Oral Cancer News

HPV vaccine gains support of ADA

Source: Multi Briefs
Date: October 24th, 2018
Author: Tammy Adams

The American Cancer Society estimates there will be more than 50,000 new cases of oral cancer in 2018. And between 70 to 80 percent of these cases will be attributed to the human papillomavirus virus (HPV), a virus that has types associated with oropharyngeal cancer.

These staggering numbers call for action; action the American Dental Society is willing to take. Why? Because the HPV vaccine could prevent the vast majority of these new cases, but compared to other vaccines in the U.S., it is underutilized.

According to a resolution passed recently by the ADA House of Delegates, the ADA urges dentists to support the use and administration of the human papillomavirus virus vaccine, recognizing it as a way to help prevent infection of the types of HPV associated with oropharyngeal cancer.

Resolution 53H-2018 cites recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It states that the vaccination is a “safe and effective intervention to decrease the burden of oral and oropharyngeal HPV infection.”

The policy is the result of a multifaceted ADA council proposal that includes input from the Council on Scientific Affairs, the Council on Advocacy for Access and Prevention and the Council on Dental Practice. A workgroup committed to the HPV issue and led by ADA volunteer members developed an evidence-based background report to help write the policy.

Dr. Paul Eleazer, past chair of the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, said that he is encouraged to see the ADA “get behind” this growing crisis, referring to the rising number of HPV-associated cancers being reported. “There is incontrovertible evidence that this virus is responsible for the sharp uptick in oropharyngeal cancers, especially in younger patients and young adults,” said Dr. Eleazer.

In 2017, the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs and Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry published “Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation of Potentially Malignant Disorders in the Oral Cavity” to inform dental professionals about the potential use of adjuncts as triage tools for the evaluation of lesions, including potentially malignant disorders, in the oral cavity. To view this guideline, visit ADA.org/OralCancer.

To read the full resolution related to the HPV vaccine, members can log in to the Member Center on ADA.org and click on “Committee C—Dental Education, Science and Related Matters” under Reports and Resolutions. It is Resolution 53.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

Lowering Radiation Dose Could Improve QoL, Cut Costs in Oral Ca

Source: MedPage Today, Medpage.com
Date: October 25th, 2018
Author: Elizabeth Hlavinka

SAN ANTONIO — Radiation de-intensification was tied to a quicker rebound in a number of quality of life (QoL) measures and reduced costs for patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, a pair of studies found.

With lower doses of radiotherapy (RT), QoL measures including speech, pain, and socialization still generally worsened after treatment, but returned to baseline within 3 to 6 months, reported Kevin Pearlstein, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

And more aggressive de-intensification led to a 22% cost reduction for treatment overall ($45,884 versus $57,845 with standard care), with 33% lower costs for RT itself and 50% lower costs for post-treatment care (P=0.01), according to findings presented by Mark Waddle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.

The studies were presented here at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) meeting during a session on improving outcomes while minimizing toxicity in oropharyngeal cancer.

In the research from Pearlstein’s group, patients reported global QoL scores of 81 at baseline (using the 100-point EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, where higher scores connote better health), which dipped to 69 at 3 months post-treatment, then rose to 75 at 6 months. Global QoL scores increased to 82 and 84 by months 12 and 24, respectively.

Common long-term side effects such as sticky saliva, taste, and ability to swallow did not return to baseline within months 3 to 6, but continued to improve between months 12 and 24. Pearlstein noted that swallowing took longer to return to baseline, typically between 1 to 3 years.

“This highlights the possibility that there can be improvement in these symptoms with longer-term follow-up,” he said.

Although oropharynx cancers associated with HPV generally have a more favorable prognosis compared with those that are not, the treatment is similar for both. As a result, these lower-risk patients still typically experience symptoms of dysphagia, dry mouth, and taste changes for upwards of 1 year after treatment, Pearlstein said.

While standard treatments typically include 70 Gy RT along with 100 mg/m2cisplatin, this study investigated whether patients given 60 Gy RT along with weekly 30 mg/m2 doses of cisplatin would result in improved QoL. Cisplatin-intolerant patients were treated with cetuximab, and patients who could not tolerate either did not receive chemotherapy.

The authors also conducted a multivariate analysis that controlled for type of chemotherapy, gender, and age. Those with with worse baseline symptoms of dry mouth, taste, and sticky saliva were more likely to return to baseline function at 12 months (ORs of 1.06, 1.09, and 1.02, respectively). Similar associations for sticky saliva and swallowing were found among patients who underwent unilateral neck RT.

“One obvious limitation is that we don’t have a direct comparison with standard intensity chemotherapy/radiotherapy,” Pearlstein said. “However, when we view these findings in the context of what we already know for patients with head and neck cancer, we do feel our findings suggest that patients who receive de-intensified chemotherapy/radiotherapy may benefit from faster return to baseline quality of life, continue improvement in symptoms over time, and less long-term morbidity.”

