oral cancer

Expert Asserts Pembrolizumab to Play Important Role in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment

Source: www.targetedonc.com
Author: Laura Panjwani

Joshua-Bauml

The FDA approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) as a treatment for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in August 2016 was extremely significant for this patient population, which previously had limited options following progression on a platinum-based chemotherapy.

The approval was based on the phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 study, which demonstrated that pembrolizumab had an overall response rate (ORR) of 18% and a stable disease rate of 17% in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC.

Several other studies are further evaluating the immunotherapy agent in HNSCC.Preliminary results of the phase II KEYNOTE-055 study—which included 92 evaluable patients who received pembrolizumab after failing platinum and cetuximab therapies—were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

In an interview with Targeted Oncology, lead study author Joshua M. Bauml, MD, an assistant professor of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, discusses the impact of pembrolizumab’s success in HNSCC, the results of the KEYNOTE-055 study, and what he sees on the horizon for the PD-1 inhibitor in this field.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What role do you envision pembrolizumab having in this patient population?

Baumi: It is going to play a critical role in head and neck cancer. The other agents that are available have limited efficacy, and are associated with significant toxicities. This is a clear improvement for our patient population with limited options.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What were the key takeaways from KEYNOTE-055? Baumi: Patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer that is refractory to both platinum-based therapy and cetuximab (Erbitux) really have very few options. The historical reference population we usually use is patients treated with methotrexate, which has a response rate of 5% and an overall survival (OS) of only about 6 months. There is a really great need for this. For pembrolizumab, which is an anti–PD-L1 agent, there is biologic rationale to think that it would be active in this patient population. PD-L1 and PD-L2 are unregulated in head and neck cancer.

What KEYNOTE-055 did is really try and create a homogenous patient population. Rather than a large phase I study, here are patients all who have failed both platinum-based therapy and cetuximab. We have really identified the sickest patient population.

What we are able to show in this study was that the drug was well tolerated and it has a response rate of 17% to 18%, which compares favorably for the 5% seen with the prior data with methotrexate. The OS rate was 8 months, which again compares very favorably to the 6 months seen with methotrexate. This was true, even though 85% of patients had received at least 2 prior treatments for head and neck cancer.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What did this study tell us about the safety of pembrolizumab in head and neck cancer?

Baumi: The rate of grade 3 through 5 treatment-related adverse events was 12% in our study. Nearly all of the side effects are what you would expect with pembrolizumab; those have been reported in multiple other studies. There was 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis, which is a rare side effect of this class of drugs.

Outside of that, it was a really well-tolerated agent. The fact that if you compared grade 3 through 5 toxicities of 12% with cytotoxic chemotherapy, this is a very well-tolerated agent.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: How common is it for patients to fail both platinum-based therapy and cetuximab?

Baumi: Any patient who has recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer is going to go through these agents if they survive long enough to get them. Basically, we know that these are the limited tools in our toolbox. We have platinum, we have cetuximab, and then we are really out of options. Many patients have received cetuximab in the locally advanced setting and so we have already lost one of our active treatments. This affects a lot of people.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What is next for pembrolizumab in head and neck cancer?

Baumi: There are currently phase III studies evaluating pembrolizumab in head and neck cancer both in combination with and versus traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy to see if we can move up the treatment earlier for patients. The key difference between pembrolizumab and cytotoxics is beyond the improved safety profile. However, we have durable responses; 75% of those patients who responded are still responding to this day. That is really not something that we see.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What are the biggest questions that remain regarding the treatment of patients with metastatic head and neck cancer?

Baumi: One of the key questions that relates to immunotherapy—and this covers all tumors—is trying to identify who the 20% of patients are that will respond. Eighty percent of our patients are not responding to our therapies.

Identifying a biomarker to enrich this patient population is very critical. Right now, I would not select patients for pembrolizumab by virtue of PD-L1 status because there were responses in the PD-L1–negative cohorts.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

September, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Expert says Nivolumab Poised to Change Standard of Care in SCCHN

Source: www.onclive.com
Author: Laura Panjwani

Robert-Ferris

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is a game-changing agent for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), according to Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD.

“Recent findings have shown us that this agent is really the new standard-of-care option for all platinum-refractory patients with head and neck cancer,” says Ferris, vice chair for Clinical Operations, associate director for Translational Research, and co-leader of the Cancer Immunology Program at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. “This is regardless of whether patients are PD-L1–positive or negative or whether they are HPV-positive or negative.”

The PD-L1 inhibitor received a priority review designation by the FDA in July 2016 based on the CheckMate-141 study, which demonstrated a median overall survival (OS) with nivolumab of 7.5 months compared with 5.1 months with investigator’s choice of therapy (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P = .0101) in patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 13.3% with nivolumab and 5.8% for investigator’s choice. The FDA is scheduled to make a decision on the application for the PD-1 inhibitor by November 11, 2016, as part of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

Ferris was the lead author on an analysis that further evaluated preliminary data from CheckMate-141, which was presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting. In an interview with OncLive, he discusses the findings of this study, potential biomarkers for nivolumab, and questions that remain regarding the use of the immunotherapy in SCCHN.

