Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleExperimental Studies
Open Access

Efficacy of Multimodality Approach in Patients With Recurrent Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

PASCALE ALICIA HOELL, KHALED ELSAYAD, HENDRIK BERSSENBRUEGGE, DOMINIK HERING, CHRISTOPHER KITTEL, JOHANNES KLEINHEINZ, ANNALEN BLECKMANN, GEORG EVERS, EVA WARDELMANN, CLAUDIA RUDACK and HANS THEODOR EICH
Anticancer Research March 2023, 43 (3) 1255-1263; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16272
PASCALE ALICIA HOELL
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KHALED ELSAYAD
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Khaled.elsayad@uni-muenster.de
HENDRIK BERSSENBRUEGGE
2Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOMINIK HERING
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CHRISTOPHER KITTEL
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOHANNES KLEINHEINZ
3Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANNALEN BLECKMANN
4Department of Medicine A, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GEORG EVERS
4Department of Medicine A, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
EVA WARDELMANN
5Gerhard-Domagk-Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CLAUDIA RUDACK
2Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HANS THEODOR EICH
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is characterized by high relapse rates and low survival in comparison to other malignancies. Patients and Methods: Fifty-two patients suffering from recurrent HNSCC were compared, analyzing the impact of different regimes, including surgery, radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy and immunotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), locoregional control (LRC), and adverse events. Results: The standard RT technique was intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in all patients. In the multivariate analysis, higher cumulative RT dose significantly influenced LRC whereas surgery and age significantly impacted PFS and OS. Conclusion: IMRT dose-escalation, as well as surgery, appear beneficial in the treatment of recurrent HNSCC. Moreover, nivolumab and platin-based therapy might be superior agents for systemic therapy in comparison to cetuximab.

Key Words:
  • Recurrent head and neck cancer
  • squamous cell carcinoma
  • intensity-modulated radiotherapy
  • local control
  • prognosis
  • immunotherapy
  • salvage surgery

Head and neck cancer is a common neoplasm with a rising incidence and worldwide more than 600,000 new cases annually (1). It often arises from epithelial cells, especially squamous cells, representing 90% of all head and neck carcinomas (2). Carcinomas in the head and neck are frequently diagnosed in a locally advanced stage and represent a significant threat to patients’ lives (3-5). Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) requires special treatment due to its location next to vital structures and organs and associated limitations of extensive surgery. An individual combination of therapy options is most commonly used, considering location, distinction, histological patterns, and patient characteristics (6). The aim is to treat the tumor and at the same time prevent a recurrence, grand reduction in quality of life, and long-term toxicities. Established approaches for the primary treatment of HNSCC include open and minimally invasive surgical interventions (7). Radiotherapy (RT) is beneficial in patients with locally advanced and large tumors or close resection margins (8, 9).

Moreover, adjuvant radiochemotherapy is used to treat primary tumor and micro metastases. In addition, platin-based chemotherapy and cetuximab, an EGFR-inhibitor, have proved to be efficient (10, 11). Despite aggressive primary treatment with curative intent, relapse rates are high in the form of distant metastases or locoregional recurrences (12). However, treatment for recurrent squamous cell carcinomas has been less investigated than for primary tumors (13, 14).

Agents used to treat recurrent HNSCC include cisplatin, methotrexate, paclitaxel, docetaxel, cetuximab, pembrolizumab, and 5-FU (15). In addition, nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, presents an established agent after the failure of platinum-based therapy (16, 17). Various randomized phase III trials comparing anti-PD(L)-antibodies as a treatment alone or combined with chemotherapy are ongoing.

The purpose of this analysis is to investigate the effects of different surgery, RT, and chemotherapy regimens on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and locoregional control (LRC) rates for patients with recurrent HNSCC. Moreover, RT toxicities have been examined, considering in- or outfield radiation and the cumulative applied RT dose.

Patients and Methods

Patient selection. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on 196 patients treated for HNSCC in our institution between 2012 and 2018. In our study, we included patients who met the following inclusion criteria: patients at the age of 18 years or older, with a local recurrence from a histological confirmed HNSCC, pre-treatment of the primary carcinoma in the head and neck, completion of treatment course, and a minimum follow-up time of 3 months (Figure 1). Patients only with distant recurrence were excluded (N=26). In addition, all patients were classified according to the TNM-classification version 8 (18). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (AEs) was used to assess toxicities. In this analysis, fifty-two patients filled the inclusion criteria.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Patient selection.

Therapy. After the initial diagnosis of HNSCC, twenty-seven (52%) subjects experienced surgical resection of the primary neoplasm, 46 (89%) patients underwent RT of the primary tumor, and 38 patients (73%) also had concurrent chemotherapy. The primary radiochemotherapy regimens included cisplatin (N=27), carboplatin (N=12) and cetuximab (N=3).

In the relapse situation, eleven patients (21%) underwent surgery of the locally recurrent tumor, 45 patients (87%) underwent re-irradiation of the locally recurrent HNSCC using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a medium RT dose of 45 Gy and a medium fraction dose of 1.8 Gy. Forty-four (85%) patients received salvage concurrent chemotherapy. Chemotherapy regimens included platin-based therapy (cisplatin N=10 and carboplatin N=10) or cetuximab (N=20), immunotherapy included nivolumab (N=4) and 5-FU (N=3), 3 patients received a combination of agents. The median interval between the two RT courses was 14 months (range=5-267 months).

