to 14%. Burtness et al244 compared cisplatin plus cetuximab versus cisplatin plus placebo as first-line treatment of recurrent disease, and reported a significant improvement in response rate with cetuximab (26% vs 10%, respectively). A phase III randomized trial (EXTREME) of 442 patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma found that cetuximab plus cisplatin/5-FU or carboplatin/5-FU improved median survival when compared with the standard chemotherapy doublet (10.1 vs 7.4 months; P=.04).261 The response rate was also improved with cetuximab (36% vs 20%; P<.001). In one randomized trial, treatment with 2 different dosing schedules of gefitinib offered no survival advantage compared with treatment with methotrexate.248 Available data for novel agents have not established them as treatment options for recurrent or metastatic H&N cancers outside of a clinical trial.266,267

For the 2014 update, the NCCN Panel added new combination regimens for recurrent, unresectable, or metastatic non-nasopharyngeal cancer: cisplatin/docetaxel/cetuximab268 and cisplatin/paclitaxel/cetuximab.242,269 For the cisplatin/docetaxel/cetuximab regimen, the median progression-free survival was 7.1 months and overall survival was 15.3 months, and the 1-year overall survival rate was 58.6%. This newer taxane-based regimen has impressive overall survival and is an option for patients with good PS. However, standard of care for recurrent, unresectable, or metastatic non-nasopharyngeal cancer are the category 1 regimens from the EXTREME trial of cetuximab plus cisplatin/5-FU or carboplatin/5-FU.261 The standard treatment of patients with incurable, persistent, recurrent, or metastatic H&N cancers should be dictated largely by the patient’s PS (see “Very Advanced Head and Neck Cancer” [ADV-A] online, in these guidelines, at NCCN. org). Patients should be fully informed about the goals of treatment, cost of combination chemotherapy, and potential for added toxicity.

Individual Disclosures of the NCCN Head and Neck Cancers Panel

T1

Recommended Reading List

  • AdelsteinDJLiYAdamsGL. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol2003;21:9298.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AngKKChenACurranWJJr. Head and neck carcinoma in the United States: first comprehensive report of the Longitudinal Oncology Registry of Head and Neck Carcinoma (LORHAN). Cancer2012;118:57835792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BernierJCooperJSPajakTF. Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501). Head Neck2005;27:843850.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BernierJDomengeCOzsahinM. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med2004;350:19451952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BonnerJAHarariPMGiraltJ. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol2010;11:2128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BourhisJOvergaardJAudryH. Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet2006;368:843854.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BourhisJSireCGraffP. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2012;13:145153.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BrizelDMAlbersMEFisherSR. Hyperfractionated irradiation with or without concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med1998;338:17981804.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ColevasAD. Chemotherapy options for patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol2006;24:26442652.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CooperJSPajakTFForastiereAA. Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med2004;350:19371944.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CooperJSZhangQPajakTF. Long-term follow-up of the RTOG 9501/intergroup phase III trial: postoperative concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy in high-risk squamous cell carcinoma of thehead and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012;84:11981205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeVitaVTJrLawrenceTSRosenbergSA eds. DeVita Hellman and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology9th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ForastiereAAZhangQWeberRS. Long-term results of RTOG 91-11: a comparison of three nonsurgical treatment strategies to preserve the larynx in patients with locally advanced larynx cancer. J Clin Oncol2013;31:845852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FuKKPajakTFTrottiA. A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare hyperfractionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: first report of RTOG 9003. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2000;48:716.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KutlerDIPatelSGShahJP. The role of neck dissection following definitive chemoradiation. Oncology (Williston Park)2004;18:993998; discussion 999 1003-1004 1007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PiccirilloJF. Importance of comorbidity in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope2000;110:593602.

  • PignonJPBourhisJDomengeC; on behalf of the MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. Lancet2000;355:949955.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PignonJPle MaîtreAMaillardE. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. Radiother Oncol2009;92:414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RosenthalDITrottiA. Strategies for managing radiation-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol2009;19:2934.

  • VermorkenJBMesiaRRiveraF. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med2008;359:11161127.

References

  • 1.

    MendenhallWMWerningJWPfisterDG. Treatment of head and neck cancer. In: DeVitaVTJrLawrenceTSRosenbergSA eds. DeVita Hellman and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 9th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    DeVitaVJrLawrenceTRosenbergS. DeVita Hellman and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 9th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    BaxiSFuryMGanlyI. Ten years of progress in head and neck cancers. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2012;10:806810.

  • 4.

    SiegelRMaJZouZJemalA. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin2014;64:929.

  • 5.

    EdgeSByrdDComptonC. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual7th ed.New York, NY: Springer; 2010.

  • 6.

    GreeneFPageDFlemingI. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual6th ed.New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2002.

  • 7.

    ChaukarDAWalvekarRRDasAK. Quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: a cross-sectional survey. Am J Otolaryngol2009;30:176180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    SoWKChanRJChanDN. Quality-of-life among head and neck cancer survivors at one year after treatment—a systematic review. Eur J Cancer2012;48:23912408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    ColasantoJMPrasadPNashMA. Nutritional support of patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Oncology (Williston Park)2005;19:371379.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    SchnollRAZhangBRueM. Brief physician-initiated quit-smoking strategies for clinical oncology settings: a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol2003;21:355365.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    GritzERCarrCRRapkinD. Predictors of long-term smoking cessation in head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev1993;2:261270.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    LinBMStarmerHMGourinCG. The relationship between depressive symptoms, quality of life, and swallowing function in head and neck cancer patients 1 year after definitive therapy. Laryngoscope2012;122:15181525.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    KrebberAMLeemansCRde BreeR. Stepped care targeting psychological distress in head and neck and lung cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Cancer2012;12:173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Verdonck-de LeeuwIMde BreeRKeizerAL. Computerized prospective screening for high levels of emotional distress in head and neck cancer patients and referral rate to psychosocial care. Oral Oncol2009;45:e129133.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    AndersenBLDeRubeisRJBermanBS. Screening, assessment, and care of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation. J Clin Oncol2014;32:16051619.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    FeinsteinAR. The pre-therapeutic classification of co-morbidity in chronic disease. J Chronic Dis1970;23:455468.

