Molecular introduction to head and neck cancer (HNSCC) carcinogenesis

Of all human cancers, HNSCC is the most distressing affecting pain, disfigurement, speech and the basic survival functions of breathing and swallowing. Mortality rates have not significantly changed in the last 40 years despite advances in radiotherapy and surgical treatment. Molecular markers are currently being identified that can determine prognosis preoperatively by routine tumour biopsy Leading to improved management of HNSCC patients. The approach could help decide which early stage patient should have adjuvant neck dissection and radiotherapy, and whether Later stage patients with operable lesions would benefit from resection and reconstructive surgery or adopt a conservative approach to patients with poor prognosis regardless of treatment. In the future, understanding these basic genetic changes in HNSCC would be important for the management of HNSCC. (C) 2004 The British Association of Plastic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Changes in head and neck position affect elbow joint position sense

Changes in the position of the head and neck have been shown to introduce a systematic deviation in the end-point error of an upper limb pointing task. Although previous authors have attributed this to alteration of perceived target location, no studies have explored the effect of changes in head and neck position on the perception of limb position. This study investigated whether changes in head and neck position affect a specific component of movement performance, that is, the accuracy of joint position sense (JPS) at the elbow. Elbow JPS was tested with the neck in four positions: neutral, flexion, rotation and combined flexion/rotation. A target angle was presented passively with the neck in neutral, after a rest period; this angle was reproduced actively with the head and neck in one of the test positions. The potential effects of distraction from head movement were controlled for by performing a movement control in which the head and neck were in neutral for the presentation and reproduction of the target angle, but moved into flexion during the rest period. The absolute and variable joint position errors (JPE) were greater when the target angle was reproduced with the neck in the flexion, rotation, and combined flexion/rotation than when the head and neck were in neutral. This study suggests that the reduced accuracy previously seen in pointing tasks with changes in head position may be partly because of errors in the interpretation of arm position.

Novel markers for poor prognosis in head and neck cancer

Head and neck cancer (HNSCC) is one of the most distressing human cancers, causing pain and affecting the basic survival functions of breathing and swallowing. Mortality rates have not changed despite recent advances in radiotherapy and surgical treatment. We have compared the expression of over 13,000 unique genes in 7 cases of matched HNSCC and normal oral mucosa. Of the 1,260 genes that showed statistically significant differences in expression between normal and tumor tissue at the mRNA level, the three top ranking of the top 5% were selected for further analysis by immunohistochemistry on paraffin sections,. along with the tumor suppressor genes p16 and p53, in a total of 62 patients including 55 for whom >4-year clinical data was available. Using univariate and multivariate survival analysis, we identified SPARC/osteonectin as a powerful independent prognostic marker for short disease-free interval (DFI) (p < 0.002) and poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.018) of HNSCC patients. In combination with other ECM proteins found in our analysis, PAI-1 and uPA, the association with DFI and OS became even more significant (p < 0.001). Our study represents the first instance of SPARC as an independent prognostic marker in HNSCC.

Alpha B-crystallin, a new independent marker for poor prognosis in head and neck cancer

Objectives. Gene expression profiling has provided many insights into tumor progression but translation to clinical practice has been limited. We have previously identified a list of potential markers by the differences of expression profiling of seven matched head and neck cancer (HNSCC) tumors with autologous normal oral mucosa (NOM). Alpha B-crystallin (CRYAB) was in the top 5% of genes identified with statistically significant differences in expression between tumor and NOM at the mRNA level. The objective was to confirm this in routine paraffin sections at the protein level. Study Design: The level of alpha B-crystallin was determined in tumors of 62 HNSCC patients whose prognosis was known for 5 years. Methods. Immunohistochemical detection of alpha B-crystallin expression was performed on HNSCC paraffin sections. Results. Univariate survival analysis identified lack of alpha B-crystallin staining as an independent prognostic marker for disease-free interval (P < 0.001) and overall survival (P < 0.002) of HNSCC patients over the 5-year observation period. Notably, all 13 patients (100%), including 5 patients with nodal disease whose tumors lacked alpha B-crystallin had no recurrences (P < 0.001). Nineteen of 27 node-negative patients stained positive for alpha B-crystallin and seven of the 19 (36.8%) had recurrences. Conclusion: Presence or absence of expression of alpha B-crystallin was a powerful marker for prognosis in this series of patients.