Compliance with Ethical Standards. All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the University Hospital of Muenster, of the national research committee, of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statistical analysis. All our statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS version 27.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). We considered differences statistically significant at a p-value of <0.05. Chi-squared or Fisher exact tests were used to examine the relationships between two categorical variables. OS was measured from the relapse date until death, and PFS was calculated from the relapse date until relapse or death, whichever occurred first. LRC was calculated from the relapse date until locoregional progress or recurrence. If progression or death did not occur before the cut-off-date, data were censored at the time of last seen. Time-dependent event curves were calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Comparisons were made using the log-rank test.

Results

Patient and disease characteristics. Critical clinical characteristics of the study cohort are summarized in Table I, including tumor classification, grading of the carcinoma, tumor localization, operation, RT and systemic treatment parameters for the primary and recurrence therapy, relapses after salvage treatment, metastases, and vital state.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient and treatment characteristics.

At the time of the final analysis, 41 patients had died, and 11 were alive. The median age of this cohort at the time of diagnosis of the primary tumor was 58 years (range=0-83 years), the majority of patients was male (N=40, 77%). Regarding initial tumor stage, five patients (9%) were classified as T1, 13 patients (25%) as T2, 15 patients as T3 (29%), and 17 patients (33%) as T4 disease, according to the TNM classification systems (8th edition). The nodal status of 37 (71%) patients was positive. Thirty patients (58%) had a low-grade tumor, while 13 patients (25%) were diagnosed with a high-grade carcinoma. Out of this cohort, 27 patients (52%) received primary surgery. The most common primary tumor site was oropharyngeal in 26 patients (50%). Forty-six patients (89%) initially underwent radiotherapy, while 37 patients (71%) received primary radiochemotherapy. The medium radiation dose was 70.2 Gy (range=16-73 Gy), and the medium fraction dose was 1.8 (range=1.5-2). Thirty-nine patients (75%) developed early relapse (≤24 months after primary therapy). For the relapsed carcinoma, eleven patients (21%) received salvage surgery, 45 patients (86.5%) underwent salvage radiation, and 44 patients (85%) had salvage radiochemotherapy. The medium salvage radiation dose was 45 Gy (range=27-72 Gy), and the medium fraction dose was 1.8 (range=1.8-2). The medium cumulative dose was 107 Gy (range=53-150 Gy). Medium follow-up after salvage RT was 19 months (range=2-65 months). The recurrent carcinoma was located within the primary radiation area in 23 patients (44%), marginal to the primary tumor site in 7 patients (13%), outfield in 3 patients (6%). The remaining patients (37%) did not receive prior radiation, or their relapse pattern was unknown. Distant metastases were recorded in 28 patients (54%), most commonly in the lung (N=20), liver (N=5), brain (N=2), bones (N=3), and mediastinal (N=5). A recurrence after salvage treatment was recorded in 20 patients (38.5%). Most commonly, these second relapses were treated with cetuximab (N=7) or nivolumab (N=5).

Outcomes

Overall and progression-free survival rates. Following relapse, the median OS was 16 months (95%CI=11-20), and median PFS was ten months (95%CI=8-12). Thus, one-year OS and 1-year PFS were 59±7% and 38±7%, respectively. We could not observe any difference in OS regarding histological grade (p=0.7). Regarding primary T-classification, patients with early-stage (T1-T2) had a trend towards more prolonged survival. Early-stage patients had a median OS of 21 months vs. 13 months for late stages (p=0.1). Similarly, regarding tumor stages, there was a trend towards longer OS in patients with early-stage disease vs. advanced stages (21 months vs. 14 months, p=0.1). Nodal status (p=0.3) or distant metastases (p=0.4) were not associated with a significant difference in OS. Patients who underwent surgery as part of the primary treatment strategy had a significantly longer OS than patients without surgery (21 months vs. 11 months, p=0.04, Figure 2). Similarly, patients who received surgery as part of salvage treatment tended to have longer OS (36 months vs. 13 months, p=0.09). There was no significant impact of salvage radiotherapy (p=0.3) or chemotherapy (p=0.9) on OS. There was a significantly higher OS in sub-group analysis for patients treated with platin-based therapy than cetuximab (p<0.01). We could not observe a difference between platin-based therapy or nivolumab (p=0.2). We detected a significantly higher OS in younger patients (<58 years) compared to older patients (p<0.01, Figure 3). Female patients had a longer OS (p=0.04). Patients suffering from a relapse after salvage treatments compared to the other patients had a median OS of 22 months vs. 10 months (p=0.1). The time interval between first diagnosis and relapse did not have a significant impact on OS (p=0.6; Figure 4).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival according to primary surgery.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival according to age group (N=52).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival according to relapse interval (N=52).

