Lower survival for surgical treatment of HPV-related oropharynx cancer at community cancer centers

Danielle R Trakimas, Wojciech K Mydlarz, Leila J Mady, Christine G Gourin, Wayne Koch, Nyall R London, Harry Quon, Ana P Kiess, Tanguy Y Seiwert, Carole Fakhry
{"title":"Lower survival for surgical treatment of HPV-related oropharynx cancer at community cancer centers","authors":"Danielle R Trakimas, Wojciech K Mydlarz, Leila J Mady, Christine G Gourin, Wayne Koch, Nyall R London, Harry Quon, Ana P Kiess, Tanguy Y Seiwert, Carole Fakhry","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The rate of primary surgery for human papillomavirus-related oropharynx cancer (HPVOPC) has recently declined, while utilization of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has lagged at community cancer centers (CCs). We hypothesize that differences in overall survival (OS) exist between patients undergoing surgery for HPVOPC at CCs and low (<15 TORS/year; LVACs) and high (≥15 TORS/year; HVACS) TORS volume academic centers. Methods Cases from the US National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of HPVOPC from 2010-2019 that underwent primary surgical treatment were included. Trends in TORS utilization, rates of positive surgical margins (PMs), quality of adjuvant treatment and 5-year OS were compared between CCs, LVACs and HVACs. Results 5,406 cases met study criteria. A significantly lower proportion of cases at CCs utilized TORS than at LVACs or HVACs (26.2% vs 44.0% vs 73.9%, respectively, p < .001). The rate of PMs was significantly higher at CCs than at LVACs or HVACs (25.7% vs 15.3% vs 9.2%, p < .001). A greater proportion of cases undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) received prolonged courses (23.6% vs 13.1% vs 8.8%, p < .001) or excessive doses (16.5% vs 11.5% vs 8.7%, p < .001) of RT at CCs than at LVACs or HVACs, respectively. 5-year OS was lowest at CCs (85.2%, 95%CI: 81.7-88.2%), intermediate at LVACs (88.9%, 95%CI: 87.2-90.4%), and highest at HVACs (91.4%, 95%CI: 89.5-92.9%; pLR<0.01). Conclusions Significant differences in the type and quality of surgical and adjuvant treatment for HPVOPC exist between facility types based on TORS volume. Overall survival was lowest at CCs, intermediate at LVACs and highest at HVACs.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The rate of primary surgery for human papillomavirus-related oropharynx cancer (HPVOPC) has recently declined, while utilization of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has lagged at community cancer centers (CCs). We hypothesize that differences in overall survival (OS) exist between patients undergoing surgery for HPVOPC at CCs and low (<15 TORS/year; LVACs) and high (≥15 TORS/year; HVACS) TORS volume academic centers. Methods Cases from the US National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of HPVOPC from 2010-2019 that underwent primary surgical treatment were included. Trends in TORS utilization, rates of positive surgical margins (PMs), quality of adjuvant treatment and 5-year OS were compared between CCs, LVACs and HVACs. Results 5,406 cases met study criteria. A significantly lower proportion of cases at CCs utilized TORS than at LVACs or HVACs (26.2% vs 44.0% vs 73.9%, respectively, p < .001). The rate of PMs was significantly higher at CCs than at LVACs or HVACs (25.7% vs 15.3% vs 9.2%, p < .001). A greater proportion of cases undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) received prolonged courses (23.6% vs 13.1% vs 8.8%, p < .001) or excessive doses (16.5% vs 11.5% vs 8.7%, p < .001) of RT at CCs than at LVACs or HVACs, respectively. 5-year OS was lowest at CCs (85.2%, 95%CI: 81.7-88.2%), intermediate at LVACs (88.9%, 95%CI: 87.2-90.4%), and highest at HVACs (91.4%, 95%CI: 89.5-92.9%; pLR<0.01). Conclusions Significant differences in the type and quality of surgical and adjuvant treatment for HPVOPC exist between facility types based on TORS volume. Overall survival was lowest at CCs, intermediate at LVACs and highest at HVACs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在社区癌症中心接受与人乳头瘤病毒相关的口咽癌手术治疗的生存率较低
背景 最近,人乳头瘤病毒相关口咽癌(HPVOPC)的初级手术率有所下降,而社区癌症中心(CCs)对经口机器人手术(TORS)的使用却滞后。我们假设,在社区癌症中心和低TORS使用率(<15 TORS/年;LVACs)和高TORS使用率(≥15 TORS/年;HVACS)学术中心接受HPVOPC手术的患者之间存在总生存率(OS)差异。方法 纳入美国国家癌症数据库中 2010-2019 年期间诊断为 HPVOPC 并接受初级手术治疗的病例。比较了CC、LVAC和HVAC之间的TORS使用趋势、手术切缘阳性率(PMs)、辅助治疗质量和5年OS。结果 5406 个病例符合研究标准。CC使用TORS的病例比例明显低于LVAC或HVAC(分别为26.2% vs 44.0% vs 73.9%,p&p;lt; .001)。CC的PM率明显高于LVAC或HVAC(分别为25.7% vs 15.3% vs 9.2%,p< .001)。与LVACs或HVACs相比,在CC接受辅助放疗(RT)的病例中,接受延长疗程(23.6% vs 13.1% vs 8.8%,p p &;lt;.001)或超剂量(16.5% vs 11.5% vs 8.7%,p p &;lt;.001)放疗的比例更高。CC的5年OS最低(85.2%,95%CI:81.7-88.2%),LVAC居中(88.9%,95%CI:87.2-90.4%),HVAC最高(91.4%,95%CI:89.5-92.9%;pLR<0.01)。结论 根据TORS的数量,不同类型的医疗机构在HPVOPC手术和辅助治疗的类型和质量方面存在显著差异。CC的总生存率最低,LVAC居中,HVAC最高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Elevated risk of lung cancer among asian American females who have never smoked: an emerging cancer disparity First Cycle Toxicity and Survival in Patients with Rare Cancers Treated with Checkpoint Inhibitors The Association of Where Patients with Prostate Cancer Live and Receive Care on Racial Treatment Inequities Projected Outcomes of Reduced-Biopsy Management of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Implications for Relabeling Proinflammatory Dietary Pattern and Risk of Total and Subtypes of Breast Cancer Among U.S. Women
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1