  • 17.

    CharlsonMEPompeiPAlesKLMacKenzieCR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis1987;40:373383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    PiccirilloJF. Importance of comorbidity in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope2000;110:593602.

  • 19.

    PiccirilloJFLacyPDBasuASpitznagelEL. Development of a new head and neck cancer-specific comorbidity index. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2002;128:11721179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    PiccirilloJF. Impact of comorbidity and symptoms on the prognosis of patients with oral carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2000;126:10861088.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    ChenAYMatsonLKRobertsDGoepfertH. The significance of comorbidity in advanced laryngeal cancer. Head Neck2001;23:566572.

  • 22.

    SinghBBhayaMSternJ. Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients with head and neck cancer: a multiinstitutional study. Laryngoscope1997;107:14691475.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    HallSFRochonPAStreinerDL. Measuring comorbidity in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope2002;112:19881996.

  • 24.

    HallSFGroomePARothwellD. The impact of comorbidity on the survival of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck2000;22:317322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    RibeiroKCKowalskiLPLatorreMR. Impact of comorbidity, symptoms, and patients’ characteristics on the prognosis of oral carcinomas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2000;126:10791085.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    de GraeffAde LeeuwJRRosWJ. Pretreatment factors predicting quality of life after treatment for head and neck cancer. Head Neck2000;22:398407.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    FunkGFKarnellLHWhiteheadS. Free tissue transfer versus pedicled flap cost in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2002;127:205212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    FarwellDGReillyDFWeymullerEA. Predictors of perioperative complications in head and neck patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2002;128:505511.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    KaplanMHFeinsteinAR. The importance of classifying initial co-morbidity in evaluatin the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis1974;27:387404.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    BangDPiccirilloJLittenbergBJohnstonA. The Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) test: a new comorbidity index for patients with cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol2000;19(Suppl):Abstract 1701.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    PiccirilloJFCostasIClaybourP. The measurement of comorbidity by cancer registries. J Registry Manag2003;30:814.

  • 32.

    PatrickDEricksonP. Health Status and health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    YuehB. Measuring and Reporting Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer. McLean, VA: Proceedings of the National Institutes of Health; 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    RogersSNGwanneSLoweD. The addition of mood and anxiety domains to the University of Washington quality of life scale. Head Neck2002;24:521529.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    BjordalKHammerlidEAhlner-ElmqvistM. Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. J Clin Oncol1999;17:10081019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    CellaD. Manual for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Measurement System (version 4). Chicago, IL: Rush Medical Center; 1997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    ListMAD’AntonioLLCellaDF. The Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale. A study of utility and validity. Cancer1996;77:22942301.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    HarrisonLSessionsRHongW. Head and Neck Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    DeVitaVJrLawrenceTRosenbergS eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    AdelsteinDJRidgeJABrizelDM. Transoral resection of pharyngeal cancer: summary of a National Cancer Institute Head and Neck Cancer Steering Committee Clinical Trials Planning Meeting, November 6-7, 2011, Arlington, Virginia. Head Neck2012;34:16811703.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    ArensC. Transoral treatment strategies for head and neck tumors [published online ahead of print December 20, 2012. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg2012;11:Doc05. doi: 10.3205/cto000087.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    WeinsteinGSO’MalleyBWJrMagnusonJS. Transoral robotic surgery: a multicenter study to assess feasibility, safety, and surgical margins. Laryngoscope2012;122:17011707.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    LiRJRichmonJD. Transoral endoscopic surgery: new surgical techniques for oropharyngeal cancer. Otolaryngol Clin North Am2012;45:823844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    RobbinsKTShahaARMedinaJE. Consensus statement on the classification and terminology of neck dissection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2008;134:536538.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    ByersRM. Neck dissection: concepts, controversies, and technique. Semin Surg Oncol1991;7:913.

  • 46.

    StringerSP. Current concepts in surgical management of neck metastases from head and neck cancer. Oncology (Williston Park)1995;9:547554.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    CandelaFCKothariKShahJP. Patterns of cervical node metastases from squamous carcinoma of the oropharynx and hypopharynx. Head Neck1990;12:197203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    CandelaFCShahJJaquesDPShahJP. Patterns of cervical node metastases from squamous carcinoma of the larynx. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1990;116:432435.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    ShahJPCandelaFCPoddarAK. The patterns of cervical lymph node metastases from squamous carcinoma of the oral cavity. Cancer1990;66:109113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    FerlitoARinaldoASilverCE. Elective and therapeutic selective neck dissection. Oral Oncol2006;42:1425.

  • 51.

    SchmitzSMachielsJPWeynandB. Results of selective neck dissection in the primary management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2009;266:437443.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52.

    PatelRSClarkJWytenR. Squamous cell carcinoma from an unknown head and neck primary site: a “selective treatment” approach. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2007;133:12821287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    SivanandanRKaplanMJLeeKJ. Long-term results of 100 consecutive comprehensive neck dissections: implications for selective neck dissections. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2004;130:13691373.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    LiauwSLMancusoAAAmdurRJ. Postradiotherapy neck dissection for lymph node-positive head and neck cancer: the use of computed tomography to manage the neck. J Clin Oncol2006;24:14211427.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55.

    PorcedduSVJarmolowskiEHicksRJ. Utility of positron emission tomography for the detection of disease in residual neck nodes after (chemo)radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Head Neck2005;27:175181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56.

