Management of Head Neck Squamous Cell Cancer From an Unknown Primary: Systematic Reviews and National Audit Outcome Data to Generate National Guidelines

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Vinidh Paleri, John Hardman, Tom Roques, Ben O'Leary
{"title":"Management of Head Neck Squamous Cell Cancer From an Unknown Primary: Systematic Reviews and National Audit Outcome Data to Generate National Guidelines","authors":"Vinidh Paleri,&nbsp;John Hardman,&nbsp;Tom Roques,&nbsp;Ben O'Leary","doi":"10.1111/coa.14204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We take great pleasure in introducing this supplement dedicated to management of head neck squamous cell cancer from an unknown primary (HSCCUP).</p><p>The management of HNSCCUP is inherently difficult for several reasons. Firstly, there is a paucity of robust contemporary evidence on the topic. Historic studies predate our understanding of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the head and neck and, with the incidence of HPV related disease rising, management recommendations should necessarily keep abreast of this evolving landscape to be able to offer the greatest certainty of any patient benefit. Secondly, the understanding and definition of what is considered an ‘unknown primary’ alters during the diagnostic pathway as examination, investigations and biopsies identify disease. As a result, direct interstudy comparisons or meta-analysis are complicated by incongruent cohort definitions and eligibility criteria. Thirdly, true unknown primary disease is not common (3%–5% of all head and neck cancers), and so establishing both a substantial evidence base and reasonable clinical experience regarding its management can be challenging, particularly in the single centre setting.</p><p>Despite these limitations, many organisations have produced guidelines covering the management of HNSCCUP, using a variety of methodologies. In considering which methodology to adopt to produce the present guidelines, the editors chose to develop a bespoke multi-stage process for several reasons. Firstly, owing to the paucity of contemporary evidence, consensus opinion will undoubtedly be controversial. Without a robust evidence base, consensus opinion would benefit from being as representative of all stakeholders as possible. This lends itself to as much multicentre national engagement as possible to encourage widespread buy-in to the output. Secondly, by involving as many stakeholders and centres as possible, the resultant guidelines are more likely to be considerate of local resource constraints, and so more likely to be adhered to.</p><p>We put in place an ambitious programme of work in consultation with several stakeholder organisations to realise this aim. The methodology for consensus generation was set out ahead of this exercise, and peer reviewed by an expert team to ensure critical feedback and generate stakeholder support [<span>1</span>]. Consultation with a wide array of professional groups The Head and Neck Society | ENT UK, The British Society of Head &amp; Neck Imaging, The Royal College of Radiology ǀ Clinical Oncology section, and The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists led to focused questions, the answers for which would inform unknown primary management. These led to the format for consensus day, which closely followed the patient journey. The data to inform consensus was generated from systematic reviews, national audits, prospective study [<span>2</span>] and a Delphi exercise. Both national audits were led by INTEGRATE—The UK ENT Trainee Research Network, with input from experts as needed. The practice guidelines arising from this meta-consensus exercise were published as consensus statements in the sixth edition of the United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines [<span>3</span>].</p><p>Arain, Madani and Awad [<span>4</span>] offer an evidence-based summary and make recommendations for imaging HNSCCUP, indicating MRI to be an integral part of the cross-sectional imaging, in addition to PET-CT scans. Thomas et al. [<span>5</span>] identify the evidence base for oropharyngeal biopsy in HNSCCUP, while Bowe and Garg [<span>6</span>] inform us that biopsies of non-oropharyngeal sites are not indicated when the imaging and clinical examination is clear. The first national audit on investigations for HNSCCUP [<span>7</span>] captures the national practice for diagnosis of this disease process. Takhar et al. [<span>8</span>] set out the cohort of patients for whom surgery alone will suffice as sole treatment modality, while Iqbal, Jackson and Paterson [<span>9</span>] define the indications for adjuvant radiation therapy to the neck after neck dissection. The second national audit on survival outcomes for HNSCCUP [<span>10</span>] demonstrates the excellent outcomes for HPV positive disease, while cautioning that neck dissection alone might be associated with worse local control, but not overall survival, for patients with HNSCCUP.</p><p>The works included in the supplement have helped harmonise practice by offering consensus guidelines, define the outcomes of the current treatment paradigms and will help generate further hypothesis driven studies. Additionally, this process offers a model for generating robust guidelines in rare disease processes.</p><p>We are very grateful to all stakeholders and individual participants for generously offering their time and effort, without which this output would not have been possible. We recommend the contents of this supplement to all colleagues involved in the management of HNSCCUP and, to raise awareness, this editorial is jointly published across Clinical Oncology (R Coll Radiol).</p><p>List of contributors to the consensus generation process.\n </p><p>Vinidh Paleri, John Hardman, Tom Roques and Ben O'Leary made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the analysis and interpretation of data for the work, drafted the work, revised it for intellectual content, gave final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.</p><p>The authors have nothing to report.</p><p>Vinidh Paleri is proctor for Intuitive surgical. John Hardman, Tom Roques and Ben O'Leary declare no relevant COIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":"49 6","pages":"837-841"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/coa.14204","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.14204","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We take great pleasure in introducing this supplement dedicated to management of head neck squamous cell cancer from an unknown primary (HSCCUP).

