Efficacy, outcomes, and complication rates of different surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities for recurrent/residual oropharyngeal carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sharan Chakkyath Jayaram, Sayed Jameel Muzaffar, Ikhlaaq Ahmed, Jagtar Dhanda, Vinidh Paleri, Hisham Mehanna

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)
196 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of recurrent oropharyngeal cancer is widely thought to have poor outcomes. Justification for treatment, especially in advanced cases, can be difficult.

METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Included studies reported specific recurrent oropharyngeal cancer survival data.

RESULTS: Twenty-two retrospective studies were included. Pooled 3-year overall survival (OS) was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 22% to 29%; I squared = 40.7%; p = .057). Pooled 5-year OS was 23% (95% CI = 20% to 27%; I squared = 73.9%; p = .000). Surgical treatment was superior to radiation (5-year OS 26% vs 16%, respectively; p < .001). The 5-year OS improved over time: 18% in the pre-2000 cohort; 35% in the mixed pre-2000 and post-2000 group; and 51% in the post-2000 cohort (p < .001).

CONCLUSION: Outcomes have improved considerably over the last 2 decades, resulting in approximately 50% overall 5-year survival. Human papillomavirus (HPV) status, patient selection, and improvements in care may explain this. © 2016 The Authors Head & Neck Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2016.

Original languageEnglish
JournalHead & Neck
Early online date13 Jul 2016
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 13 Jul 2016

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy, outcomes, and complication rates of different surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities for recurrent/residual oropharyngeal carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this