    YaoMSmithRBHoffmanHT. Clinical significance of postradiotherapy [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in management of head-and-neck cancer-a long-term outcome report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;74:914.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57.

    LangoMNMyersJNGardenAS. Controversies in surgical management of the node-positive neck after chemoradiation. Semin Radiat Oncol2009;19:2428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58.

    IslesMGMcConkeyCMehannaHM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Clin Otolaryngol2008;33:210222.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59.

    CorryJPetersLFisherR. N2-N3 neck nodal control without planned neck dissection for clinical/radiologic complete responders-results of Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Study 98.02. Head Neck2008;30:737742.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60.

    LauHPhanTMackinnonJMatthewsTW. Absence of planned neck dissection for the N2-N3 neck after chemoradiation for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2008;134:257261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61.

    OngSCSchoderHLeeNY. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing the neck after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregional advanced head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med2008;49:532540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62.

    NayakJVWalvekarRRAndradeRS. Deferring planned neck dissection following chemoradiation for stage IV head and neck cancer: the utility of PET-CT. Laryngoscope2007;117:21292134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63.

    AbgralRQuerellouSPotardG. Does 18F-FDG PET/CT improve the detection of posttreatment recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in patients negative for disease on clinical follow-up?J Nucl Med2009;50:2429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64.

    PorcedduSVPryorDIBurmeisterE. Results of a prospective study of positron emission tomography-directed management of residual nodal abnormalities in node-positive head and neck cancer after definitive radiotherapy with or without systemic therapy. Head Neck2011;33:16751682.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65.

    BernierJDomengeCOzsahinM. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med2004;350:19451952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66.

    CooperJSPajakTFForastiereAA. Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med2004;350:19371944.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 67.

    CooperJSZhangQPajakTF. Long-term follow-up of the RTOG 9501/intergroup phase III trial: postoperative concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy in high-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012;84:11981205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68.

    BernierJCooperJSPajakTF. Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501). Head Neck2005;27:843850.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69.

    BachaudJMCohen-JonathanEAlzieuC. Combined postoperative radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin infusion for locally advanced head and neck carcinoma: final report of a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1996;36:999104.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70.

    ShahJPCendonRAFarrHWStrongEW. Carcinoma of the oral cavity. factors affecting treatment failure at the primary site and neck. Am J Surg1976;132:504507.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71.

    LooserKGShahJPStrongEW. The significance of “positive” margins in surgically resected epidermoid carcinomas. Head Neck Surg1978;1:107111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 72.

    JohnsonJTBarnesELMyersEN. The extracapsular spread of tumors in cervical node metastasis. Arch Otolaryngol1981;107:725729.

  • 73.

    FeldmanMFletcherGH. Analysis of the parameters relating to failures above the clavicles in patients treated by postoperative irradiation for squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity or oropharynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1982;8:2730.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 74.

    MirimanoffROWangCCDoppkeKP. Combined surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1985;11:499504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 75.

    PetersLJGoepfertHAngKK. Evaluation of the dose for postoperative radiation therapy of head and neck cancer: first report of a prospective randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1993;26:311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 76.

    FuKKPajakTFTrottiA. A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare hyperfractionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: first report of RTOG 9003. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2000;48:716.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 77.

    BeitlerJJZhangQFuKK. Final results of local-regional control and late toxicity of RTOG 9003: a randomized trial of altered fractionation radiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2014;89:1320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 78.

    OvergaardJHansenHSSpechtL. Five compared with six fractions per week of conventional radiotherapy of squamous-cell carcinoma of head and neck: DAHANCA 6 and 7 randomised controlled trial. Lancet2003;362:933940.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 79.

    FletcherGH. Textbook of Radiotherapy. 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1980.

  • 80.

    NorthropMFletcherGHJesseRHLindbergRD. Evolution of neck disease in patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue, floor of mouth, and palatine arch, and clinically positive neck nodes neither fixed nor bilateral. Cancer1972;29:2330.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 81.

    BarkleyHTFletcherGH. The significance of residual disease after external irradiation of squamous-cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Radiology1977;124:493495.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 82.

    ArcangeliGFriedmanMPaoluziR. A quantitative study of late radiation effect on normal skin and subcutaneous tissues in human beings. Br J Radiol1974;47:4450.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 83.

    AndrewsJR. Dose-time relationships in cancer radiotherapy. A clinical radiobiology study of extremes of dose and time. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med1965;93:5674.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84.

    International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 62: Prescribing Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50). Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 85.

    International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 83: Prescribing, recording, and reporting intensity-modulated photon beam therapy (IMRT). J ICRU2010;10:4154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 86.

    GardenASDongLMorrisonWH. Patterns of disease recurrence following treatment of oropharyngeal cancer with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2013;85:941947.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 87.

    DalyMELeQTMaximPG. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer: clinical outcomes and patterns of failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2010;76:13391346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 88.

    ThamesHDJrWithersHRPetersLJFletcherGH. Changes in early and late radiation responses with altered dose fractionation: implications for dose-survival relationships. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1982;8:219226.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 89.

    WithersHThamesHPetersL. Differences in the fractionation response of acutely and late-responding tissues In: KaercherKKogelnikHReinartzG eds. Progress in Radio-Oncology II. Vol. 11. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1982:287296.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 90.

    WithersHRTaylorJMMaciejewskiB. The hazard of accelerated tumor clonogen repopulation during radiotherapy. Acta Oncol1988;27:131146.

  • 91.

    HarwoodARBealeFACummingsBJ. T4NOMO glottic cancer: an analysis of dose-time volume factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1981;7:15071512.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 92.

    AmornmarnRPrempreeTViravathanaT. A therapeutic approach to early vocal cord carcinoma. Acta Radiol Oncol1985;24:321325.