Chemoprevention of head and neck cancer with retinoids: a negative result

Objective: To determine whether isotretinoin (or 13-cis-retinoic acid) decreases the risk of second primary cancers in patients previously treated for cure of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Two head and neck multidisciplinary cancer clinics in university teaching hospitals taking cases from 4 to 5 million people in Queensland, Australia, combined to,enter appropriate patients into this trial. Patients: One hundred fifty-one patients with their first head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with high expectation for cure and living close by. They were randomized into 3 arms to receive 3 years of treatment. Interventions: Patients took isotretinoin at a high dose (1.0 mg/kg per day) or a moderate dose (0.5 mg/kg per day) or placebo. Group 1 took the high dose for I year and then the moderate dose for 2 years. Group 2 took the moderate dose for 3 years. Group 3 took placebo for 3 years. Main Outcome Measures: The diagnosis of a second primary malignancy of the head and neck, lung, or bladder was regarded as the end point signifying failure of therapy. Issues of drug adverse effect profile and impact on survival were measured. Results: There was no significant difference in the occurrence of second primary disease (P=.90), the recurrence of primary disease (P=.70), or disease-free time (P=.80) between the treatment and nontreatment arms. Numbers were too small to find differences in survival. Conclusion: With evidence that retinoid treatment adversely affects survival of lung cancer and with this drug not significantly decreasing the incidence of second primary tumors of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, the use of this drug in head and neck cancer patients for second cancer prophylaxis is not indicated.

Changes in head and neck position have a greater effect on elbow joint position sense in people with whiplash-associated disorders

Background: It has been shown that perception of elbow joint position is affected by changes in head and neck position. Further, people with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) present with deficits in upper limb coordination and movement. Objectives: This study is aimed to determine whether the effect of changes in head position on elbow joint position error (JPE) is more pronounced in people with WAD, and to determine whether this is related to the participant's pain and anxiety levels. Methods: Nine people with chronic and disabling WAD and 11 healthy people participated in this experiment. The ability to reproduce a position at the elbow joint was assessed after changes in the position of the head and neck to 30 degrees, and with the head in the midline. Pain was monitored in WAD participants. Results: Absolute elbow JPE with the head in neutral was not different between WAD and control participants (P = 0.5). Changes in the head and neck position increased absolute elbow JPE in the WAD group (P < 0.05), but did not affect elbow JPE in the control group (P = 0.4). There was a connection between pain during testing and the effect of changes in head position on elbow JPE (P < 0.05). Discussion: Elbow JPE is affected by movement of the head and neck, with smaller angles of neck rotation in people with WAD than in healthy individuals. This observation may explain deficits in upper limb coordination in people with WAD, which may be due to the presence of pain or reduced range of motion in this population.

Low frequency of cigarette smoking and the risk of head and neck cancer in the INHANCE consortium pooled analysis