OncLive: What were the updated findings from CheckMate-141 presented at ASCO?

Ferris: The data that were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting were further evaluations and follow-up on some preliminary data—originally presented at the 2016 AACR Annual Meeting—that listed the OS results.

At ASCO, we recapped the primary endpoint of OS as an important endpoint for immunotherapies because response rate and progression-free survival may not be as accurate. Ultimately, the FDA and people at large want OS. In this study, OS was 36% at 1 year in the nivolumab-treated arm and 16.6% in the comparator arm, which was investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy, consisting of methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab. In this phase III randomized trial, nivolumab was given in a 2:1 randomization: 240 patients received nivolumab and 120 received investigator’s choice.

Also at ASCO, we presented further evaluations consisting of what the regimens are in the comparator arm. There was about 20% each of docetaxel and methotrexate and 12% of cetuximab. Approximately 60% of the patients had prior cetuximab exposure and we stratified by cetuximab as a prior therapy. We also demonstrated the ORR, which was 13.3% in the nivolumab-treated arm versus 5.8% in the investigator’s choice arm.

Therefore, there was an improvement in overall response, but the difference seemed more modest than the OS benefit—which was a doubling—with 20% more patients alive at 1 year. This reinforces the concept that perhaps response rate may not be the best endpoint. Progression-free survival (PFS) was double at 6 months, with about 20% in the nivolumab arm versus about 9.9% in the investigator’s choice arm. The median PFS was not different, but the 6-month PFS was twice as high. The time to response was about 2 months in each arm at the first assessment.

Your analysis also looked at biomarkers. Can you discuss these findings and their significance?

The p16 or HPV-positive group had a better hazard ratio for OS than the overall study population. The hazard ratio was .73 for the overall population, using a preplanned interim analysis. With the HPV-positive group, we had a hazard ratio of .55 and the HPV-negative group had a hazard ratio of .99. It is still favoring the nivolumab-treated patients but, with the curves separated earlier in the HPV-positive group, one could see the improvement with nivolumab at about 1 to 2 months. It took 7 or 8 months with the HPV-negative group to show a separation of the curves in favor of nivolumab.

We looked at PD-L1 levels, and PD-L1—using a 1% or above level—had an improvement in the PD-L1–positive patients in favor of nivolumab in terms of OS and ORR. When we looked at 5% and 10% thresholds of PD-L1, the OS did not seem to improve. Therefore, in all levels above 1%, the OS was similarly beneficial over the PD-L1 less-than-1% group. However, essentially all levels of PD-L1–positivity and PD-L1–negativity still favored nivolumab, but the benefit was more when its levels were greater than 1%.

We could combine HPV status with PD-L1 status and look at subsets; however, essentially every subset benefited, whether it was PD-L1–negative or positive. This indicates that, in this group of patients, who progress within 6 months of platinum-based therapy, that no current systemic therapeutic options benefit patients as well as nivolumab.

With regard to these findings, what are you most excited about?

Head and neck cancer is a difficult disease. Until recently, we didn’t know the impact of this enrichment for HPV-positive virus-induced subsets and we didn’t know if this was an immune responsive cancer. Clearly, it is. We have all of the hallmarks that we have seen for a bright future—based on the melanoma data—and a series of other cancers indicating response rates in the 15% to 20% range, suggesting that we now have a platform of the PD-1 pathway to combine with other checkpoints and to integrate earlier in disease with radiation and chemotherapy.

We have a demonstration of head and neck cancer as an immune-responsive cancer. We are beginning to get an idea of the biomarkers and starting to be able to segment patients who will benefit. Now, we have a large comparative trial with an OS endpoint and tissue to look at biomarkers to try and understand what the best future combinations will be.

What are some questions that you still hope to answer regarding nivolumab in head and neck cancer?

We have to get down deeper into the nonresponders. We should acknowledge that the majority of patients neither had a response nor benefited. Understanding who is more likely to benefit is useful, but we also need to understand the levels of alternative checkpoint receptors or other biomarkers of resistance.

We have sequential lymphocyte specimens from the peripheral blood, tissues, and serum so those are intensively under evaluation. There are interferon gamma signatures that have risen from the melanoma checkpoint field that will certainty be applied, as well.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

August, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Henry Schein Donates Medical Supplies In Support of Free Oral Cancer Screening Events throughout the United States

Source: www.mysocialgoodnews.com
Author: Api Potter

Company’s Donation to Support 77 Screening Events in 2016 and 2017 by the Oral Cancer Foundation

Press Release – MELVILLE, N.Y., July 25, 2016 – Henry Schein, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSIC) announced today that it is donating more than $10,000 in medical supplies to the Oral Cancer Foundation (OCF) in support of 77 free oral cancer screening events being held throughout the United States in 2016 and 2017. Each OCF-hosted event aims to boost awareness of the disease and increase early detection.

The Company’s donation of gauze, tongue depressors, and disposable dental mirrors, facemasks, and gloves is an initiative of Henry Schein Cares, the Company’s global corporate social responsibility program, and continues the Company’s support of OCF’s screening events. OCF hosts the events in a range of locations, including pharmacy parking lots, health fairs, farmer’s markets, colleges, and OCF Walk/Run for Awareness events.