The management of HNSCCUP is inherently difficult for several reasons. Firstly, there is a paucity of robust contemporary evidence on the topic. Historic studies predate our understanding of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the head and neck and, with the incidence of HPV related disease rising, management recommendations should necessarily keep abreast of this evolving landscape to be able to offer the greatest certainty of any patient benefit. Secondly, the understanding and definition of what is considered an ‘unknown primary’ alters during the diagnostic pathway as examination, investigations and biopsies identify disease. As a result, direct interstudy comparisons or meta-analysis are complicated by incongruent cohort definitions and eligibility criteria. Thirdly, true unknown primary disease is not common (3%–5% of all head and neck cancers), and so establishing both a substantial evidence base and reasonable clinical experience regarding its management can be challenging, particularly in the single centre setting.

Despite these limitations, many organisations have produced guidelines covering the management of HNSCCUP, using a variety of methodologies. In considering which methodology to adopt to produce the present guidelines, the editors chose to develop a bespoke multi-stage process for several reasons. Firstly, owing to the paucity of contemporary evidence, consensus opinion will undoubtedly be controversial. Without a robust evidence base, consensus opinion would benefit from being as representative of all stakeholders as possible. This lends itself to as much multicentre national engagement as possible to encourage widespread buy-in to the output. Secondly, by involving as many stakeholders and centres as possible, the resultant guidelines are more likely to be considerate of local resource constraints, and so more likely to be adhered to.

We put in place an ambitious programme of work in consultation with several stakeholder organisations to realise this aim. The methodology for consensus generation was set out ahead of this exercise, and peer reviewed by an expert team to ensure critical feedback and generate stakeholder support [1]. Consultation with a wide array of professional groups The Head and Neck Society | ENT UK, The British Society of Head & Neck Imaging, The Royal College of Radiology ǀ Clinical Oncology section, and The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists led to focused questions, the answers for which would inform unknown primary management. These led to the format for consensus day, which closely followed the patient journey. The data to inform consensus was generated from systematic reviews, national audits, prospective study [2] and a Delphi exercise. Both national audits were led by INTEGRATE—The UK ENT Trainee Research Network, with input from experts as needed. The practice guidelines arising from this meta-consensus exercise were published as consensus statements in the sixth edition of the United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines [3].

Arain, Madani and Awad [4] offer an evidence-based summary and make recommendations for imaging HNSCCUP, indicating MRI to be an integral part of the cross-sectional imaging, in addition to PET-CT scans. Thomas et al. [5] identify the evidence base for oropharyngeal biopsy in HNSCCUP, while Bowe and Garg [6] inform us that biopsies of non-oropharyngeal sites are not indicated when the imaging and clinical examination is clear. The first national audit on investigations for HNSCCUP [7] captures the national practice for diagnosis of this disease process. Takhar et al. [8] set out the cohort of patients for whom surgery alone will suffice as sole treatment modality, while Iqbal, Jackson and Paterson [9] define the indications for adjuvant radiation therapy to the neck after neck dissection. The second national audit on survival outcomes for HNSCCUP [10] demonstrates the excellent outcomes for HPV positive disease, while cautioning that neck dissection alone might be associated with worse local control, but not overall survival, for patients with HNSCCUP.

The works included in the supplement have helped harmonise practice by offering consensus guidelines, define the outcomes of the current treatment paradigms and will help generate further hypothesis driven studies. Additionally, this process offers a model for generating robust guidelines in rare disease processes.

We are very grateful to all stakeholders and individual participants for generously offering their time and effort, without which this output would not have been possible. We recommend the contents of this supplement to all colleagues involved in the management of HNSCCUP and, to raise awareness, this editorial is jointly published across Clinical Oncology (R Coll Radiol).