Funding • The pooled data coordination team (PBoffetta, MH, YCAL) were supported by National Cancer Institute grant R03CA113157 and by National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grant R03DE016611 • The Milan study (CLV) was supported by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (Grant no. 10068). • The Aviano study (LDM) was supported by a grant from the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC), Italian League Against Cancer and Italian Ministry of Research • The Italy Multicenter study (DS) was supported by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC), Italian League Against Cancer and Italian Ministry of Research. • The Study from Switzerland (FL) was supported by the Swiss League against Cancer and the Swiss Research against Cancer/Oncosuisse [KFS-700, OCS-1633]. • The central Europe study (PBoffetta, PBrenan, EF, JL, DM, PR, OS, NS-D) was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the European Commission INCOCOPERNICUS Program [Contract No. IC15- CT98-0332] • The New York multicentre study (JM) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [P01CA068384 K07CA104231]. • The study from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center from Seattle (CC, SMS) was supported by a National Institute of Health grant [R01CA048996, R01DE012609]. • The Iowa study (ES) was supported by National Instituteof Health [NIDCR R01DE011979, NIDCR R01DE013110, FIRCA TW001500] and Veterans Affairs Merit Review Funds. • The North Carolina studies (AFO) were supported by National Institute of Health [R01CA061188], and in part by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30ES010126]. • The Tampa study (PLazarus, JM) was supported by National Institute of Health grants [P01CA068384, K07CA104231, R01DE013158] • The Los Angeles study (Z-F Z, HM) was supported by grants from National Institute of Health [P50CA090388, R01DA011386, R03CA077954, T32CA009142, U01CA096134, R21ES011667] and the Alper Research Program for Environmental Genomics of the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. • The Houston study (EMS, GL) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01ES011740, R01CA100264]. • The Puerto Rico study (RBH, MPP) was supported by a grant from National Institutes of Health (NCI) US and NIDCR intramural programs. • The Latin America study (PBoffetta, PBrenan, MV, LF, MPC, AM, AWD, SK, VW-F) was supported by Fondo para la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica (FONCYT) Argentina, IMIM (Barcelona), Fundaco de Amparo a‘ Pesquisa no Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [No 01/01768-2], and European Commission [IC18-CT97-0222] • The IARC multicentre study (SF, RH, XC) was supported by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS) of the Spanish Government [FIS 97/ 0024, FIS 97/0662, BAE 01/5013], International Union Against Cancer (UICC), and Yamagiwa-Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study Grant. • The Boston study (KKelsey, MMcC) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA078609, R01CA100679]. • The Rome study (SB, GC) was supported by AIRC (Italian Agency for Research on Cancer). • The US multicentre study (BW) was supported by The Intramural Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, United States. • The Sao Paolo study (V W-F) was supported by Fundacao de Ampara a Pesquisa no Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP No 10/51168-0) • The MSKCC study (SS, G-P Y) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA051845]. • The Seattle-Leo stud (FV) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA030022] • The western Europe Study (PBoffetta, IH, WA, PLagiou, DS, LS, FM, CH, KKjaerheim, DC, TMc, PT, AA, AZ) was supported by European Community (5th Frame work Programme) grant no QLK1-CT-2001- 00182. • The Germany Heidelberg study (HR) was supported by the grant No. 01GB9702/3 from the German Ministry of Education and Research.

Aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescriptions and survival after the diagnosis of head and neck and oesophageal cancer

Peer reviewed

AN INVESTIGATION ON ROUTINE FOLLOW-UP CARE FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER

BACKGROUND: Follow-up care aims to provide surveillance with early detection of recurring cancers and to address treatment complications and other health issues in survivorship. It is assumed that follow-up care fulfills these aims, however little evidence supports routine surveillance detecting curable disease early enough to improve survival. Cancer survivors are a diverse patient population, suggesting that a single follow-up regimen may not meet all patients’ follow-up needs. Little is known about what effective follow-up care should include for head and neck cancer patients in a Canadian setting. Identification of subgroups of patients with specific needs and current practices would allow for hypotheses to be generated for enhancing follow-up care. OBJECTIVES: 1a) To describe the follow-up needs and preferences of head and neck cancer patients, 1b) to identify which patient characteristics predict needs and preferences, 1c) to evaluate how needs and preferences change over time, 2a) to describe follow-up care practices by physician visits and imaging tests, and 2b) to identify factors associated to the delivered follow-up care. METHODS: 1) 175 patients who completed treatment between 2012 and 2013 in Kingston and London, Ontario were recruited to participate in a prospective survey study on patients’ needs and preferences in follow-up care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to describe patient survey responses and to identify patient characteristics that predicted needs and preferences. 2) A retrospective cohort study of 3975 patients on routine follow-up from 2007 to 2015 was carried out using data linkages across registry and administrative databases to describe follow-up practices in Ontario by visits and tests. Multivariate regression analyses assessed factors related to follow-up care. RESULTS: 1) Patients’ needs and preferences were wide-ranging with several characteristics predicting needs and preferences (ORECOG=2.69 and ORAnxiety=1.13). Needs and preferences declined as patients transitioned into their second year of follow-up (p<0.05). 2) Wide variation in practices was found, with marked differences compared to existing consensus guidelines. Multiple factors were associated with follow-up practices (RRTumor site=0.73 and RRLHIN=1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics can be used to personalize care and guidelines are not informing practice. Future research should evaluate individualized approaches to follow-up care.