To conduct the study, the researchers collected data from two de-intensification phase II trials that took place from 2012 to 2017. A total of 126 patients were included, a majority of which were ages 60 and over (53%) and were non-smokers (63%). Patients were followed for an average of 25 months.

Cost of Treatment

De-intensification of radiation may also benefit these patients by decreasing total treatment costs, according to an analysis of a prospective phase II study.

“Several studies have or are investigating de-escalation of treatment to reduce toxicity while maintaining outcomes,” Waddle said during his presentation. “However, those studies haven’t investigated the cost of care that may be associated with de-escalation of treatment.”

He reported that the median cost was $17,309 for RT among those who received de-escalated doses compared with $28,161 with standard treatment (P<0.0001). The per-patient costs were $797 versus $933 per month, respectively, in the first 6 months after treatment and $518 versus $611 in the 16 to 24 months after treatment.

Among the post-treatment savings, gastrointestinal-related costs were 79% lower (P<0.01), hospitalization costs were 40% lower, and emergency department visit costs were 90% lower.

This study obtained data from the MC1273 trial, in which 68 patients received aggressive de-escalated doses of RT (30-36 Gy), and then compared the costs to 84 patients treated with standard of care (60-66 Gy). The average patient age was 58.5 years and the majority of them were white men.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

HPV blood test shows promise for tracking head and neck cancer after treatment

Source: www.eurekalert.org
Author: from UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

A new blood test developed by University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers shows promise for tracking HPV-linked head and neck cancer patients to ensure they remain cancer-free after treatment.

Researchers will present preliminary findings at the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology in San Antonio on Tuesday, Oct. 23. Their study evaluated a blood test for HPV-linked oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, which is a cancer of the back of the throat. The findings demonstrated the test could be an effective and less costly alternative for monitoring for cancer recurrence after radiation treatment.

“The goal of this study was to evaluate whether this test can be used to track patients who are completely asymptomatic, and thought to have no active cancer,” said UNC Lineberger’s Gaorav P. Gupta, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the UNC School of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology. “We already knew that our test was very sensitive and specific, but we did not know the degree to which it would be useful in early detection of disease recurrence in patients who are otherwise thought to be disease-free.”

HPV, or the human papillomavirus, is the most common cause of sexually transmitted infection in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infection with certain strains of HPV can cause cervical cancer in women, genital cancers in both men and women, and cancer of the oropharynx, which is the back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils. The CDC estimates that approximately 70 percent of oropharyngeal cancer cases diagnosed in the United States are probably caused by HPV, which accounts for nearly 13,000 cases per year.

Gupta and his colleagues developed a blood test that can detect fragments of HPV’s genetic material that have been released into the blood by dying cancer cells.

“We realized it is important to distinguish HPV DNA that’s being released by dying tumor cells from the natural HPV DNA that is present during a viral infection,” Gupta said. “Our method accomplishes this feat, thus making it a more sensitive and specific test for cancer.”

For their study, the researchers followed 89 patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who received chemotherapy and radiation treatment. They administered the blood test before and during treatment, and then during follow-up visits. The patients received scans three months after treatment, and then came back for clinical exams every two to four months during the first two years, and then every six months in years three through five. Patients received X-rays or CT scans every six months, and again if they had positive HPV results.

“We are detecting subclinical disease with this blood test, and the imaging patients received confirmed those findings,” said UNC Lineberger’s Bhishamjit S. Chera, MD, associate professor in the UNC School of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology and the study’s co-corresponding author. Chera presented the findings from the study at the ASTRO meeting.

Of the 70 patients whose blood tests were negative three months after treatment, none developed recurrence. Nineteen patients had positive blood tests, and eight of those patients developed recurrence. Physicians are continuing to monitor the remaining eleven who had positive blood tests but no evidence of recurrence.

“The most striking finding of our study is that of the patients who did not have any signal using our blood test, none of them developed disease recurrence,” Chera said. “That raises the question: Do we need to be scanning these patients? Scans come with a lot of cost, and because of the cost, we’re not able to do it as frequently. Patients end up having a lot of anxiety from one scan to the next, wondering if their cancer has come back. This blood test could spare patients the need for additional imaging and potentially alleviate some anxiety.”

The researchers say the next steps will involve investigating whether the test can be used prospectively to monitor patients and to make decisions that could avoid unnecessary imaging, thereby reducing costs. They also see additional applications for the blood test, including monitoring for other HPV-linked cancers, including cervical cancer.

“We are confident this blood test will be translatable to other cancers driven by HPV, and as a monitoring tool for cancer diagnosis,” Chera said. “We strongly believe that this test may also have a role in screening, not just for oropharyngeal cancer, but also cervical or anal cancers, possibly in a general population setting, or at least in patients who may be at higher risk of developing these conditions.”