“The health of our mouths greatly impacts our ability to eat and drink, communicate thoughts and ideas, and express feelings for loved ones,” said Brian Hill, Founder of the Oral Cancer Foundation. “When cancer affects our mouths, it does more than take away these everyday functions, it too often takes our lives. Our screening events are designed to identify signs of oral cancer before it ever gets that far, and we thank Henry Schein for this generous donation and its continued support of oral cancer awareness and early detection efforts.”

The donation comes at a time when nearly 500,000 people worldwide are diagnosed annually with oral and oropharyngeal cancer, according to data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s Globocan 2000 database and the World Health Organization’s Mortality Database. Of that number, between one-third and one-half lose their lives annually while many more suffer from the complications of treatment. Despite the easy accessibility to these body sites by health care providers and the overall impact early detection can have on a person’s overall health, more than two-thirds of these patients are diagnosed in advanced stages where the cancer has already spread to regional lymph nodes or beyond.

“Regular oral cancer screening events raise awareness and enhance early detection and prevention efforts, which are critical to reducing the disease’s incidence and impact,” said Steven W. Kess, Vice President of Global Professional Relations at Henry Schein. “Oral cancer is a stark reminder of the vital importance of good oral health in relation to a person’s overall health, and that’s why Henry Schein is pleased to support the Oral Cancer Foundation.”

Henry Schein’s donation continues the Company’s long-standing commitment to exploring ways of reducing the disease’s global impact. Earlier this year, the Henry Schein Cares Foundation, Inc.—an independent 501(c)(3) organization founded by the Company to foster, support, and promote dental, medical, and animal health by helping to increase access to care in communities around the world—funded the Global Oral Cancer Forum. The Forum gathered many of the world’s foremost experts on oral cancer, as well as clinicians, scientists, epidemiologists, activists, public health experts, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and other stakeholders who are working to understand how to reduce the global oral cancer burden.

About Henry Schein Cares

Henry Schein Cares stands on four pillars: engaging Team Schein Members to reach their potential, ensuring accountability by extending ethical business practices to all levels within Henry Schein, promoting environmental sustainability, and expanding access to health care for underserved and at-risk communities around the world. Health care activities supported by Henry Schein Cares focus on three main areas: advancing wellness, building capacity in the delivery of health care services, and assisting in emergency preparedness and relief.

Firmly rooted in a deep commitment to social responsibility and the concept of enlightened self-interest championed by Benjamin Franklin, the philosophy behind Henry Schein Cares is a vision of “doing well by doing good.” Through the work of Henry Schein Cares to enhance access to care for those in need, the Company believes that it is furthering its long-term success. “Helping Health Happen Blog” is a platform for health care professionals to share their volunteer experiences delivering assistance to those in need globally. To read more about how Henry Schein Cares is making a difference, please visit our blog: www.helpinghealthhappen.org.

About Henry Schein, Inc.

Henry Schein, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSIC) is the world’s largest provider of health care products and services to office-based dental, animal health and medical practitioners. The Company also serves dental laboratories, government and institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care sites. A Fortune 500® Company and a member of the S&P 500® and the Nasdaq 100® indexes, Henry Schein employs nearly 19,000 Team Schein Members and serves more than one million customers.

The Company offers a comprehensive selection of products and services, including value-added solutions for operating efficient practices and delivering high-quality care. Henry Schein operates through a centralized and automated distribution network, with a selection of more than 110,000 branded products and Henry Schein private-brand products in stock, as well as more than 150,000 additional products available as special-order items. The Company also offers its customers exclusive, innovative technology solutions, including practice management software and e-commerce solutions, as well as a broad range of financial services.

Headquartered in Melville, N.Y., Henry Schein has operations or affiliates in 33 countries. The Company’s sales reached a record $10.6 billion in 2015, and have grown at a compound annual rate of approximately 15 percent since Henry Schein became a public company in 1995. For more information, visit Henry Schein at www.henryschein.com, Facebook.com/HenrySchein and @HenrySchein on Twitter.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Knowledgeability, Attitude and Behavior of Primary Care Providers Towards Oral Cancer: a Pilot Study

Source: www.link.springer.com
Authors: Neel Shimpi, Aditi Bharatkumar, Monica Jethwani, Po-Huang Cyou, Ingrid Glurich, Jake Blamer, Amit Acharya

 