There was no significant difference in PFS regarding histological grade (p=0.3), primary T classification (p=0.4) or nodal status (p=0.2). A trend for longer PFS could be detected for patients without distant metastases (p=0.06). Patients who experienced surgery as part of the primary treatment strategy had a significantly longer PFS than patients without surgery (14 months vs. 7 months, p=0.03). Similarly, patients who received surgery as part of salvage treatment had a significantly longer PFS (17 months vs. 9 months, p=0.03). PFS showed no significant difference between early or late relapses (p=0.5). There was no significant impact of RT (p=0.1) or chemotherapy (p=0.9) on PFS regarding salvage therapies. Comparing the chemotherapy agents, a significantly longer PFS for patients treated with cisplatin compared to cetuximab could be found (p=0.004). There was no noticeable difference between cisplatin and nivolumab (p=0.7). We detected a significantly higher PFS in younger patients compared to older patients (p=0.03). Female patients had a non-significant difference in PFS (p=0.2) compared to male patients.

Loco-regional control. Local relapses of the recurrent HNSCC were detected in 20 patients (38%). Distant metastases occurred in 28 patients (54%). Thirteen patients (24%) had both. For the whole cohort, the median LRC was 19 months (95%CI=12-26). The 1-year LRC was 65±8%.

In our cohort, no significant difference in LRC regarding histological grade (p=0.2), primary T classification (p=0.8), or nodal status (p=0.9) was detected. Regarding distant metastases (p=0.09), there was a trend towards longer LRC without metastases. We could not detect a significant impact of primary or salvage surgery on LRC (p=0.3). Patients who received surgery as part of salvage treatment had a longer LRC (41 months vs. 27 months, p=0.3). The application of primary RT showed a trend towards a shorter LRC (p=0.1). Regarding salvage therapies, there was no significant impact of RT (p=0.1) or chemotherapy (p=0.7) on LRC. Salvage radiation dose (p=0.02) and RT cumulative dose (p=0.004) showed a significant impact on LRC. Patients with early relapses compared to late relapses had a non-significant shorter LRC (p=0.6). Platin-based chemotherapy treatment showed a trend towards longer LRC compared to cetuximab (p=0.14). Nivolumab therapy had no significant difference compared to platin-based treatment (p=0.6). There was neither a difference in LRC between younger and older patients (p=0.8) nor did sex account for a significant difference in LRC (p=0.5).

Cox proportional hazards model. In a Cox proportional hazard model, age, sex, stage of disease, grade, surgical intervention, time interval till relapse, RT dose of salvage treatment, cumulative dose, and use of chemotherapy were included (Table II).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Univariate and multivariate analyses for locoregional control (LRC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) (N=52).

In the univariate analyses, several parameters emerged as potential predictors of survivals. In the follow-up multivariate analysis, a higher salvage RT dose was associated with better LRC. RT cumulative dose was associated with PFS, while age and surgeries were found to be significant determinates of OS.

Toxicities. During salvage RT courses, most patients (85%) experienced adverse events (AEs). Twenty-two patients (44%) developed grade 1 AEs and 13 patients (25%) experienced grade 2 AEs. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were observed in 9 patients (17%) and one (2%), respectively. No radiation-related deaths occurred, but two radiation-related breaks took place. The most common acute AEs were erythema and mucositis.

Regarding radiation dose, patients receiving a cumulative high-dose (>107 Gy) did not have more severe toxicities than patients with lower doses. Severe toxicities (grade 3 and 4) were not observed in patients receiving outfield radiation (N=3) as salvage therapy. Patients with infield radiation (N=22) developed grade 3 in 13% and grade 4 in 4% of cases.

Regarding salvage chemotherapy, seven patients (13%) changed the chemotherapy-agent or received a dose reduction due to side effects such as leukopenia (N=2), nephrotoxicity (N=2), or strong emesis (N=1).

Discussion

This analysis aimed to compare the impact of different combinations of RT, surgery, and chemotherapy strategies on LRC, PFS, OS, and radiation-related toxicity in recurrent HNSCC. From this work, several findings have emerged. Firstly, surgery treatment, especially primary surgery, significantly influenced OS and PFS of patients treated with recurrent HNSCC (p=0.05, p=0.04). Corresponding to this, patients who could not be treated with surgery in the first place but received primary radiation had a lower PFS and OS (p=0.04, p=0.03). Tumors with a locally advanced stage and inoperable tumors are considered for primary radiation and have a worse outcome (19, 20). Therefore, primary surgery is regarded as the standard treatment for HNSCC (21). It was shown that patients’ prognoses were better if surgery was conducted shortly after diagnosis (22). In accordance with several studies (23-26), our results also show that salvage surgery remains the preferred treatment for recurrent HNSCC with the best efficacy.

Secondly, age was shown to have a significant impact on OS. In multivariate analysis, this benefit remained a significant predictor for OS. Younger patients have better outcomes probably due to better general health status, better tolerance of aggressive treatment, and fewer comorbidities. With an increase in age, the effects of chemotherapy decrease (12). Chang and colleagues also regard age as a critical prognostic factor (23).