In addition to Chera and Gupta, other authors include Sunil Kumar, PhD; Colette Shen, MD, PhD; Robert Amdur, MD; Roi Dagan, MD; Jared Weiss, MD; Juneko Grilley-Olson, MD; Adam Zanation, MD; Trevor Hackman, MD; Jeff Blumberg, MD; Samip Patel, MD; Brian Thorp, MD; Mark Weissler, MD; Nathan Sheets, MD; and William Mendenhall, MD.

The study was supported by the University Cancer Research Fund, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the University of North Carolina School of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology, UNC Lineberger and the University of Florida School of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology.

Intellectual property related to the test and held by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been licensed to Naveris, a company in which Chera and Gupta hold equity stakes.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

University of Cincinnati researcher studies cancer-detecting mouthwash with help from ACS grant

Source: healthnews.uc.edu
Author: staff

Scott Langevin, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health and a member of both the Cincinnati Cancer Center (CCC) and UC Cancer Institute, was recently awarded $782,000 from the American Cancer Society to continue his research, which will hopefully assist in use of a certain oral rinse to catch recurrence of these types of cancers in their earliest stages.

He originally received a National Cancer Institute K22 award to begin this study.

“In 2017, mouth and throat cancer, otherwise known as oral and pharyngeal cancer, accounted for an estimated 49,670 new cancer diagnoses and 9,700 cancer-related deaths in the US, and the outcomes for patients with this cancer is relatively poor. About half of these patients will have cancer recurrence within 2 years of treatment,” Langevin says. “Earlier detection of recurrent tumors is associated with better clinical outcomes, so there is a clear need for new tests that can help facilitate early detection.”

Langevin says that researchers in his lab previously identified a biomarker panel made up of 22 regions of DNA; based on the amount of a certain molecule attached to these regions—a process called DNA methylation—scientists could identify the presence of mouth and throat cancer with a high level of accuracy by using noninvasive oral rinse (mouthwash) samples.

“With this project, we hope to evaluate the potential of this oral rinse methylation panel as a clinical tool for early detection of cancer recurrence following diagnosis and treatment,” he says. “This will hopefully help us develop a new test that can reduce the impact of these cancers.”

Langevin adds that his team will take a deep look into methylation within the tumors themselves to enhance understanding of the prevalence and extent of these alterations in mouth and throat cancers.

“Facilitated by my clinical co-investigators, Dr. Trisha Wise-Draper and Dr. Alice Tang, we will identify and recruit a cohort of patients who have been diagnosed with mouth and throat cancers and will regularly collect oral rinse samples, roughly every 3 months for 2 years, following their initial diagnosis and treatment,” he says. “Our team will catalog the methylation patterns across the 22 regions that make up our biomarker panel and document how they impact gene expression by applying DNA and RNA sequencing techniques on matched tumor and normal tissue from mouth and throat cancer patients.”

Langevin says his team will assess the potential use of the oral rinse methylation panel as a tool for early detection of cancer recurrence during the first 2 years of post-treatment patient follow-up.

“This has clear clinical relevance and could serve as a beneficial tool for early detection and subsequent early intervention of these very serious cancers, potentially improving outcomes for patients,” he says.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

Patients with HPV-positive oropharynx cancer should receive chemoradiation

Source: medicalxpress.com
Author: provided by European Society for Medical Oncology

Patients with human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive throat cancer should receive chemoradiotherapy rather than cetuximab with radiotherapy, according to late-breaking research reported at the ESMO 2018 Congress in Munich.

“Many patients have been receiving cetuximab with radiotherapy on the assumption that it was as effective as chemotherapy with radiotherapy and caused less side effects but there has been no head-to-head comparison of the two treatments,” said study author Prof Hisham Mehanna, Chair, Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.

Throat cancer is rapidly becoming more common in Western countries. For example in the UK, incidence was unchanged in 1970 to 1995, then doubled in 1996 to 2006, and doubled again in 2006 to 2010.The rise has been attributed to HPV, a sexually transmitted infection. Most throat cancer was previously caused by smoking and alcohol and affected 65-70 year-old working class men. Today HPV is the main cause and patients are around 55, middle class, working, and have young children.

HPV-positive throat cancer responds well to a combination of cisplatin chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and patients can survive for 30-40 years, but the treatment causes lifelong side effects including dry mouth, difficulty swallowing, and loss of taste. Patients deemed unable to tolerate chemotherapy, for example because of poor kidney function or older age, receive cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, and radiotherapy.

This study compared side effects and survival with the two treatments in 334 patients with HPV-positive throat cancer enrolled from 32 centres in the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Patients were randomly allocated to radiotherapy and either cisplatin or cetuximab. Eight in ten patients were male and the average age was 57 years.

During the two-year study there were ten recurrences and six deaths with cisplatin compared to 29 recurrences and 20 deaths with cetuximab. Patients on cisplatin had a significantly higher two-year overall survival rate (97.5%) than those on cetuximab (89.4%; p=0.001, hazard ratio [HR] 4.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-14.67). Cancer was over three times more likely to recur in two years with cetuximab compared to cisplatin, with recurrence rates of 16.1% versus 6.0%, respectively (p=0.0007, HR 3.39, 95% CI 1.61-7.19).