The objective of this study was to assess current knowledgeability, attitudes, and practice behaviors of primary care providers (PCPs) towards oral cancer screening. Applying a cross-sectional design, a 14-question survey was emailed to 307 PCPs practicing at a large, multi-specialty, rurally based healthcare system. Survey data were collected and managed using REDCap and analyzed applying descriptive statistics. A 20 % response rate (n = 61/307) was achieved for survey completion. Approximately 70 % of respondents were physicians, 16 % were nurse practitioners, and 13 % were physician assistants. Nearly 60 % of respondents were family medicine practitioners. Limited training surrounding oral cancer screening during medical training was reported by 64 %. Although 78 % of respondents reported never performing oral cancer screening on patients in their practice, >90 % answered knowledge-based questions correctly. Frequency rate for specialist referral for suspicious lesions by PCPs was 56 % “frequently”. Optimal periodicity for oral cancer screening on all patients selected by respondents was 61 % “annually”, 3 % “every 6 months”, 3 % “every visit”, 2 % “not at all”, and 31 % “unsure”. This study established a baseline surrounding current knowledgeability, practice patterns, and opinions of PCPs towards oral cancer screening at a single, large, regional healthcare system. In the absence of evidence-based support for population-based cancer screening, this study result suggests a need for better integration of oral cancer surveillance into the medical setting, supplemented by education and training with emphasis on assessment of high-risk patients to achieve early detection. Prospectively, larger studies are needed to validate these findings.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

July, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Rodeo Competitors Fight Smokeless Tobacco Use at Laramie Jubilee Days

Source: www.y95country.com
Author: Nick Learned

Cody Kiser and Carly Twisselman

Two professional rodeo contestants will ride exclusively for the Oral Cancer Foundation this weekend as part of Laramie Jubilee Days with a goal of preventing young fans from using smokeless tobacco.

Cody Kiser and Carly Twisselman each aim to show rodeo fans, particularly the younger ones, chewing or using other forms of smokeless tobacco isn’t what makes them who they are. They promote the Foundation’s campaign which uses the slogan “Be Smart. Don’t Start.”

Their approach is anything but confrontational or aggressive. Rather than encouraging people to quit, they hope to encourage young fans to never pick up the habit in the first place. And where some rely on statistics to make the point, Kiser and Twisselman take a different approach. Simply giving attention to young rodeo fans is a big part of getting their message across.

“Its not the facts that they’re going to take home,” Kiser says. “Everybody knows that tobacco’s bad; you can get cancer and you can die. But the biggest impact that I see is just acknowledging those kids or acknowledging those people in the audience that want to know more, and you can show them what you can do without tobacco.”

“I’m not out there to tell anybody how to live their life or preach to them about needing to quit,” Kiser says.

“It’s not our place to do that,” Twisselman says. “People most of the time aren’t going to listen when you tell them something like that anyway.”

The pair will be wearing Oral Cancer Foundation gear and handing out buttons, wristbands and bandanas bearing campaign messaging.

As they travel the rodeo circuit, Kiser and Twisselman each say they often see other riders use various types of smokeless tobacco such as chew and snuff.

“It’s very common,” says Kiser. “You see it everywhere.”

“One of my traveling partners, he started when he was in high school. He was just around it all the time,” says Kiser. “It was just the ‘cowboy’ thing to do, I guess.”

“A lot of people are very respectful about it,” Twisselman says. “They’ll see me in my shirt and be like ‘oh yeah, you represent the Oral Cancer Foundation’ and they’ll spit their chew out. I think that in itself is a positive side effect of it.”

“I think a large part of a lot of these cowboys is, it’s the cowboy thing to do, so they start doing it,” Kiser says. “And that’s where I want to step in and show the younger generation that you don’t have to chew to be a cowboy. You can be a cowboy athlete and not chew and treat your body as best you can, because what we do is very difficult and it’s hard on the body.”

“A lot of folks started when they young,” Kiser says. “And I’ve talked to guys who started chewing later in life and they can’t quit, or it’s hard for them. It’s a vicious thing.”

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Rodeo outreach program fights oral cancer

Source: www.olivesoftware.com
Author: Stewart M. Green

image.ashx

Carly Twisselman, a spokesperson with the Oral Cancer Foundation’s rodeo outreach program, and her horse Chanel travel the Western rodeo circuit and talk with kids about the dangers of using spit tobacco. Photo by Stewart M. Green

Carly Twisselman brushed her horse Chanel outside a stall at the Norris-Penrose Event Center, home of the Pikes Peak or Bust Rodeo, which will roll into town July 13-16. “I’ve been rodeoing my whole life,” she said. “Now I do it at the professional level. This is my rookie year so I’m going really hard. I want to win the rookie title.”

Summer is the busiest time of the year for cowgirls and cowboys. “We call it Cowboy Christmas, the 4th of July run,” she said. Twisselman and her travel partner have recently competed in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and just drove up from Pecos, Texas, to Colorado Springs for qualifiers. “It’s a crazy time,” she said. “Lots of traveling, but lots of money to be won.”

Twisselman, a 30-year-old barrel racer, grew up on a ranch near San Luis Obispo on the central California coast. “My family’s been ranching there for seven generations,” she said. “I was on the back of a horse all the time. I was riding before I could walk.”

While growing up in the Western ranching and rodeo culture, Twisselman was aware of the widespread use of spit tobacco by cowboys. “I’ve been around it my whole life and seen a lot of things that were negative and I was affected by it.”

Rodeo and tobacco have a long history together. Starting in 1986, the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company sponsored the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association until the association ended its partnership with tobacco advertisers in 2009. Tobacco use, however, still thrives with cowboys and spectators at rodeos.