  • 93.

    SchwaiboldFScariatoANunnoM. The effect of fraction size on control of early glottic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1988;14:451454.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 94.

    KimRYMarksMESalterMM. Early-stage glottic cancer: importance of dose fractionation in radiation therapy. Radiology1992;182:273275.

  • 95.

    ParsonJ. Time-dose-volume relationships in radiation therapy. In: MillionRCassisiN eds. Management of Head and Neck Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Approach2nd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1994:203243.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 96.

    YamazakiHNishiyamaKTanakaE. Radiotherapy for early glottic carcinoma (T1N0M0): results of prospective randomized study of radiation fraction size and overall treatment time. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;64:7782.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 97.

    YuEShenoudaGBeaudetMPBlackMJ. Impact of radiation therapy fraction size on local control of early glottic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1997;37:587591.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 98.

    HoriotJCBontempsPvan den BogaertW. Accelerated fractionation (AF) compared to conventional fractionation (CF) improves loco-regional control in the radiotherapy of advanced head and neck cancers: results of the EORTC 22851 randomized trial. Radiother Oncol1997;44:111121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 99.

    KonskiAAWinterKColeBF. Quality-adjusted survival analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 90-03: phase III randomized study comparing altered fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck2009;31:207212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 100.

    BourhisJOvergaardJAudryH. Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet2006;368:843854.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 101.

    BaujatBBourhisJBlanchardP. Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010;12:CD002026.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 102.

    BourhisJSireCGraffP. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2012;13:145153.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 103.

    HaigentzMJrCorryJStrojanPFerlitoA. Easing acceleration of head and neck chemoradiotherapy. Lancet Oncol2012;13:113115.

  • 104.

    BudachVStuschkeMBudachW. Hyperfractionated accelerated chemoradiation with concurrent fluorouracil-mitomycin is more effective than dose-escalated hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer: final results of the radiotherapy cooperative clinical trials group of the German Cancer Society 95-06 Prospective Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol2005;23:11251135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 105.

    BudachWHehrTBudachV. A meta-analysis of hyperfractionated and accelerated radiotherapy and combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in unresected locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. BMC Cancer2006;6:2828.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 106.

    AngKKHarrisJWheelerR. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med2010;363:2435.

  • 107.

    BensadounRJBenezeryKDassonvilleO. French multicenter phase III randomized study testing concurrent twice-a-day radiotherapy and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil chemotherapy (BiRCF) in unresectable pharyngeal carcinoma: results at 2 years (FNCLCC-GORTEC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;64:983994.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 108.

    BrizelDMAlbersMEFisherSR. Hyperfractionated irradiation with or without concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med1998;338:17981804.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 109.

    JeremicBShibamotoYMilicicB. Hyperfractionated radiation therapy with or without concurrent low-dose daily cisplatin in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol2000;18:14581464.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 110.

    AngKZhangQWheelerRH. A phase III trial (RTOG 0129) of two radiation-cisplatin regimens for head and neck carcinomas (HNC): impact of radiation and cisplatin intensity on outcome [abstract]. J Clin Oncol2010;28(Suppl 15):Abstract 5507.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 111.

    DenisFGaraudPBardetE. Final results of the 94-01 French Head and Neck Oncology and Radiotherapy Group randomized trial comparing radiotherapy alone with concomitant radiochemotherapy in advanced-stage oropharynx carcinoma. J Clin Oncol2004;22:6976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 112.

    DenisFGaraudPBardetE. Late toxicity results of the GORTEC 94-01 randomized trial comparing radiotherapy with concomitant radiochemotherapy for advanced-stage oropharynx carcinoma: comparison of LENT/SOMA, RTOG/EORTC, and NCI-CTC scoring systems. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2003;55:9398.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 113.

    BourhisJCalaisGLapeyreM. Concomitant radiochemotherapy or accelerated radiotherapy: analysis of two randomized trials of the French Head and Neck Cancer Group (GORTEC). Semin Oncol2004;31:822826.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 114.

    MachtayMMoughanJTrottiA. Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol2008;26:35823589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 115.

    HartfordACPaliscaMGEichlerTJ. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;73:914.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 116.

    HolmesTDasRLowD. American Society of Radiation Oncology recommendations for documenting intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;74:13111318.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 117.

    GregoireVMackieTR. State of the art on dose prescription, reporting and recording in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (ICRU report No. 83). Cancer Radiother2011;15:555559.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 118.

    WuQManningMSchmidt-UllrichRMohanR. The potential for sparing of parotids and escalation of biologically effective dose with intensity-modulated radiation treatments of head and neck cancers: a treatment design study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2000;46:195205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 119.

    ChaoKSMajhailNHuangCJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy reduces late salivary toxicity without compromising tumor control in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma: a comparison with conventional techniques. Radiother Oncol2001;61:275280.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 120.

    DoganNKingSEmamiB. Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2003;57:14801491.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 121.

    LiYTaylorJMTen HakenRKEisbruchA. The impact of dose on parotid salivary recovery in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;67:660669.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 122.

    VergeerMRDoornaertPARietveldDH. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces radiation-induced morbidity and improves health-related quality of life: results of a nonrandomized prospective study using a standardized follow-up program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;74:18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 123.

    PowEHKwongDLMcMillanAS. Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;66:981991.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 124.

    KamMKLeungSFZeeB. Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol2007;25:48734879.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 125.

    PfisterDCassilethBDengG. Acupuncture for pain and dysfunction after neck dissection: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol2010;28:25652570.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 126.

    ScarantinoCLeVequeFSwannRS. Effect of pilocarpine during radiation therapy: results of RTOG 97-09, a phase III randomized study in head and neck cancer patients. J Support Oncol2006;4:252258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 127.