Concerning the systemic agents, cetuximab presented a disadvantage as a salvage agent compared to platin-based therapy over PFS and OS. In contrast to our findings, cetuximab is still often used as an agent for salvage treatment of HNSCC and has shown efficiency in other studies (11, 27). It is currently used in addition to cisplatin and 5-FU as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC (28). Similar to our finding, Shapiro et al., Gillison et al., and Mehanna et al. have shown inferior outcomes for patients treated with cetuximab (29-32).

Re-irradiation as salvage treatment was used very carefully in the past due to increased risks of severe toxicities and showed unsatisfactory results in long-term control for conventional RT (33, 34). With image-guided RT and modern RT techniques, radio-related toxicities and deaths could be reduced (35, 36). However, only limited data serve as a guideline for re-irradiation of recurrent HNSCC (37).

In our analysis, IMRT with higher cumulative radiation dose impacted PFS in the multivariate analysis. While salvage radiation dose was associated with LRC. In accordance with our patients’ selection criteria, Strojan et al. also regard current comorbidities and the preexistence of organic dysfunction as important factors (38).

In accordance with previous studies (39, 40), sex seemed to impact OS of patients with recurrent HNSCC. Interestingly, characteristics of the primary tumor such as stage and grading, usually regarded as critical predictive factors for the primary tumor (41, 42), did not seem to impact LRC, OS, and PFS for the relapsed carcinoma.

Similar to previous studies (43), locoregional recurrence and salvage radiation mainly occurred infield in our patients. This could result in more adverse events due to higher amounts of cumulative radiation dose. IMRT, used for all patients’ salvage radiation, decreases toxicities and allows higher RT doses than conventional RT (44, 45). Our results indicated that higher radiation dose resulted in better local control and not necessarily in higher toxicity rates, although there was a slight trend towards higher grade AEs with infield radiation. However, as salvage RT significantly increased LRC with minimal grade 3 (13%) and grade 4 (4%), salvage radiation could be recommended. Still, individual factors such as health conditions seem to play an essential role in toxicities and should be evaluated before applying re-irradiation (46).

However, our study has several limitations due to its’ retrospective approach, relatively small number of patients, and diversity of characteristics and treatments, attributable to the relatively low frequency of recurrent HNSCC. Unfortunately, we could only include a few cases of patients treated with nivolumab, and some patient data were missing. Especially regarding treatment with nivolumab, ongoing prospective multi-institutional studies address this agent as a treatment option. Several studies have already found promising effects of nivolumab (47, 48). Therefore, immunotherapy might be considered in heavily pretreated patients.

Conclusion

Salvage treatment of HNSCC remains an interdisciplinary challenge. Although survival has already improved and significant advances in modern imaging and immunotherapy have been made, the need for more curative and less toxic treatment regimens remains an important issue.

Comparing the different treatment strategies, surgery remains the most effective primary and salvage therapy. In combination with high doses of salvage IMRT for better LRC and systemic therapy, survival could be increased. Platin-based therapy was superior to cetuximab in our analysis, and nivolumab could be a promising treatment option.

Footnotes

  • Author’s Contributions

    Conceptualization, P.A.H., K.E., A.B. and H.T.E.; data curation, P.A.H.; formal analysis, P.A.H.; methodology, P.A.H, K.E., H.B., D.H., C.K., J.K., G.E., and E.W; writing – original draft, P.A.H. All Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    There are no conflicts of interest related to this study.