In 2014, the Oral Cancer Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports prevention, education and research of oral cancer, reached out to pro rodeo athletes to spread the word about the dangers of tobacco use, with Cody Kiser, a bareback bronc rider, as their first rodeo spokesperson. This past year they added Carly Twisselman to continue creating awareness in the rodeo community.

“Honestly, it was God that they came to me,” said Twisselman. “Their goal was to reach rodeo people, people in the Western culture and people that were horse lovers because tobacco is a huge problem in rodeo.” The foundation asked Twisselman to be a spokesperson and she gladly accepted. “It’s an amazing thing to represent such a great organization. I can take this rodeo platform where I’m in front of thousands of people and use it for good.” While the Oral Cancer Foundation wants to help adults with tobacco problems, its rodeo focus is on children. According to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 9.9 percent of high school-age boys use spit tobacco nationwide, while 10.5 percent of men ages 18-25 use it. Usage is higher in rural states like Wyoming, Montana and West Virginia. A can of spit tobacco packs as much nicotine as 40 cigarettes, and a 30-minute chew is like smoking three cigarettes, making addiction to spit tobacco one of the hardest to break. Spit tobacco, including smokeless tobacco, dip, snuff, chew and chewing tobacco, can cause gum disease, tooth decay and oral cancer. Almost 50,000 people will be diagnosed with oral cancer in 2016.

“We aren’t telling people they should stop,” Twisselman said, “but we show people why it’s not good to use tobacco. If someone is chewing, I’m not going to go lecture them.”

Twisselman and Kiser focus on helping kids make positive choices about tobacco use. “Kids look up to us as idols and if they see us doing good and not chewing tobacco then maybe they won’t either,” Twisselman said. “Our message is: ‘Be Smart, Don’t Start.’”

Twisselman also attends junior rodeos where she hands out wristbands, bandanas, pins, and buttons. “Kids love the freebies,” she said. She also wears Oral Cancer Foundation logos on her competition shirts.

Surprisingly, some rodeo women chew tobacco. “It’s not the problem it is with the men,” Twisselman said, “but I do see it. I find it really repulsive. Sometimes women who chew will see me and say, “Oh, you work with oral cancer” and they’ll take their chew out and throw it away because they don’t want to be disrespectful to me.”

Twisselman said she and Kiser are making a difference, noting people are becoming more educated about the dangers of throat cancer from chewing tobacco and learning that it’s not a healthy habit. “We’ve only been doing this for a year now and we’re still getting our feet wet,” she said. “It’s hard to know if fewer kids are chewing now but I’m getting the word out and interacting with them. Because we take the time to talk with kids and give them the little gifts, it has a huge impact on them.”

To learn more about oral cancer and its prevention, medical research, education and for patient support, then visit oralcancer.org.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Rodeo rider partners with nonprofit group to fight smokeless tobacco use

Source: www.fox13now.com
Author: Rebecca Cade
 

SALT LAKE CITY — Oral cancer is becoming an epidemic in the U.S., and has been in the news in the last year with the loss of major league baseball hall-of-famer, Tony Gwynn, who died at 54 from smokeless tobacco use.

Rodeo has a historic tie to smokeless tobaccos, and Oral Cancer Foundation, has teamed up with Bareback Rider Cody Kiser to draw awareness to, and prevent, this growing epidemic where it thrives – the rodeo circuit.

Smokeless/spit tobacco is one of the historic causes of deadly oral cancers, and is more addictive than other forms of tobacco use.

The nonprofit is seeking to spread awareness of oral cancer and the dangers of starting terrible tobacco habits. While others are focused on getting users to quit, The Oral Cancer Foundation is reaching out to young people to not pick up the habit that they may see one of their rodeo “heroes” engage in.

Their message is simple, “Be Smart. Don’t Start.”

With the strong addictive powers of smokeless tobacco, the foundation and Kiser aim to engage fans early.

At the rodeos, Kiser will be solely wearing OCF logos and wording, while handing out buttons, wristbands and bandanas with the campaign messaging on them. The bareback rider hopes this will make him an alternative positive role-model for the adolescent age group whose minds are so easily molded.

“It’s something I’ve always been passionate about, so when I got into the partnership with OCF, it was no big deal to be able to say ‘I don’t smoke or chew, never have, and it’s easy not to,'” Kiser said.

Kiser added it all starts with kids.

“Most of these guys I ride with started smoking and chewing in sixth or seventh grade,” he said. “So, if we can get to those kids now, and tell them ‘you don’t have to do this to be cool or be a cowboy’ and show them what you can do without it.”

More information on the campaign can be found at www.oralcancer.org

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Aspen Dental Practices Donate More Than $20,000 To The Oral Cancer Foundation For Oral Cancer Awareness Month

Source: www.pharmiweb.com.org
Author: Aspen Dental
 

SYRACUSE, N.Y., May 31, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Aspen Dental–branded practices will donate $22,375 to The Oral Cancer Foundation (OCF) as part of a program that contributed $5 for each ViziLite® oral cancer screening conducted during April for Oral Cancer Awareness Month. In total, more than 4,000 patients were screened across more than 550 practices in 33 states.

Since 2010, Aspen Dental-branded practices have donated more than $105,000 to OCF.