List of contributors to the consensus generation process.

Vinidh Paleri, John Hardman, Tom Roques and Ben O'Leary made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the analysis and interpretation of data for the work, drafted the work, revised it for intellectual content, gave final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

The authors have nothing to report.

Vinidh Paleri is proctor for Intuitive surgical. John Hardman, Tom Roques and Ben O'Leary declare no relevant COIs.

原发灶不明的头颈部鳞状细胞癌的治疗:利用系统综述和国家审计结果数据制定国家指南。
我们非常荣幸地向您介绍这本专论不明原发灶头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HSCCUP)治疗的增刊。HNSCCUP 的治疗本身就很困难,原因有以下几点。HNSCCUP 的治疗本身就很困难,原因有以下几点:首先,有关该主题的有力的当代证据很少。历史研究早于我们对人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)在头颈部的作用的认识,而随着 HPV 相关疾病发病率的上升,管理建议必须跟上这一不断变化的形势,才能最大程度地确保患者获益。其次,在诊断过程中,随着检查、检验和活检发现疾病,对 "未知原发 "的理解和定义也会发生变化。因此,研究间的直接比较或荟萃分析因队列定义和资格标准不一致而变得复杂。第三,真正的未知原发疾病并不常见(占所有头颈部癌症的 3%-5%),因此,建立有关其管理的实质性证据基础和合理的临床经验具有挑战性,尤其是在单中心环境中。尽管存在这些局限性,但许多组织已利用各种方法制定了涵盖 HNSCCUP 管理的指南。在考虑采用哪种方法制定本指南时,编者选择了定制的多阶段流程,原因有以下几点。首先,由于缺乏当代证据,共识意见无疑会引起争议。在没有可靠证据基础的情况下,共识意见应尽可能代表所有利益相关者。这就需要尽可能多的多中心国家参与,以鼓励对成果的广泛认同。其次,通过让尽可能多的利益相关者和中心参与进来,最终形成的指南更有可能考虑到当地的资源限制,从而更有可能得到遵守。为了实现这一目标,我们与多个利益相关者组织协商,制定了一项雄心勃勃的工作计划。在开展这项工作之前,我们已经制定了达成共识的方法,并由一个专家小组进行了同行评审,以确保获得关键反馈并获得利益相关者的支持[1]。在与众多专业团体进行磋商后,英国耳鼻喉科头颈部学会、英国头颈部成像学会、英国皇家放射学会临床肿瘤学分会以及英国皇家言语和语言治疗师学会提出了一些重点问题,这些问题的答案将为未知的初级管理提供依据。这些问题促成了 "共识日 "的形式,它紧扣患者的病程。达成共识所需的数据来自系统回顾、国家审计、前瞻性研究[2] 和德尔菲练习。这两项全国性审核均由英国耳鼻喉科受训人员研究网络 INTEGRATE 领导,并根据需要听取了专家的意见。Arain、Madani 和 Awad [4]对 HNSCCUP 的成像进行了循证总结并提出了建议,指出除了 PET-CT 扫描外,MRI 也是横断面成像中不可或缺的一部分。Thomas等人[5]指出了HNSCCUP口咽部活检的证据基础,而Bowe和Garg[6]则告诉我们,如果影像学和临床检查结果明确,则不需要对非口咽部位进行活检。关于 HNSCCUP 检查的首次全国性审计[7]反映了全国对该疾病过程的诊断实践。Takhar等人[8]列出了仅以手术作为唯一治疗方式的患者群体,而Iqbal、Jackson和Paterson[9]则定义了颈部切除术后颈部辅助放射治疗的适应症。关于 HNSCCUP 生存结果的第二次全国性审计[10]表明,HPV 阳性疾病的治疗效果极佳,但同时也警告说,对于 HNSCCUP 患者来说,单纯的颈部切除术可能与局部控制较差有关,但与总生存率无关。我们非常感谢所有利益相关者和个人参与者慷慨地付出时间和精力,没有他们的努力,就不可能有今天的成果。我们向所有参与 HNSCCUP 管理的同行推荐本增刊的内容,为了提高大家的认识,本社论将在《临床肿瘤学》(R Coll Radiol)杂志上联合发表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Otolaryngology
Clinical Otolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
106
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with: current otorhinolaryngological practice audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL head and neck oncology head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery continuing medical education and ORL training The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research. Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject. • Negative/null results In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信