  • Received December 26, 2022.
  • Revision received January 23, 2023.
  • Accepted February 1, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sung H,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Siegel RL,
    4. Laversanne M,
    5. Soerjomataram I,
    6. Jemal A and
    7. Bray F
    : Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3): 209-249, 2021. PMID: 33538338. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Thompson L
    : Squamous cell carcinoma variants of the head and neck. Current Diagnostic Pathology 9(6): 384-396, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/S0968-6053(03)00069-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Argiris A,
    2. Karamouzis MV,
    3. Raben D and
    4. Ferris RL
    : Head and neck cancer. Lancet 371(9625): 1695-1709, 2008. PMID: 18486742. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60728-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gatta G,
    2. Botta L,
    3. Sánchez MJ,
    4. Anderson LA,
    5. Pierannunzio D,
    6. Licitra L and EUROCARE Working Group
    : Prognoses and improvement for head and neck cancers diagnosed in Europe in early 2000s: The EUROCARE-5 population-based study. Eur J Cancer 51(15): 2130-2143, 2015. PMID: 26421817. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Yokota T,
    2. Homma A,
    3. Kiyota N,
    4. Tahara M,
    5. Hanai N,
    6. Asakage T,
    7. Matsuura K,
    8. Ogawa T,
    9. Saito Y,
    10. Sano D,
    11. Kodaira T,
    12. Motegi A,
    13. Yasuda K,
    14. Takahashi S,
    15. Tanaka K,
    16. Onoe T,
    17. Okano S,
    18. Imamura Y,
    19. Ariizumi Y,
    20. Hayashi R and Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Head and Neck Cancer Study Group
    : Immunotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Jpn J Clin Oncol 50(10): 1089-1096, 2020. PMID: 32776100. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa139
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Budach V and
    2. Tinhofer I
    : Novel prognostic clinical factors and biomarkers for outcome prediction in head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 20(6): e313-e326, 2019. PMID: 31162105. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30177-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Kaidar-Person O,
    2. Gil Z and
    3. Billan S
    : Precision medicine in head and neck cancer. Drug Resist Updat 40: 13-16, 2018. PMID: 30466712. DOI: 10.1016/j.drup.2018.09.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Koyfman SA,
    2. Ismaila N,
    3. Crook D,
    4. D’Cruz A,
    5. Rodriguez CP,
    6. Sher DJ,
    7. Silbermins D,
    8. Sturgis EM,
    9. Tsue TT,
    10. Weiss J,
    11. Yom SS and
    12. Holsinger FC
    : Management of the neck in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: ASCO clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 37(20): 1753-1774, 2019. PMID: 30811281. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.18.01921
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Bernier J,
    2. Domenge C,
    3. Ozsahin M,
    4. Matuszewska K,
    5. Lefèbvre JL,
    6. Greiner RH,
    7. Giralt J,
    8. Maingon P,
    9. Rolland F,
    10. Bolla M,
    11. Cognetti F,
    12. Bourhis J,
    13. Kirkpatrick A,
    14. van Glabbeke M and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 22931
    : Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 350(19): 1945-1952, 2004. PMID: 15128894. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa032641
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Winquist E,
    2. Agbassi C,
    3. Meyers BM,
    4. Yoo J,
    5. Chan KKW and Head and Neck Disease Site Group
    : Systemic therapy in the curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer: a systematic review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 46(1): 29, 2017. PMID: 28376866. DOI: 10.1186/s40463-017-0199-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Bonner JA,
    2. Harari PM,
    3. Giralt J,
    4. Cohen RB,
    5. Jones CU,
    6. Sur RK,
    7. Raben D,
    8. Baselga J,
    9. Spencer SA,
    10. Zhu J,
    11. Youssoufian H,
    12. Rowinsky EK and
    13. Ang KK
    : Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol 11(1): 21-28, 2010. PMID: 19897418. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70311-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Pignon JP,
    2. le Maître A,
    3. Maillard E,
    4. Bourhis J and MACH-NC Collaborative Group
    : Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. Radiother Oncol 92(1): 4-14, 2009. PMID: 19446902. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.04.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. León X,
    2. Hitt R,
    3. Constenla M,
    4. Rocca A,
    5. Stupp R,
    6. Kovács AF,
    7. Amellal N,
    8. Bessa EH and
    9. Bourhis J
    : A retrospective analysis of the outcome of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck refractory to a platinum-based chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 17(6): 418-424, 2005. PMID: 16149284. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2005.02.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Grünwald V,
    2. Chirovsky D,
    3. Cheung WY,
    4. Bertolini F,
    5. Ahn MJ,
    6. Yang MH,
    7. Castro G,
    8. Berrocal A,
    9. Sjoquist K,
    10. Kuyas H,
    11. Auclair V,
    12. Guillaume X,
    13. Joo S,
    14. Shah R,
    15. Harrington K and GLANCE H&N STUDY Investigators
    : Global treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Results of the GLANCE H&N study. Oral Oncol 102: 104526, 2020. PMID: 31978755. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.104526
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Specenier P and
    2. Vermorken JB
    : Optimizing treatments for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 18(9): 901-915, 2018. PMID: 29999437. DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2018.1493925