“Approximately 48,250 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with an oral or oropharyngeal cancer this year; and of those only about 57% will be alive in five years,” said Natalie Riggs, Director of Special Projects for The Oral Cancer Foundation. In 2016 we estimate that 9500 individuals will lose their lives to oral cancers and we are grateful for the support from Aspen Dental practices in helping us raise awareness and aiding in our efforts to fight this disease.”

Oral cancer is frequently preceded by visible pre-malignant lesions and can be diagnosed at a much earlier stage (I or II) with ViziLite® Plus, a specially designed light technology.  When caught early and treated, the survival rate is 80 to 90 percent.

“We’re working to educate our patients about the risk factors, warning signs and symptoms associated with oral cancer so that we can help them catch the disease before it progresses,” said Dr. Murali Lakireddy, a general dentist who owns Aspen Dental offices in Ohio. “Many of our patients do not think about oral cancer when they go to the dentist, but in fact, oral cancer screenings are just as much a part of your routine dental visit as a deep clean from the hygienist.”

To learn more about oral cancer screenings, visit the OFC website at http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/dental/how_do_you_know.html.

About Aspen Dental Practices
Dentists and staff at Aspen Dental practices believe everyone has the right to quality, affordable oral health care. As one of the largest and fastest-growing networks of independent dental care providers in the U.S., local Aspen Dental practices – more than 550 of them across 33 states – offer patients a safe, welcoming and judgment-free environment to address their dental challenges. Every Aspen Dental-branded practice offers a full range of dental and denture services – including comprehensive exams, cleanings, extractions, fillings, periodontal treatment, whitening, oral surgery, crown and bridge work – allowing patients to have the peace of mind that they are taken care of and protected, so they can focus on getting the healthy mouth they deserve. In 2015, Aspen Dental-branded practices recorded more than 3.7 million patient visits and welcomed nearly 785,000 new patients.

HPV is changing the face of head and neck cancers

Source: www.healio.com
Author: Christine Cona
 

A drastic increase in the number of HPV-associated oropharynx cancers, particularly those of the tonsil and base of tongue, has captured the attention of head and neck oncologists worldwide.

In February, at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium in Chandler, Ariz., Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, professor and Jeg Coughlin Chair of Cancer Research at The Ohio State University in Columbus, presented data that showed that the proportion of all head and neck squamous cell cancers that were of the oropharynx — which are most commonly HPV-positive cancers — increased from 18% in 1973 to 32% in 2005.

9ea467bbf8646a69da2a432f8fcc5452Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, Jeg Coughlin Chair of Cancer Research at The Ohio State University, said screening for HPV in the head and neck is years behind cervical screening for HPV.

 

In addition, studies from the United States, Europe, Denmark and Australia indicate that HPV-positive patients have a more than twofold increased cancer survival than HPV-negative patients, according to Gillison.

With the rising incidence of HPV-related oropharynx cancers, it will soon be the predominant type of cancer in the oral or head and neck region, according to Andy Trotti, MD, director of radiation oncology clinical research, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, in Tampa, Fla.

“We should be focusing on HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer because it will dominate the field of head and neck cancers for many years,” he said during an interview with HemOnc Today. “It is certainly an important population for which to continue to conduct research.”

Because HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer is emerging as a distinct biological entity, the recent rise in incidence will significantly affect treatment, and prevention and screening techniques, essentially reshaping current clinical practice.

Social change driving incidence

In the analysis performed by Gillison and colleagues, trends demonstrated that change in the rates of head and neck cancers was largely due to birth cohort effects, meaning that one of the greatest determinants of risk was the year in which patients were born.

The increased incidence of HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma started to occur in birth cohorts born after 1935, indicating that people who were aged in their teens and twenties in the 1960s were demonstrating increased incidence, Gillison said.

“Two important and probably related events happened in the 1960s. In 1964, the surgeon general published a report citing smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer, and public health policy began promoting smoking cessation along with encouragement not to start smoking,” she told HemOnc Today.

If you were 40 years old between 2000 and 2005, your risk for having HPV-related cancer is more than someone who was between the age of 40 and 45 years in 1970, according to Gillison. Social changes that occurred among people born after 1935, for example, a reduction in the number of smokers, is consistent with the increasing proportion of oropharyngeal cancers that were HPV-related.

“The rates for HPV-related cancers began to increase and the rates for HPV-unrelated cancers started to decline, consistent with the known decline in tobacco use in the U.S. population,” she said.

Now, most cases of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in non-smokers are HPV-related; however, oral HPV infection is common and is a cause of oropharyngeal cancer in both smokers and non-smokers, research shows.

In addition to a decrease in tobacco use reducing HPV-unrelated oral cavity cancers, the number of sexual partners may have increased during this time and have helped to increase HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers, according to Gillison.

Determining the cause of the elevated incidence is only a small piece of the puzzle. Screening, establishing who is at risk, and weighing vaccination and treatment options are all relevant issues that must be addressed.

Screening is problematic

A critical area for examination and research is the issue of screening for oral cancers. In contrast to cervical cancer, there is no accepted screening that has been shown to reduce incidence or death from oropharyngeal cancer, according to Gillison.