There were no differences between groups in the overall number of side effects, or of acute or late severe (grade 3-5) toxic events including dry mouth and difficulty swallowing. There were significantly more serious adverse events such as renal and haematological problems with cisplatin than with cetuximab.

Mehanna said: “Cetuximab did not cause less toxicity and resulted in worse overall survival and more cancer recurrence than cisplatin. This was a surprise—we thought it would lead to the same survival rates but better toxicity. Patients with throat cancer who are HPV positive should be given cisplatin, and not cetuximab, where possible.”

Commenting on the study for ESMO, Dr. Branislav Bystricky, Head, Medical and Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital Trencin, Slovakia, said: “It was believed that cetuximab causes less side effects and was therefore a good option for HPV-positive throat cancer patients who are young and expected to survive for several decades, as well as those less able to tolerate chemotherapy. This study shows that the best treatment choice for patients with HPV-positive throat cancer is cisplatin and radiotherapy. This combination gives ‘double’ the benefit since it is more effective in terms of survival and does not worsen all grade toxicity compared to cetuximab with radiotherapy.”

Bystricky noted that the results were in agreement with interim findings of the US National Cancer Institute’s RTOG 1016 trial, which is scheduled to report this month. He said: “We now have two studies showing that these patients should not be given cetuximab. Future research should examine whether genotyping for the KRAS-variant can select a group of patients that will benefit from cetuximab treatment with radiotherapy.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

A case for second opinions in cancer care

Source: healthblog.uofmhealth.org
Author: Beth Uznis Johnson

Jim Sitko expected minor surgery to remove a small lesion that his dentist discovered under his tongue during a routine checkup in July 2017.

An oral surgeon near his home in Clarkston, Michigan, took several samples to biopsy, a procedure that left Sitko’s tongue badly damaged. Resulting pain left the patient barely able to swallow for more than a week.

And the pathology report revealed devastating news: squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue.

Treatment, Sitko was told, would include major surgery to remove a portion of his tongue and rebuild it with veins and tissue from other parts of his body. Rehabilitation would be extensive and might also require radiation therapy once the patient healed.

Because he had received successful treatment for prostate cancer six years earlier at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Sitko opted to return and meet with surgeon Steven Chinn, M.D., MPH.

Sitko’s mouth was still healing from his initial surgery, so Chinn relied on the outside pathology report to prep for the complicated surgery ahead. He ordered additional pathology testing by Rogel Cancer Center head and neck specialists — an essential step to confirm an advanced cancer diagnosis.

Meanwhile, the thought of having tongue cancer overwhelmed Sitko.

“The complications aside from taking care of the cancer were unbelievable,” the 70-year-old says. “I might have a breathing tube and feeding tube. I took a retreat to my condo in northern Michigan to review 25 pages of paperwork for two clinical trials, but I did not quality.”

Sitko and his wife, Jane, a master gardener, had been planning a 50th anniversary celebration in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, world-renowned for its gardens. Because of his tongue cancer diagnosis, the couple canceled their plans.

But everything changed for the better one month later when Sitko and Chinn were preparing for surgery.

A second opinion and ‘tears of joy’
During the first of five preoperative meetings, Chinn was able to examine Sitko’s mouth, which had healed remarkably well for a person with tongue cancer.

Chinn called for Sitko’s prior pathology labs from the outside hospital for a careful review and comparison with the new results from the U-M pathology lab.

“My years of training taught me be thorough and make sure you are working with the best information possible,” says Chin, an assistant professor of otolaryngology at Michigan Medicine. “As part of my standard of care, I make sure all pathology is reviewed by head and neck specialists here at U-M.

“This is what makes our head and neck oncology program one of the best in the world.”

Sitko and Jane had again retreated to their northern Michigan condo. They were just unpacking their bags when a phone call with good news from Chinn came.

“He told me with cautious optimism that he saw no cancer in the pathology report but needed to verify with new samples taken at U-M,” Sitko says. “We agreed I’d go in on my scheduled surgery date. I would be in the surgical suite for an hour or 12 hours, depending on what they found.”

To begin, Chinn took three additional section samples for biopsy. Pathology results found no cancer.

Chinn took two more samples. No cancer.

He then used laser treatment to remove abnormal, non-cancerous cells from Sitko’s tongue. Surgery was over.

“We were in tears of joy,” Sitko says. “I am certainly indebted to U-M and specifically Dr. Chinn and the manner he handled my case. He could have done the complete surgery and I never would have known I didn’t have cancer.”

Life after a cancer scare
In hindsight, Sitko sees that his original tongue surgery did far more damage to his tongue than necessary.

It still surprises him that he was able to stop to eat dinner and have a beer after his surgery by Chinn. He experienced none of the discomfort.

Over the past year, he and Jane have resumed their normal retirement activities, including golfing, biking, hiking and snow skiing. They also rescheduled their wedding anniversary trip.