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Saba NF,
    2. Blumenschein G Jr.,
    3. Guigay J,
    4. Licitra L,
    5. Fayette J,
    6. Harrington KJ,
    7. Kiyota N,
    8. Gillison ML,
    9. Ferris RL,
    10. Jayaprakash V,
    11. Li L and
    12. Brossart P
    : Nivolumab versus investigator’s choice in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Efficacy and safety in CheckMate 141 by age. Oral Oncol 96: 7-14, 2019. PMID: 31422216. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.06.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Ferris RL,
    2. Licitra L,
    3. Fayette J,
    4. Even C,
    5. Blumenschein G Jr.,
    6. Harrington KJ,
    7. Guigay J,
    8. Vokes EE,
    9. Saba NF,
    10. Haddad R,
    11. Ramkumar S,
    12. Russell J,
    13. Brossart P,
    14. Tahara M,
    15. Colevas AD,
    16. Concha-Benavente F,
    17. Lynch M,
    18. Li L and
    19. Gillison ML
    : Nivolumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Efficacy and safety in CheckMate 141 by prior cetuximab use. Clin Cancer Res 25(17): 5221-5230, 2019. PMID: 31239321. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3944
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Huang SH and
    2. O’Sullivan B
    : Overview of the 8th edition TNM classification for head and neck cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 18(7): 40, 2017. PMID: 28555375. DOI: 10.1007/s11864-017-0484-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Al-Sarraf M,
    2. Pajak TF,
    3. Marcial VA,
    4. Mowry P,
    5. Cooper JS,
    6. Stetz J,
    7. Ensley JF and
    8. Velez-Garcia E
    : Concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin in inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. An RTOG Study. Cancer 59(2): 259-265, 1987. PMID: 3802013. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19870115)59:2<259::aid-cncr2820590214>3.0.co;2-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Hauswald H,
    2. Simon C,
    3. Hecht S,
    4. Debus J and
    5. Lindel K
    : Long-term outcome and patterns of failure in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 6: 70, 2011. PMID: 21663634. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-70
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Bozec A,
    2. Culié D,
    3. Poissonnet G and
    4. Dassonville O
    : Current role of primary surgical treatment in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 31(3): 138-145, 2019. PMID: 30865132. DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000531
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Rygalski CJ,
    2. Zhao S,
    3. Eskander A,
    4. Zhan KY,
    5. Mroz EA,
    6. Brock G,
    7. Silverman DA,
    8. Blakaj D,
    9. Bonomi MR,
    10. Carrau RL,
    11. Old MO,
    12. Rocco JW,
    13. Seim NB,
    14. Puram SV and
    15. Kang SY
    : Time to surgery and survival in head and neck cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 28(2): 877-885, 2021. PMID: 33188461. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09326-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Chang JH,
    2. Wu CC,
    3. Yuan KS,
    4. Wu ATH and
    5. Wu SY
    : Locoregionally recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: incidence, survival, prognostic factors, and treatment outcomes. Oncotarget 8(33): 55600-55612, 2017. PMID: 28903447. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16340
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Patil VM,
    2. Noronha V,
    3. Thiagarajan S,
    4. Joshi A,
    5. Chandrasekharan A,
    6. Talreja V,
    7. Agarwal J,
    8. Ghosh-Laskar S,
    9. Budrukkar A,
    10. Juvekar S,
    11. Mahajan A,
    12. Agarwal A,
    13. Purandare N,
    14. Bhattacharjee A,
    15. D’Cruz AK,
    16. Chaturvedi P,
    17. Pai PS,
    18. Chaukar D and
    19. Prabhash K
    : Salvage surgery in head and neck cancer: Does it improve outcomes? Eur J Surg Oncol 46(6): 1052-1058, 2020. PMID: 32014275. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.01.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Maruo T,
    2. Zenda S,
    3. Shinozaki T,
    4. Tomioka T,
    5. Okano W,
    6. Sakuraba M,
    7. Tahara M and
    8. Hayashi R
    : Comparison of salvage surgery for recurrent or residual head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol 50(3): 288-295, 2020. PMID: 31845736. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyz176
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hamoir M,
    2. Schmitz S,
    3. Suarez C,
    4. Strojan P,
    5. Hutcheson KA,
    6. Rodrigo JP,
    7. Mendenhall WM,
    8. Simo R,
    9. Saba NF,
    10. D’Cruz AK,
    11. Haigentz M Jr.,
    12. Bradford CR,
    13. Genden EM,
    14. Rinaldo A and
    15. Ferlito A
    : The current role of salvage surgery in recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 10(8): 267, 2018. PMID: 30103407. DOI: 10.3390/cancers10080267
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Taberna M,
    2. Oliva M and
    3. Mesía R
    : Cetuximab-containing combinations in locally advanced and recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Front Oncol 9: 383, 2019. PMID: 31165040. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00383
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Vermorken JB,
    2. Mesia R,
    3. Rivera F,
    4. Remenar E,
    5. Kawecki A,
    6. Rottey S,
    7. Erfan J,
    8. Zabolotnyy D,
    9. Kienzer HR,
    10. Cupissol D,
    11. Peyrade F,
    12. Benasso M,
    13. Vynnychenko I,
    14. De Raucourt D,
    15. Bokemeyer C,
    16. Schueler A,
    17. Amellal N and
    18. Hitt R
    : Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 359(11): 1116-1127, 2008. PMID: 18784101. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0802656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Shapiro LQ,
    2. Sherman EJ,
    3. Riaz N,
    4. Setton J,
    5. Koutcher L,
    6. Zhang Z,
    7. Shi W,
    8. Fury MG,