Not many studies have examined the issue of screening for HPV-unrelated oral cancers, and the few that have, tend to include design flaws.

Gillison said there is a hope that dentists would examine the oral cavity and palpate the lymph nodes in the neck as a front-line screen for oral cancer; however, in her experience, and from her perspective as a scientist, this has never been shown to provide benefit for oral cancer as a whole.

Another caveat with regard to HPV detection is that head and neck HPV screening is about 20 years behind the cervical field.

“Clinicians screening for HPV in the field of gynecology were incredibly fortunate because Pap smear screening was already an accepted cervical cancer screening method before HPV was even identified,” she said. “There was already a treatment algorithm: If there were cytologic abnormalities, patients were referred to the gynecologist, who in turn did a colposcopy and biopsy.”

A similar infrastructure does not exist for oropharyngeal cancer. People with HPV16 oral infection are at a 15-fold higher risk for oropharynx cancer and a 50-fold increased risk for HPV-positive head and neck cancer, yet there is no algorithm for treatment and management of these at-risk individuals, Gillison said.

In 2007, WHO said there was sufficient evidence to conclude that HPV16 was the cause of oropharynx cancer, but with no clinical algorithm already established, progress in this area is much further behind.

Another problematic aspect of HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer screening is that the site where the cancer arises is not accessible to a brush sampling, according to Gillison.

“To try to find this incredibly small lesion in the submucosal area that you cannot see and cannot get access to with a brush, highlights that we need to develop new techniques, new technologies and new approaches,” she said.

The near future consists of establishing the actual rates of infection in the oral cavity and oropharynx, and then screening for early diagnosis, according to Erich Madison Sturgis, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of head and neck surgery and the department of epidemiology at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

“I am not extremely hopeful because the oropharyngeal anatomy makes screening complicated, and these cancers likely begin in small areas within the tonsils and the base of the tongue,” Sturgis told HemOnc Today. “I am hopeful, however, that preventive vaccines will eventually, at a population level, start to prevent these cancers by helping people avoid initial infection by immunity through vaccination earlier in life.”

Much of the currently known information surrounding the issue of HPV-related oral cancers is new, so researchers continue to conduct research in various relevant areas. One key question to answer is who may be at higher risk for HPV-related oropharynx cancers.

Who is at risk?

As mentioned earlier, the number of oral sex partners seems to play a role in the risk for contracting the HPV virus.

In one study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007, findings demonstrated that a high lifetime number of oral sex partners (at least six partners) was associated with an increased risk for oropharyngeal cancer (OR=3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-8.8).

In addition to a higher number of oral sex partners, other still unknown factors may be contributing to risk. This is an area that needs further research, according to Barbara Burtness, MD, chief of head and neck oncology, and professor of medical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

The effect of smoking status is another area that needs further research. According to Burtness, smokers with HPV-associated oropharynx cancer have less favorable outcomes.

When discussing the prognosis of HPV-associated cancers, Sturgis said low risk is defined as low or no tobacco exposure and positive HPV status, and intermediate risk is defined as significant tobacco exposure but an HPV-positive tumor, and the highest risk group appears to be the HPV-negative group.

Although HPV-negative cancers are overwhelmingly tobacco-related cancers and tend to have multiple mutations, it appears that HPV-positive cancers, particularly those in patients with low tobacco and alcohol exposure, tend to lack mutations and to have a better prognosis, and this may ultimately help to guide treatment practices, according to Sturgis. Yet, there is still much to learn about HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers on various fronts.

Vaccination a hopeful ally

In HPV-related head and neck cancer, particularly oropharynx cancers, more than 90% of patients who have an HPV-type DNA identified, have type 16, according to Sturgis.

The two current HPV vaccines, Gardasil (Merck) and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline), which are approved for cervical cancers, include HPV types 16 and 18; therefore, in theory, they should be protective against the development of infections in the oropharynx and protective at preventing these HPV-associated cancers from occurring.

The presumption is that if there was a population-wide vaccination against HPV, there would be less person-to-person transmission, and this would lead to fewer oropharynx cancers, according to Burtness, who said this theory still needs further research.

There is excitement at the possibility that therapeutic vaccines could be developed, and various groups are investigating this, Burtness added.

“There is reason to think that the vaccines may be helpful; however, when HPV infects the tonsillar tissues, it exerts control in the host cells by making two proteins: E6 and E7; so another potentially exciting therapeutic avenue would be to target those specific viral proteins,” she told HemOnc Today.

Anxiety about protection from the HPV virus is palpable, according to Sturgis. He described the worry that many patients experience about contracting and transmitting HPV infection.

“Many patients are concerned they will put their spouses and/or children at risk in ways such as kissing them; and we need to tone down those worries until we have better data,” he said.

Screening and vaccination are fundamental aspects of current ongoing research, but of equal importance is determining what clinicians should do to treat a population of patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers.

HPV status may influence treatment

With rates of HPV-related cancers escalating, determining the appropriate treatment for these patients is crucial.

During the past 10 years, findings from retrospective studies have shown that patients with HPV-related cancers have a much better prognosis than patients who test negative for HPV. Findings from several retrospective analyses from clinical trials conducted during the past 2 years have come to the same conclusion, according to Gillison: HPV-positive patients have half the risk for death compared with patients negative for HPV.