    PetroneDCondemiJJFifeR. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of cevimeline in Sjogren’s syndrome patients with xerostomia and keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Arthritis Rheum2002;46:748754.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 128.

    GregoireVJerajRLeeJAO’SullivanB. Radiotherapy for head and neck tumours in 2012 and beyond: conformal, tailored, and adaptive?Lancet Oncol2012;13:e292300.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 129.

    GalvinJMDe NeveW. Intensity modulating and other radiation therapy devices for dose painting. J Clin Oncol2007;25:924930.

  • 130.

    LauveAMorrisMSchmidt-UllrichR. Simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinomas: II—clinical results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2004;60:374387.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 131.

    SchoenfeldGOAmdurRJMorrisCG. Patterns of failure and toxicity after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2008;71:377385.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 132.

    AngKKChenACurranWJJr. Head and neck carcinoma in the United States: first comprehensive report of the Longitudinal Oncology Registry of Head and Neck Carcinoma (LORHAN). Cancer2012;118:57835792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 133.

    GuadagnoloBALiuCCCormierJNDuXL. Evaluation of trends in the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer from 2000 through 2005: socioeconomic disparity and geographic variation in a large population-based cohort. Cancer2010;116:35053512.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 134.

    ChiANguyenNPTseW. Intensity modulated radiotherapy for sinonasal malignancies with a focus on optic pathway preservation. J Hematol Oncol2013;6:4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 135.

    LeeNYde ArrudaFFPuriDR. A comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and concomitant boost radiotherapy in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;66:966974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 136.

    de ArrudaFFPuriDRZhungJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;64:363373.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 137.

    GardenASMorrisonWHWongPF. Disease-control rates following intensity-modulated radiation therapy for small primary oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;67:438444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 138.

    EisbruchALevendagPCFengFY. Can IMRT or brachytherapy reduce dysphagia associated with chemoradiotherapy of head and neck cancer? The Michigan and Rotterdam experiences. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;69:S4042.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 139.

    WoldenSLChenWCPfisterDG. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharynx cancer: update of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006;64:5762.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 140.

    MadaniIBonteKVakaetL. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for sinonasal tumors: Ghent University Hospital update. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;73:424432.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 141.

    EisbruchA. Reducing xerostomia by IMRT: what may, and may not, be achieved. J Clin Oncol2007;25:48634864.

  • 142.

    NuttingCMMordenJPHarringtonKJ. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol2011;12:127136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 143.

    HodgeCWBentzenSMWongG. Are we influencing outcome in oropharynx cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy? An inter-era comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;69:10321041.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 144.

    VeldemanLMadaniIHulstaertF. Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies. Lancet Oncol2008;9:367375.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 145.

    TurakaALiTSharmaNK. Increased recurrences using intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the postoperative setting. Am J Clin Oncol2010;33:599603.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 146.

    ChenAMFarwellDGLuuQ. Marginal misses after postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2011;80:14231429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 147.

    EisbruchAMarshLHDawsonLA. Recurrences near base of skull after IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: implications for target delineation in high neck and for parotid gland sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2004;59:2842.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 148.

    RosenthalDITrottiA. Strategies for managing radiation-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol2009;19:2934.

  • 149.

    YaoMLuMSavvidesPS. Distant metastases in head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012;83:684689.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 150.

    FrankSJRosenthalDIPetsuksiriJ. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical node squamous cell carcinoma metastases from unknown head-and-neck primary site: M. D. Anderson Cancer Center outcomes and patterns of failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2010;78:10051010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 151.

    TraynorAMRichardsGMHartigGK. Comprehensive IMRT plus weekly cisplatin for advanced head and neck cancer: the University of Wisconsin experience. Head Neck2010;32:599606.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 152.

    SherDJThotakuraVBalboniTA. Treatment of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma with adjuvant or definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2011;81:e215222.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 153.

    GeretschlagerABojaxhiuBCroweS. Outcome and patterns of failure after postoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced or high-risk oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol2012;7:175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 154.

    SchoenfeldJDSherDJNorrisCMJr. Salivary gland tumors treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012;82:308314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 155.

    GomezDRZhungJEGomezJ. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in postoperative treatment of oral cavity cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;73:10961103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 156.

    LeeNYO’MearaWChanK. Concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregionally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;69:459468.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 157.

    ParisKJSpanosWJJrLindbergRD. Phase I-II study of multiple daily fractions for palliation of advanced head and neck malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1993;25:657660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 158.

    StevensCMHuangSHFungS. Retrospective study of palliative radiotherapy in newly diagnosed head and neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2011;81:958963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 159.

    PorcedduSVRosserBBurmeisterBH. Hypofractionated radiotherapy for the palliation of advanced head and neck cancer in patients unsuitable for curative treatment—“Hypo Trial”. Radiother Oncol2007;85:456462.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 160.

    CorryJPetersLJCostaID. The ‘QUAD SHOT’—a phase II study of palliative radiotherapy for incurable head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol2005;77:137142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 161.

    ColevasADReadRThornhillJ. Hypothyroidism incidence after multimodality treatment for stage III and IV squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2001;51:599604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 162.

    TellRLundellGNilssonB. Long-term incidence of hypothyroidism after radiotherapy in patients with head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2004;60:395400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 163.

    PosnerMRErvinTJMillerD. Incidence of hypothyroidism following multimodality treatment for advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Laryngoscope1984;94:451454.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 164.

    CousinsNMacAulayFLangH. A systematic review of interventions for eating and drinking problems following treatment for head and neck cancer suggests a need to look beyond swallowing and trismus. Oral Oncol2013;49:387400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 165.

    LocherJLBonnerJACarrollWR. Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in treatment of head and neck cancer: a comprehensive review and call for evidence-based medicine. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2011;35:365374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 166.

    LangiusJAvan DijkAMDoornaertP. More than 10% weight loss in head and neck cancer patients during radiotherapy is independently associated with deterioration in quality of life. Nutr Cancer2013;65:7683.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 167.

    AugustDAHuhmannMB. A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: nutrition support therapy during adult anticancer treatment and in hematopoietic cell transplantation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2009;33:472500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 168.

    GargSYooJWinquistE. Nutritional support for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer2010;18:667677.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 169.

    RabeneckLMcCulloughLBWrayNP. Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet1997;349:496498.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 170.

    Dysphagia Section Oral Care Study GroupMultinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO). Swallowing dysfunction in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer2012;20:433443.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 171.

    WilsonJACardingPNPattersonJM. Dysphagia after nonsurgical head and neck cancer treatment: patients’ perspectives. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2011;145:767771.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 172.

    TschiesnerU. Preservation of organ function in head and neck cancer [published online ahead of print December 20, 2012]. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg2012;11:Doc07. doi: 10.3205/cto000089.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 173.

    RoeJWCardingPNRhys-EvansPH. Assessment and management of dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer who receive radiotherapy in the United Kingdom—a web-based survey. Oral Oncol2012;48:343348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 174.

    RussiEGCorvoRMerlottiA. Swallowing dysfunction in head and neck cancer patients treated by radiotherapy: review and recommendations of the supportive task group of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology. Cancer Treat Rev2012;38:10331049.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 175.

    CnossenICde BreeRRinkelRN. Computerized monitoring of patient-reported speech and swallowing problems in head and neck cancer patients in clinical practice. Support Care Cancer2012;20:29252931.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 176.

    LangendijkJADoornaertPVerdonck-de LeeuwIM. Impact of late treatment-related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol2008;26:37703776.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 177.

    WalkerMPWichmanBChengAL. Impact of radiotherapy dose on dentition breakdown in head and neck cancer patients. Pract Radiat Oncol2011;1:142148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 178.

    JensenSBPedersenAMVissinkA. A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: prevalence, severity and impact on quality of life. Support Care Cancer2010;18:10391060.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 179.

    EpsteinJBThariatJBensadounRJ. Oral complications of cancer and cancer therapy: from cancer treatment to survivorship. CA Cancer J Clin2012;62:400422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 180.

    DuarteVMLiuYFRafizadehS. Comparison of dental health of patients with head and neck cancer receiving IMRT vs conventional radiation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2014;150:8186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 181.

    EisbruchATen HakenRKKimHM. Dose, volume, and function relationships in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity-modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1999;45:577587.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 182.

    Murdoch-KinchCAKimHMVinebergKA. Dose-effect relationships for the submandibular salivary glands and implications for their sparing by intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2008;72:373382.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 183.

    LittleMSchipperMFengFY. Reducing xerostomia after chemo-IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: beyond sparing the parotid glands. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012;83:10071014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 184.

    ChaoKS. Protection of salivary function by intensity-modulated radiation therapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol2002;12:2025.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 185.

    Murdoch-KinchCAZwetchkenbaumS. Dental management of the head and neck cancer patient treated with radiation therapy. J Mich Dent Assoc2011;93:2837.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 186.

    StuderGGlanzmannCStuderSP. Risk-adapted dental care prior to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed2011;121:216229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 187.

    Ben-DavidMADiamanteMRadawskiJD. Lack of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: likely contributions of both dental care and improved dose distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;68:396402.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 188.

    SchiodtMHermundNU. Management of oral disease prior to radiation therapy. Support Care Cancer2002;10:4043.

  • 189.

    ThariatJRamusLDarcourtV. Compliance with fluoride custom trays in irradiated head and neck cancer patients. Support Care Cancer2012;20:18111814.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 190.

    HoriotJCBoneMCIbrahimECastroJR. Systematic dental management in head and neck irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1981;7:10251029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 191.

    SulaimanFHurynJMZlotolowIM. Dental extractions in the irradiated head and neck patient: a retrospective analysis of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center protocols, criteria, and end results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2003;61:11231131.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 192.

    BeumerJ3rdHarrisonRSandersBKurraschM. Postradiation dental extractions: a review of the literature and a report of 72 episodes. Head Neck Surg1983;6:581586.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 193.

    ChangDTSandowPRMorrisCG. Do pre-irradiation dental extractions reduce the risk of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible?Head Neck2007;29:528536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 194.

    GomezDREstiloCLWoldenSL. Correlation of osteoradionecrosis and dental events with dosimetric parameters in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2011;81:e207213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 195.

    GallerCEpsteinJBGuzeKA. The development of osteoradionecrosis from sites of periodontal disease activity: report of 3 cases. J Periodontol1992;63:310316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 196.

    LeeIJKoomWSLeeCG. Risk factors and dose-effect relationship for mandibular osteoradionecrosis in oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009;75:10841091.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 197.

    O’DellKSinhaU. Osteoradionecrosis. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2011;23:455464.

  • 198.

    GevorgyanAWongKPoonI. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible: a case series at a single institution. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2013;42:46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 199.

    JacobsonASBuchbinderDHuKUrkenML. Paradigm shifts in the management of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Oral Oncol2010;46:795801.

  • 200.

    OhHKChambersMSMartinJW. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible: treatment outcomes and factors influencing the progress of osteoradionecrosis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2009;67:13781386.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 201.

    RhodusNLBereuterJ. Clinical evaluation of a commercially available oral moisturizer in relieving signs and symptoms of xerostomia in postirradiation head and neck cancer patients and patients with Sjogren’s syndrome. J Otolaryngol2000;29:2834.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 202.

    SinghMLPapasAS. Long-term clinical observation of dental caries in salivary hypofunction patients using a supersaturated calcium-phosphate remineralizing rinse. J Clin Dent2009;20:8792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 203.

    EpsteinJBSchubertMM. Synergistic effect of sialagogues in management of xerostomia after radiation therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol1987;64:179182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 204.

    GorskyMEpsteinJBParryJ. The efficacy of pilocarpine and bethanechol upon saliva production in cancer patients with hyposalivation following radiation therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2004;97:190195.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 205.

    JohnsonJTFerrettiGANetheryWJ. Oral pilocarpine for post-irradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med1993;329:390395.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 206.

    DholamKPSomaniPPPrabhuSDAmbreSR. Effectiveness of fluoride varnish application as cariostatic and desensitizing agent in irradiated head and neck cancer patients. Int J Dent2013;2013:824982.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 207.

    EpsteinJBvan der MeijEHLunnRStevenson-MooreP. Effects of compliance with fluoride gel application on caries and caries risk in patients after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod1996;82:268275.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 208.

    HoriotJCSchraubSBoneMC. Dental preservation in patients irradiated for head and neck tumours: a 10-year experience with topical fluoride and a randomized trial between two fluoridation methods. Radiother Oncol1983;1:7782.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 209.

    FlemingTJ. Use of topical fluoride by patients receiving cancer therapy. Curr Probl Cancer1983;7:3741.

  • 210.

    Joyston-BechalSHayesKDavenportESHardieJM. Caries incidence, mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in irradiated patients during a 12-month preventive programme using chlorhexidine and fluoride. Caries Res1992;26:384390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 211.

    ShulmanDHShipmanBWillisFB. Treating trismus with dynamic splinting: a case report. J Oral Sci2009;51:141144.

  • 212.

    TeguhDNLevendagPCVoetP. Trismus in patients with oropharyngeal cancer: relationship with dose in structures of mastication apparatus. Head Neck2008;30:622630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 213.

    BrunelloDLMandikosMN. The use of a dynamic opening device in the treatment of radiation induced trismus. Aust Prosthodont J1995;9:4548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 214.

    EpsteinJBEmertonSLeNDStevenson-MooreP. A double-blind crossover trial of Oral Balance gel and Biotene toothpaste versus placebo in patients with xerostomia following radiation therapy. Oral Oncol1999;35:132137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 215.

    PapasARussellDSinghM. Caries clinical trial of a remineralising toothpaste in radiation patients. Gerodontology2008;25:7688.

  • 216.

    RodelRMSteinerWMullerRM. Endoscopic laser surgery of early glottic cancer: involvement of the anterior commissure. Head Neck2009;31:583592.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 217.

    ZouhairAAzriaDCouckeP. Decreased local control following radiation therapy alone in early-stage glottic carcinoma with anterior commissure extension. Strahlenther Onkol2004;180:8490.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 218.

    SilverCEBeitlerJJShahaAR. Current trends in initial management of laryngeal cancer: the declining use of open surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2009;266:13331352.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 219.

    ForastiereAAZhangQWeberRS. Long-term results of RTOG 91-11: a comparison of three nonsurgical treatment strategies to preserve the larynx in patients with locally advanced larynx cancer. J Clin Oncol2013;31:845852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 220.

    ForastiereAAGoepfertHMaorM. Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for organ preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med2003;349:20912098.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 221.

    Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer. The Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group. N Engl J Med1991;324:16851690.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 222.

    AdelsteinDJLiYAdamsGL. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol2003;21:9298.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 223.

    BonnerJAHarariPMGiraltJ. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol2010;11:2128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 224.

    PosnerMRHershockDMBlajmanCR. Cisplatin and fluorouracil alone or with docetaxel in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med2007;357:17051715.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 225.

    VermorkenJBRemenarEvan HerpenC. Cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel in unresectable head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med2007;357:16951704.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 226.

    LoTCWileyALJrAnsfieldFJ. Combined radiation therapy and 5-fluorouracil for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: a randomized study. AJR Am J Roentgenol1976;126:229235.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 227.

    SanchizFMillaATornerJ. Single fraction per day versus two fractions per day versus radiochemotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1990;19:13471350.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 228.

    BrowmanGPCrippsCHodsonDI. Placebo-controlled randomized trial of infusional fluorouracil during standard radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol1994;12:26482653.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 229.

    SmidLLesnicarHZakotnikB. Radiotherapy, combined with simultaneous chemotherapy with mitomycin C and bleomycin for inoperable head and neck cancer—reliminary report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1995;32:769775.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 230.

    MerlanoMBenassoMCorvoR. Five-year update of a randomized trial of alternating radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in treatment of unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Natl Cancer Inst1996;88:583589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 231.

    WendtTGGrabenbauerGGRodelCM. Simultaneous radiochemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in advanced head and neck cancer: a randomized multicenter study. J Clin Oncol1998;16:13181324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 232.

    MunroAJ. An overview of randomised controlled trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in head and neck cancer. Br J Cancer1995;71:8391.

  • 233.

    El-SayedSNelsonN. Adjuvant and adjunctive chemotherapy in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region. A meta-analysis of prospective and randomized trials. J Clin Oncol1996;14:838847.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 234.

    PignonJPBourhisJDomengeCDesigneL. Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy on Head and Neck Cancer. Lancet2000;355:949955.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 235.

    PignonJPle MaitreABourhisJ. Meta-Analyses of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC): an update. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;69:S112114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 236.

    BonnerJAHarariPMGiraltJ. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med2006;354:567578.

  • 237.

    GardenASHarrisJVokesEE. Preliminary results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 97-03: a randomized phase II trial of concurrent radiation and chemotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol2004;22:28562864.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 238.

    GardenASHarrisJVokesEE. Results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 97-03—a randomized phase II trial of concurrent radiation and chemotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: long-term results and late toxicities [abstract]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007;69:S140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 239.

    FuryMGPfisterDG. Current recommendations for systemic therapy of recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2011;9:681689.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 240.

    MolinYFayetteJ. Current chemotherapies for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer. Anticancer Drugs2011;22:621625.

  • 241.

    HoffmannTK. Systemic therapy strategies for head-neck carcinomas: Current status. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg2012;11:Doc03.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 242.

    PriceKACohenEE. Current treatment options for metastatic head and neck cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol2012;13:3546.

  • 243.

    JacobsCLymanGVelez-GarciaE. A phase III randomized study comparing cisplatin and fluorouracil as single agents and in combination for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol1992;10:257263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 244.

    BurtnessBGoldwasserMAFloodW. Phase III randomized trial of cisplatin plus placebo compared with cisplatin plus cetuximab in metastatic/recurrent head and neck cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol2005;23:86468654.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 245.

    GrauJJCaballeroMVergerE. Weekly paclitaxel for platin-resistant stage IV head and neck cancer patients. Acta Otolaryngol2009;129:12941299.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 246.

    GuardiolaEPeyradeFChaigneauL. Results of a randomised phase II study comparing docetaxel with methotrexate in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. Eur J Cancer2004;40:20712076.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 247.

    CatimelGVerweijJMattijssenV. Docetaxel (Taxotere): an active drug for the treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. EORTC Early Clinical Trials Group. Ann Oncol1994;5:533537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 248.

    StewartJSCohenEELicitraL. Phase III study of gefitinib compared with intravenous methotrexate for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [corrected]. J Clin Oncol2009;27:18641871.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 249.

    ForastiereAAMetchBSchullerDE. Randomized comparison of cisplatin plus fluorouracil and carboplatin plus fluorouracil versus methotrexate in advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol1992;10:12451251.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 250.

    HaigentzMJrHartlDMSilverCE. Distant metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Part III. Treatment. Oral Oncol2012;48:787793.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 251.

    DegardinMOliveiraJGeoffroisL. An EORTC-ECSG phase II study of vinorelbine in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ann Oncol1998;9:11031107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 252.

    Martinez-TruferoJIslaDAdansaJC. Phase II study of capecitabine as palliative treatment for patients with recurrent and metastatic squamous head and neck cancer after previous platinum-based treatment. Br J Cancer2010;102:16871691.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 253.

    EschwegeFSancho-GarnierHGerardJP. Ten-year results of randomized trial comparing radiotherapy and concomitant bleomycin to radiotherapy alone in epidermoid carcinomas of the oropharynx: experience of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. NCI Monogr1988:275278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 254.

    MinatelEGiganteMFranchinG. Combined radiotherapy and bleomycin in patients with inoperable head and neck cancer with unfavourable prognostic factors and severe symptoms. Oral Oncol1998;34:119122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 255.

    SaxmanSMannBCanfieldV. A phase II trial of vinorelbine in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Am J Clin Oncol1998;21:398400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 256.

    MartinMDiaz-RubioEGonzalez LarribaJL. Ifosfamide in advanced epidermoid head and neck cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol1993;31:340342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 257.

    ZhangLZhangYHuangPY. Phase II clinical study of gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol2008;61:3338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 258.

    VermorkenJBTrigoJHittR. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. J Clin Oncol2007;25:21712177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 259.

    ColevasAD. Chemotherapy options for patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol2006;24:26442652.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 260.

    ForastiereAAShankDNeubergD. Final report of a phase II evaluation of paclitaxel in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial (PA390). Cancer1998;82:22702274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 261.

    VermorkenJBMesiaRRiveraF. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med2008;359:11161127.

  • 262.

    SamlowskiWEMoonJKueblerJP. Evaluation of the combination of docetaxel/carboplatin in patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): a Southwest Oncology Group Phase II study. Cancer Invest2007;25:182188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 263.

    GibsonMKLiYMurphyB. Randomized phase III evaluation of cisplatin plus fluorouracil versus cisplatin plus paclitaxel in advanced head and neck cancer (E1395): an intergroup trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol2005;23:35623567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 264.

    BrowmanGPCroninL. Standard chemotherapy in squamous cell head and neck cancer: what we have learned from randomized trials. Semin Oncol1994;21:311319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 265.

    ClavelMVermorkenJBCognettiF. Randomized comparison of cisplatin, methotrexate, bleomycin and vincristine (CABO) versus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF) versus cisplatin (C) in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A phase III study of the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Cooperative Group. Ann Oncol1994;5:521526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 266.

    CohenRB. Current challenges and clinical investigations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)- and ErbB family-targeted agents in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Cancer Treat Rev2014;40:567577.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 267.

    MachielsJPSubramanianSRuzsaA. Zalutumumab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol2011;12:333343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 268.

    GuigayJFayetteJDilliesAF. Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin (TPEx) as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): final results of phase II trial GORTEC 2008-03 [abstract]. J Clin Oncol2012;30(Suppl 15):Abstract 5505.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 269.

    HerbstRSArquetteMShinDM. Phase II multicenter study of the epidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab and cisplatin for recurrent and refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol2005;23:55785587.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Article Sections

Figures

  • View in gallery
    NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

    Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

    Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

    Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

    Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NNCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2014

    Version 2.2014, 05-30-14 ©2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

References

  • AdelsteinDJLiYAdamsGL. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol2003;21:9298.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AngKKChenACurranWJJr. Head and neck carcinoma in the United States: first comprehensive report of the Longitudinal Oncology Registry of Head and Neck Carcinoma (LORHAN). Cancer2012;118:57835792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BernierJCooperJSPajakTF. Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501). Head Neck2005;27:843850.

    • Search Google Scholar