    9. Wolden SL,
    10. Pfister DG,
    11. Morris L and
    12. Lee N
    : Efficacy of concurrent cetuximab vs. 5-fluorouracil/carboplatin or high-dose cisplatin with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for locally-advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNSCC). Oral Oncol 50(10): 947-955, 2014. PMID: 25132089. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.07.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gillison ML,
    2. Trotti AM,
    3. Harris J,
    4. Eisbruch A,
    5. Harari PM,
    6. Adelstein DJ,
    7. Jordan RCK,
    8. Zhao W,
    9. Sturgis EM,
    10. Burtness B,
    11. Ridge JA,
    12. Ringash J,
    13. Galvin J,
    14. Yao M,
    15. Koyfman SA,
    16. Blakaj DM,
    17. Razaq MA,
    18. Colevas AD,
    19. Beitler JJ,
    20. Jones CU,
    21. Dunlap NE,
    22. Seaward SA,
    23. Spencer S,
    24. Galloway TJ,
    25. Phan J,
    26. Dignam JJ and
    27. Le QT
    : Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 393(10166): 40-50, 2019. PMID: 30449625. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32779-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mehanna H,
    2. Robinson M,
    3. Hartley A,
    4. Kong A,
    5. Foran B,
    6. Fulton-Lieuw T,
    7. Dalby M,
    8. Mistry P,
    9. Sen M,
    10. O’Toole L,
    11. Al Booz H,
    12. Dyker K,
    13. Moleron R,
    14. Whitaker S,
    15. Brennan S,
    16. Cook A,
    17. Griffin M,
    18. Aynsley E,
    19. Rolles M,
    20. De Winton E,
    21. Chan A,
    22. Srinivasan D,
    23. Nixon I,
    24. Grumett J,
    25. Leemans CR,
    26. Buter J,
    27. Henderson J,
    28. Harrington K,
    29. McConkey C,
    30. Gray A,
    31. Dunn J and De-ESCALaTE HPV Trial Group
    : Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 393(10166): 51-60, 2019. PMID: 30449623. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32752-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Maddalo M,
    2. Borghetti P,
    3. Tomasini D,
    4. Corvò R,
    5. Bonomo P,
    6. Petrucci A,
    7. Paiar F,
    8. Lastrucci L,
    9. Bonù ML,
    10. Greco D,
    11. Costa L,
    12. Pegurri L,
    13. Triggiani L,
    14. Belgioia L,
    15. Desideri I,
    16. Grisanti S,
    17. Buglione M and
    18. Magrini SM
    : Cetuximab and radiation therapy versus cisplatin and radiation therapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: Long-term survival and toxicity outcomes of a randomized phase 2 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 107(3): 469-477, 2020. PMID: 32184121. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.02.637
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Shin IS,
    3. Kim WC,
    4. Yoon WS,
    5. Koom WS and
    6. Rim CH
    : Reirradiation with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for recurrent or secondary head and neck cancer: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Head Neck 42(9): 2473-2485, 2020. PMID: 32437021. DOI: 10.1002/hed.26264
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Hoebers F,
    2. Heemsbergen W,
    3. Moor S,
    4. Lopez M,
    5. Klop M,
    6. Tesselaar M and
    7. Rasch C
    : Reirradiation for head-and-neck cancer: delicate balance between effectiveness and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81(3): e111-e118, 2011. PMID: 21362581. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.01.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Chen AM,
    2. Farwell DG,
    3. Luu Q,
    4. Cheng S,
    5. Donald PJ and
    6. Purdy JA
    : Prospective trial of high-dose reirradiation using daily image guidance with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for recurrent and second primary head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80(3): 669-676, 2011. PMID: 20547443. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.02.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Rühle A,
    2. Sprave T,
    3. Kalckreuth T,
    4. Stoian R,
    5. Haehl E,
    6. Zamboglou C,
    7. Laszig R,
    8. Knopf A,
    9. Grosu AL and
    10. Nicolay NH
    : The value of moderate dose escalation for re-irradiation of recurrent or second primary head-and-neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 15(1): 81, 2020. PMID: 32299456. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01531-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Caudell JJ,
    2. Ward MC,
    3. Riaz N,
    4. Zakem SJ,
    5. Awan MJ,
    6. Dunlap NE,
    7. Isrow D,
    8. Hassanzadeh C,
    9. Vargo JA,
    10. Heron DE,
    11. Marcrom S,
    12. Boggs DH,
    13. Reddy CA,
    14. Dault J,
    15. Bonner JA,
    16. Higgins KA,
    17. Beitler JJ,
    18. Koyfman SA,
    19. Machtay M,
    20. Yao M,
    21. Trotti AM,
    22. Siddiqui F,
    23. Lee NY and Multi-Institution Reirradiation (MIRI) Collaborative
    : Volume, dose, and fractionation considerations for IMRT-based reirradiation in head and neck cancer: a multi-institution analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 100(3): 606-617, 2018. PMID: 29413274. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.11.036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Strojan P,
    2. Corry J,
    3. Eisbruch A,
    4. Vermorken JB,
    5. Mendenhall WM,
    6. Lee AW,
    7. Haigentz M Jr.,
    8. Beitler JJ,
    9. de Bree R,
    10. Takes RP,
    11. Paleri V,
    12. Kelly CG,
    13. Genden EM,
    14. Bradford CR,
    15. Harrison LB,
    16. Rinaldo A and
    17. Ferlito A
    : Recurrent and second primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: when and how to reirradiate. Head Neck 37(1): 134-150, 2015. PMID: 24481720. DOI: 10.1002/hed.23542
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Matoscevic K,
    2. Graf N,
    3. Pezier TF and
    4. Huber GF
    : Success of salvage treatment: a critical appraisal of salvage rates for different subsites of HNSCC. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 151(3): 454-461, 2014. PMID: 24894422. DOI: 10.1177/0194599814535183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Mazul AL,