Therefore, there may be several alternative treatment options, including the possibility of reducing the dose of radiation given to patients after chemotherapy, thereby reducing toxicity.

Comparing HPV-negative and HPV-positive patients may not be enough to determine proper treatment, researchers said. Data between different cohorts of HPV-positive patients also needs to be examined. Smoking, for example, may play a role in patient outcome.

In a prospective Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trial (RTOG 0129), presented by Gillison at the 2009 ASCO Annual Meeting and recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine (see page 53), researchers conducted a subanalysis of the effect of smoking on outcome in uniformly staged and treated HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients while accounting for a number of potential confounders. HPV-positive patients who were never smokers had a 3-year OS of 93% compared with heavy smoking HPV-negative patients who had an OS of 46%.

The study found that smoking was independently associated with OS and PFS. Patients had a 1% increased risk for death and cancer relapse for each additional pack-year of smoking. This risk was evident in both HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients. Gillison said smoking data must be paid attention to, and she encouraged cooperative group research on the topic.

Most of the findings demonstrate improved outcomes for patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers vs. patients with HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers, according to the experts interviewed by HemOnc Today.

Dose de-intensification for less toxicity

To date, there is no evidence that HPV-related cancers should be managed differently than HPV-unrelated cancers, but it is a hot topic among clinicians in the field, according to Burtness.

The superior outcomes for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer have suggested the possibility of treatment de-intensification. The use of effective induction chemotherapy may permit definitive treatment with a lower total radiation dose. In theory, this would reduce the severity of late toxic effects of radiation, such as swallowing dysfunction. Such a trial is being conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Burtness said this is currently pure research question.

“There is still much research that needs to be done before clinicians can safely reduce the dose of radiation administered to HPV-positive patients,” Burtness said.

Currently, she and colleagues in the ECOG are conducting a study of patients with HPV-associated stage III or IV oropharynx cancers to examine the possibility of tailoring therapy to these patients. Patients are assigned to one of two groups: low-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy 5 days per week for 5 weeks (27 fractions) plus IV cetuximab (Erbitux, ImClone) once weekly for 6 weeks, or standard-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy 5 days per week for 6 weeks (33 fractions) plus IV cetuximab once weekly for 7 weeks.

If patients have a very good clinical response to chemotherapy, which is likely to happen with HPV-associated cancers, they are eligible to receive a reduced dose of radiation, and hopefully, they would experience less adverse effects, Burtness said.

“Patients who are treated with the full course of radiation for head and neck cancer are now getting 70 Gy, and they are often left with dry mouth, and speech and swallowing difficulty,” she said. “We are hopeful that if these particular cancers are treatment responsive to chemotherapy, we may be able to spare the patient the last 14 Gy of radiation.”

Immunotherapy a viable treatment

Another possible treatment technique that may benefit patients with HPV-related cancers is immunotherapy. One form of immunotherapy uses lymphocytes collected from the patient, and training the cells in the laboratory to recognize in this case a virus that is associated with a tumor and consequently attack it. This approach potentially may be used to treat HPV-related oropharynx cancers, according to Carlos A. Ramos, MD, assistant professor at the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“With some infections that lead to cancer, even though the virus is present in the tumor cells, the proteins shown to the immune system are limited; therefore, they do not drive a very strong immune response,” Ramos told HemOnc Today. “Training the immune system cells, T lymphocytes, may make them respond better to antigens.”

Data from ongoing trials that are taking T lymphocytes from patients and educating them to recognize antigens in patients with the Epstein-Barr virus associated tumors have shown some activity against them, according to Ramos. This adoptive transfer appears to be safe and may have the same effect on the HPV virus associated tumors. Immunotherapy does not cause the usual toxicities associated with chemotherapy, he said.

“There are currently no trials showing whether we can prevent more recurrences with this approach, but the results of trials examining viruses such as Epstein-Barr are good so far, in both patients who have no evidence of disease and in those who still have disease,” he said.

Even patients with active disease who have not responded to other therapies have responded to this therapy, Ramos said. He and colleagues are working toward compiling preclinical data to study the possibility of using immunotherapy to treat patients with HPV-related cancers.

Journey is just beginning

Much of what is known about risk, screening, prevention and treatment of HPV-related oropharynx cancers is in the early stages of discovery and much is still theoretical, according to Sturgis.

“As far as we can tell, these infections are transmitted sexually; the hope is that as we have better vaccines for prevention of cervical dysplasia, the downstream effect will help prevent other HPV-related cancers, such as anal cancers and penile cancers and oropharyngeal cancers,” he said.

Several recent studies examining new therapies that may reduce the intensity of traditional treatments while maintaining survival rates would have a major effect on the field, according to Sturgis.

Gillison said the rise in the number of cases of HPV-related cancers is changing the patient population considered to be at risk, and more research is vital.

“The most important thing for clinicians to do is be aware that trials are being developed and strongly encourage their patients to participate,” she said.  Christen Cona

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

June, 2016|Oral Cancer News|