“We decided to kick off with a trip out East, where we spent our honeymoon,” Sitko says. “We went to Bar Harbor, Acadia National Park, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We drove 2,900 miles in 11 days, going from hotel to hotel.

“It was like revisiting our honeymoon 50 years later.”

Because of the abnormal non-cancerous cells found on his tongue, Sitko continues to see Chinn for follow-up and monitoring. There have been so signs of cancer.

A careful, specialized approach has guided treatment throughout.

“Having a team that’s only focus is head and neck cancer is critical to making the right diagnosis and management in a complex disease,” Chinn says. “In this case, when there was a discrepancy between the outside report and our review, I felt it prudent to do additional biopsies to make sure the initial one wasn’t a sample error and that we were, in fact, missing an advanced stage cancer.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

Oral cancer a risk when consuming cannabis, warns orthodontist

Source: www.cbc.ca
Author: staff

Eating or smoking pot can pose some deadly health risks, according to the president of the Essex County Dental Association.

“One of the more common ones that you hear about is oral cancer,” said Dr. Mark Parete​, adding cannabis contains known carcinogens, similar to what’s found in tobacco.

He said the ingestion of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s main psychoactive ingredient, into a person’s blood stream weakens their immune system and leaves gums and teeth prone to infection.

“Just like nicotine, it actually causes a generalized inflammation which ultimately breaks down collagen and bone — which is the support system of your teeth,” said Parete​.

Full disclosure between patients and medical professionals is extremely important in treating heath events. Parete​ said people shouldn’t be shy of revealing cannabis use to their dentist or orthodontist.

“When the patients come in, we always update our medical history … Inform us if you have any new medications, including using marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes,” he said.

Indirect health impacts can occur through cannabis use, Parete​ warns. He said when the “munchies” come calling, cannabis users aren’t usually making the best choices in terms of their oral health.

“It’s probably not your healthy fruits and vegetables. So, if you can, we really advise our patients to swish your mouth some water after eating just to make sure you’re flushing any kind of sugars off the teeth to prevent dental cavities.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

Why oral cancer threatens men

Source: www.scientificamerican.com
Author: Claudia Wallis, Scientific American November 2018 Issue

Back in 2006, when the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV) was introduced, I rushed to get my teenage daughters immunized. Here, amazingly, was a vaccine that could actually prevent cancer. By blocking HPV infection, it protects girls from the leading cause of cervical malignancies. I didn’t give much thought to my son, and neither did the medical establishment. It wasn’t until 2011 that health authorities recommended the vaccine for boys.

In hindsight, that delay was a mistake, though perfectly understandable: the vaccine was developed with cervical cancer in mind and initially tested only in girls. Today, however, we see a rising tide of cancers in the back of the throat caused by HPV, especially in men, who are three to five times more vulnerable than women. This surge of oropharyngeal cancers, occurring in many developed nations, took doctors by surprise. Oral cancers were expected to decline as a result of the drop in smoking that began in the 1960s.

Smoking-related oropharyngeal cancers are, in fact, down. But making up the difference, particularly in men, are those related to HPV, which have more than doubled over the past two decades. With cervical cancer waning (thanks to screening and prevention), this oral disease is now the leading HPV-related cancer in the U.S. Nearly 19,000 cases were reported in 2015, according to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Roughly nine out of 10 involve a nasty strain called HPV-16.

Researchers link the rise of these cancers to changing sexual practices, perhaps dating back to the 1970s. “People have more partners than they had in the past, and they initiate oral sex at an earlier age than previous generations did,” says Gypsyamber D’Souza, associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Greater exposure to oral sex means that the nearly ubiquitous virus gets transferred from the genitals to the mouth.

Studies suggest that most women develop protective antibodies to HPV after having a few sexual partners, but for men, it may take more than 10 partners. A likely reason for the difference, says oncologist Maura Gillison of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, is that “in women, the infection is vaginal-mucosal; in men, it’s entirely on the skin,” where it is much less likely to trigger an antibody response. Males can get an active infection again and again, and it lingers longer than in women, making them the “Typhoid Marys of HPV,” as Gillison puts it. The path from infection to cancer may take decades and is not well understood.

Fortunately, the HPV vaccine should prevent these oral cancers, just as it protects against cervical cancer (as well as virus-related cancers of the vulva, labia, penis and anus). After lagging for years, U.S. rates of vaccination of boys are catching up with that of girls. New CDC data show that in 2017, 68.6 percent of girls and 62.6 percent of boys, ages 13 to 17, had received at least one dose of the vaccine—up from 65.1 and 56 percent, respectively, in 2016. If the trend continues, HPV-related cancers will ultimately become a scourge of the past in the U.S.

The tough question is what to do in the meantime for the large number of people, especially at-risk men, who have never been immunized. The CDC recommends the vaccine for children as young as nine and up to age 21 for boys and 26 for girls. Merck, which makes the only HPV vaccine now used in the U.S., is seeking approval to make it available up to age 45, but the $130-a-dose vaccine is less cost-effective in older populations. “It’s best given before people are sexually active,” explains Lauri Markowitz, team lead and associate director of science for HPV at the CDC. “The vaccine is not therapeutic; it’s prophylactic.” A vaccine advisory committee meeting this fall will weigh whether to revise current recommendations. One possibility, she says, is raising the upper age for boys to 26, matching that for girls.

D’Souza, Gillison and others are investigating ways to identify and screen people who may be at an especially high risk for oral HPV cancers—a significant challenge. There is no Pap-smear equivalent for this devastating disease, no reliable way to spot precancerous or early-stage lesions. And research by and her colleague Carole Fakhry shows that even if you focus on a high-risk group such as men in their 50s—8 percent of whom are infected with one of the noxious HPV strains—only 0.7 percent will go on to develop the cancer. There’s little point in terrifying people about the small odds of a bad cancer, D’Souza says, so “we’re working on understanding which tests would be useful.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

Long-term implant failure in patients treated for oral cancer by external radiotherapy: a retrospective monocentric study

Source: Journal of Oral Medicine and oral Surgery, JOMOS
Date: October 10th, 2018
Authors: Aline Desoutter, Sophie Deneuve, Sophie-Charlotte Condamin and Anne-Gaëlle Chaux-Bodard

Abstract

Introduction: The placement of dental implants in irradiated bone has allowed functional rehabilitation for many oral cancer patients. Nonetheless, there is only few data about implant failure in irradiated tissues and their consequences. This retrospective study aims to highlight the rate and circumstances of implant failure.

Material and method: Patients treated with external radiotherapy for oral carcinoma and who received dental implants were included. Patients reconstructed with free bone flaps were excluded.

Results: Eighteen patients were included. Forty implants were placed between 2004 and 2007, 8 failed, of whom one osteoradionecrosis was observed. Time interval between radiotherapy and implantation was 44.6 (6–182) months. Mean dose was 51.8 (50–66) Gy.

Discussion: In the series, the implant failure rate is 20%, which corroborates the literature’s data. Failures occur more often for doses over 50 Gy. The placement of dental implant in irradiated bone leads to soft tissue complications but also increases the risk of osteoradionecrosis. The recent reimbursement of dental implants in oral cancer patients by the National Social Health system will probably increase the indications. Multidisciplinary staffs should be aware of benefit/risk ratio for each patient.

Introduction

Dental implants in patients treated for upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancers have facilitated the functional and aesthetic rehabilitation of patients whose postoperative anatomy did not allow for the placement of conventional prostheses. Several studies have been conducted and the success rates have varied from 62.5% to over 90% [1]. These success rates would be similar to those found in a healthy patient’s mandible, which is reported to be 92.6% [2]. However, there is little information regarding the types of failures that occur with these implants, as well as the consequences and circumstances surrounding their occurrence, especially when the radiation dose at the implant site is >40 Gy. Indeed, most of the published studies are case studies in which there is great heterogeneity in the initial tumor sites and in the radiation doses received at the implant site. It is therefore difficult to precisely determine the failure risk in patients who have received large radiation doses in the oral area. The expected complications are mainly peri-implantitis, loss of implants, and even osteoradionecrosis (ORN) [3]. The aim of this study was to highlight long-term implant failures in patients who were treated with radiotherapy for oral cancer and to observe the circumstances and consequences of these failures.

Material and methods

The clinical records of oral cancer patients treated between 2004 and 2007 by radiotherapy (exclusively or not) and who received implants were reviewed. In the interest of maintaining the homogeneity of the study sample, patients treated with a microanastomosis fibula flap were excluded.

The following information was extracted from the case records: tumor location, tumor stage, and type of treatment received, the duration between radiotherapy and implantation, the type of implants placed, the surgical and operative protocol, the patient’s medical history (excluding oncology) as well as any implant or peri-implant clinical events and their time of occurrence. Failure was defined as loss of implant osseointegration resulting in implant loss or removal. Surgical and implant loading failures were considered. Statistical analysis was performed using XLSTAT® software (Microsoft).

Results

Eighteen patients, consisting of 14 males (77%) and four females (13%) were eventually included. The mean age at the time of implant placement was 57.5 years (range: 42–78 years).

The initial tumor locations, the initial tumor stage, and the treatments received are presented in Table I.

Table I : Population studied: sites, tumor stages, and treatments received.
Table II : Implant failures as a function of the radiation dose received, initial tumor site, and failure onset delay.

Discussion

Cervicofacial radiation is one of the primary causes of implant loss [1,4] regardless of whether it is administered early or late [5]. Several failure factors specific to implant placement in irradiated areas have been identified; these include the duration after radiotherapy and the radiation dose received.

For successful implantation, the minimum time after radiotherapy before implantation should be 6–12 months [6]. A delay of >12 months would improve implant success rates [7]. In the current study, a minimum period of 6 months was selected after the multidisciplinary consultation with the surgical oncologists and radiotherapists. After excluding the two patients who were treated several years ago, missed their follow-up, and then reappeared for prosthetic rehabilitation, the average implantation time after radiotherapy in our study was 20.37 months (range: 6–49 months). One study [8] showed that the failures are less severe in patients receiving implants a later stage of oncological treatment (17.1% failure rate for intraoperative implants versus 4.6% for those placed postoperatively). Of course, the idea of early rehabilitation encourages the surgical team to perform implantation along with tumor removal, before additional treatments are administered. Although this technique has the advantage of decreasing treatment duration, it is not always feasible because of the constraints of tumor management.

The radiation dose received at the implant site is also a major cause of implant failure, with doses <50 Gy being more favorable [9,10]. Animal studies and literature reviews show that the implant failure rate is directly correlated with the radiation dose received [9,10]. In the study, implant sites that received estimated doses >55 Gy had failure (mean: 59.33 Gy). In fact, all implant failures occurred in patients who received treatment for cancer involving the anterior aspect of the floor of the mouth. The therapeutic target was therefore very close to the implant site, and the dose administered at the implant site was close to the therapeutic dose delivered.

The biggest challenge consists in evaluating the radiation dose received at the implantation site. In most studies, the initial tumor sites involved all the UADTs, including the oropharynx, with low radiation doses of about 30 Gy at the symphyseal and parasymphyseal level. It therefore seems more appropriate to limit the evaluation of failure rates to patients treated for cancer of the oral cavity, as the radiation doses at the implant site are therefore more homogeneous. In published studies, only a few authors [11] highlight the antecedents or lack thereof of radiation, with irradiated tissue implants having osseointegration rates of 83% at 5 years.

Long-term implant survival rates reported by the previous clinical studies are nonhomogeneous, with values of 72.8% at 10 years [9], 24% at 5 years [10], or 72% at 8 years [11]; however, these values support the results of our present study. Thus, Wagner [12] reports a 5-year osseointegration rate of 97.5% and at 10 years of 72.8%, whereas other authors report success rates of 48.3% [3]. Another study reports complications in 41.5% patients [13].

Seven out of eight failures encountered in the series began with peri-implantitis. Werkmeister [14] observed a soft-tissue complication rate of 28.6% in irradiated areas versus 8.3% in nonirradiated areas. These complications can be explained in part by the small amount of keratinized gingiva, along with the predisposing factors of radiotherapy-related sensitization and dry mouth. The occurrence of peri-implantitis should be carefully monitored to avoid ORN [15].

An increased loss of marginal bone was reported by many authors, with 2–9 mm variations for a period of 3 years after implant surgery [16]. According to Tanaka [17], early failures are more frequent. In the studies, all failures occurred >1 year after implant placement.

In the present series, a case of loss of osseointegration resulted in extensive ORN at a rate of 2.5%. Treatment of ORN required a subsequent free vascularized bone transfer reconstruction. This patient had been treated for a mouth floor lesion in the past and had received a postoperative radiation dose of 64 Gy (See Patient 3, Tab. I). This implant failed 1 year previously, and a reimplantation was proposed because of the impossibility of prosthetic rehabilitation without bone anchorage. Thus, there were two interventions on adjacent parasymphyseal mandibular bone sites. The patient had reverted to smoking regularly despite tobacco counseling. The risk of triggering ORN following implant placement was estimated to be 1.6%–5% [9,16,18,19]. Some authors advocate the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy before and after implantation to stimulate or optimize healing and decrease ORN risk [20,21]. Others believe that the risk/benefit/cost ratio is not sufficiently favorable. More recently, the use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound to increase healing capacity has been advocated [22]. Animal studies are currently underway [23].

Conclusion

It is widely accepted that the use of implant techniques in cancer patients is sometimes essential to ensure functional prosthetic rehabilitation. This retrospective study, which was conducted on patients who had specifically received oral radiotherapy, confirmed that it was a reliable therapeutic treatment for radiation doses of 45–50 Gy. However, the small number of patients in this study prevents the extrapolation of results to larger populations, considering the significant morbidity and lower success rate than patients who were not irradiated. Thus, the inherent risk of a past history of radiotherapy must be taken into account. The use of software like Dentalmaps® [24] allows a better evaluation of the doses received at potential implantation sites. This software is based on the automatic segmentation and delineation of the dental zones, making it possible to estimate the dose received at different points of the dental arch to the nearest 2-Gy fraction. However, the software is expensive, the work is laborious, and this device cannot be routinely used. Considering that health organizations are responsible for the cost management of implants in patients with cancer of UADT, there will be a definite increase in the indications for implantation [25]. It is up to the members present at the multidisciplinary consultation meetings to evaluate the benefit/risk ratio on a case-by-case basis.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|

As HPV-related cancer rates climb, experts scrutinize barriers to HPV vaccination

Source: www.cancertherapyadvisor.com
Author: Bryant Furlow

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) are now the most commonly diagnosed human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers in the United States, with 15,479 men and 3438 women diagnosed in 2015, according to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).1

Between 1999 and 2015, cervical cancer and vaginal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) rates declined, by 1.6% and 0.6% per year, respectively. But rates for vulvar SCC increased by 1.3% annually during the same period. Anal SCC rates also climbed by approximately 2% a year among men and 3% among women.1

Rates of oropharyngeal SCC — cancers of the throat and tongue — climbed as well, particularly among men (2.7% a year vs 0.8% in women).

All told, more than 43,000 Americans were newly diagnosed with HPV-related cancers in 2015, the analysis showed, up from 30,115 in 1999.1 Most people diagnosed with HPV-associated malignancies are older than 49 years.1 Most women diagnosed with cervical cancer are older than 30 years.1

“We don’t actually know what caused the increase in HPV infections but we know now that we have a safe and effective vaccine that can prevent infections,” said Lois Ramondetta, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We’re seeing people who were infected decades ago developing these cancers,” Dr Ramondetta said. “We’ll see rates continue to rise over the coming years because the vaccine wasn’t available before 2006.”

HPV vaccination rates are improving, Dr Ramondetta noted.

Overall, approximately half of adolescents in the United States have completed the HPV vaccine dose-series — well shy of the 2020 herd immunity goal of 80%.

“That’s the overall up-to-date vaccination rates for adolescents aged 13 to 17,” Dr Ramondetta explained. “That’s definitely not where we want it to go but it is 5% higher than last year. If you look at the one-completed-dose vaccine initiation rate, that’s 65.5%.”

HPV vaccination rates are improving more rapidly among boys than girls.

“For some reason, safety is not as big a concern for boys and their parents,” Dr Ramondetta said. “It shouldn’t be a concern at all. This vaccine has been studied more than just about any other vaccine. But if you ask parents why girls are not vaccinating, safety seems to be a concern for some.”

There appears to be less stigma among parents about sons becoming sexually active than there is about the sexual activity of daughters, said Debbie Saslow, PhD, senior director of HPV-related and women’s cancers at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia.

Vaccination rates vary geographically, both between countries and within the US. Only a handful of states require that public school students receive the HPV vaccine. Vast expanses of the rural US have few or no pediatricians and limited access to the vaccine.

Australia introduced HPV vaccines at the same time as the US, nearly a decade ago, but Australia achieved 80% vaccination rates in just a year, Dr Saslow said. That was largely because the Australian government paid for the vaccines and they were administered in schools. As a result, this year, Australia changed cervical cancer screening recommendations to reflect the reduced risk: at age 25, women start undergoing HPV testing (rather than pap tests) every 5 years.

That will eventually happen in the US as well, Dr Saslow predicted.

“It’s going to happen but the question is when,” she said. “What will happen is we’ll start screening later, at age 25 and maybe eventually 30, and screening will get away from Pap testing, because Pap tests are not as effective in vaccinated people: they’ll detect a bunch of cervical changes unrelated to cancer. It will all be false positives. We’ll need to go to strictly HPV-based testing” or potentially some new type of screening test, according to Dr Saslow.

In the US, there appear to be socioeconomic or class barriers at play regarding HPV vaccination. Completion rates tend to be higher among more affluent groups, meaning that those who get the first vaccine are more likely to complete the series.

But there’s also a “reverse disparity” in initiating HPV vaccination at all Dr Saslow noted. “Poor and minority kids have higher rates of [the] first dose. Providers might be doing their own risk-based recommendations to parents, which they should not be doing, saying these kids are at higher risk.”

In high-socioeconomic-status urban and suburban communities, vaccine hesitance and prevalent “anti-vax” conspiracy theories may be barriers to vaccination. In rural areas, religious conservativism about sex and sexually transmitted disease — as well as the political climate — are likely factors, Dr Ramondetta added. Rates of HPV vaccination are worse than those for, say, polio or measles, suggesting that hesitance is related to the sexual nature of HPV transmission.

“There’s still a stigma about HPV infection, which is crazy, since most people are exposed,” said Dr Ramondetta. “Normalizing HPV is important — it’s just an aspect of the human condition, like flu.”

“There is ample evidence of the efficacy, safety and durability of this vaccine,” Dr Ramondetta said. “We need to find new ways to educate the public. We can talk to one another all we want in journals but meanwhile, social media is filled with [misinformation] … We need to take a larger role in social media, flooding it with accurate information.”

“Most parents just need reassurance,” she added. “Their motivation is to keep their kids safe.”

Doctors should recommend HPV vaccination every time they see adolescent patients and their parents, Dr Saslow emphasized. And, oncologists need to reach out to family physicians and pediatricians, she said.

References
1. Van Dyne EA, Henley SJ, Saraiya M, Thomas CC, Markowitz LE, Benard VB. Trends in human papillomavirus-associated cancers — United States, 1999-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(33);918–924.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October, 2018|Oral Cancer News|