    2. Naik AN,
    3. Zhan KY,
    4. Stepan KO,
    5. Old MO,
    6. Kang SY,
    7. Nakken ER and
    8. Puram SV
    : Gender and race interact to influence survival disparities in head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 112: 105093, 2021. PMID: 33232879. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Visini M,
    2. Giger R,
    3. Shelan M,
    4. Elicin O and
    5. Anschuetz L
    : Predicting factors for oncological and functional outcome in hypopharyngeal cancer. Laryngoscope 131(5): E1543-E1549, 2021. PMID: 33098325. DOI: 10.1002/lary.29186
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Panarese I,
    2. Aquino G,
    3. Ronchi A,
    4. Longo F,
    5. Montella M,
    6. Cozzolino I,
    7. Roccuzzo G,
    8. Colella G,
    9. Caraglia M and
    10. Franco R
    : Oral and Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: prognostic and predictive parameters in the etiopathogenetic route. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 19(2): 105-119, 2019. PMID: 30582397. DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2019.1561288
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Gupta T,
    2. Jain S,
    3. Agarwal JP,
    4. Ghosh-Laskar S,
    5. Phurailatpam R,
    6. Pai-Shetty R and
    7. Dinshaw KA
    : Prospective assessment of patterns of failure after high-precision definitive (chemo)radiation in head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80(2): 522-531, 2011. PMID: 20646862. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.054
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Marta GN,
    2. Silva V,
    3. de Andrade Carvalho H,
    4. de Arruda FF,
    5. Hanna SA,
    6. Gadia R,
    7. da Silva JL,
    8. Correa SF,
    9. Vita Abreu CE and
    10. Riera R
    : Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 110(1): 9-15, 2014. PMID: 24332675. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.11.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Pow EH,
    2. Kwong DL,
    3. McMillan AS,
    4. Wong MC,
    5. Sham JS,
    6. Leung LH and
    7. Leung WK
    : Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66(4): 981-991, 2006. PMID: 17145528. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Ng WT,
    2. Soong YL,
    3. Ahn YC,
    4. AlHussain H,
    5. Choi HCW,
    6. Corry J,
    7. Grégoire V,
    8. Harrington KJ,
    9. Hu CS,
    10. Jensen K,
    11. Kwong DL,
    12. Langendijk JA,
    13. Le QT,
    14. Lee NY,
    15. Lin JC,
    16. Lu TX,
    17. Mendenhall WM,
    18. O’Sullivan B,
    19. Ozyar E,
    20. Pan JJ,
    21. Peters LJ,
    22. Poh SS,
    23. Rosenthal DI,
    24. Sanguineti G,
    25. Tao Y,
    26. Wee JT,
    27. Yom SS,
    28. Chua MLK and
    29. Lee AWM
    : International recommendations on reirradiation by intensity modulated radiation therapy for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 110(3): 682-695, 2021. PMID: 33571626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.01.041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Ferris RL,
    2. Blumenschein G Jr.,
    3. Fayette J,
    4. Guigay J,
    5. Colevas AD,
    6. Licitra L,
    7. Harrington K,
    8. Kasper S,
    9. Vokes EE,
    10. Even C,
    11. Worden F,
    12. Saba NF,
    13. Iglesias Docampo LC,
    14. Haddad R,
    15. Rordorf T,
    16. Kiyota N,
    17. Tahara M,
    18. Monga M,
    19. Lynch M,
    20. Geese WJ,
    21. Kopit J,
    22. Shaw JW and
    23. Gillison ML
    : Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 375(19): 1856-1867, 2016. PMID: 27718784. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602252
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Łasińska I,
    2. Kolenda T,
    3. Teresiak A,
    4. Lamperska KM,
    5. Galus Ł and
    6. Mackiewicz J
    : Immunotherapy in patients with recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 19(3): 290-303, 2019. PMID: 30198439. DOI: 10.2174/1871520618666180910092356
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 43 (3)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 43, Issue 3
March 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Efficacy of Multimodality Approach in Patients With Recurrent Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Efficacy of Multimodality Approach in Patients With Recurrent Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
PASCALE ALICIA HOELL, KHALED ELSAYAD, HENDRIK BERSSENBRUEGGE, DOMINIK HERING, CHRISTOPHER KITTEL, JOHANNES KLEINHEINZ, ANNALEN BLECKMANN, GEORG EVERS, EVA WARDELMANN, CLAUDIA RUDACK, HANS THEODOR EICH
Anticancer Research Mar 2023, 43 (3) 1255-1263; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16272

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Efficacy of Multimodality Approach in Patients With Recurrent Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
PASCALE ALICIA HOELL, KHALED ELSAYAD, HENDRIK BERSSENBRUEGGE, DOMINIK HERING, CHRISTOPHER KITTEL, JOHANNES KLEINHEINZ, ANNALEN BLECKMANN, GEORG EVERS, EVA WARDELMANN, CLAUDIA RUDACK, HANS THEODOR EICH
Anticancer Research Mar 2023, 43 (3) 1255-1263; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16272
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • SOX10 Inhibits T Cell Recognition by Inducing Expression of the Immune Checkpoint Molecule PD-L1 in A375 Melanoma Cells
  • The Application of Static Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Survival of SH-SY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells
  • The Prognostic Role of ACO2 in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Show more Experimental Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Recurrent head and neck cancer
  • squamous cell carcinoma
  • intensity-modulated radiotherapy
  • local control
  • prognosis
  • immunotherapy
  • salvage surgery
Anticancer Research

© 2023 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire