Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma – Is it still relevant? A practice pattern survey among oncologists of India

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives: Concurrent chemotherapy is the recommended treatment for locally advanced head and neck (H&N) squamous cell carcinoma, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is debated with a few special indications. NACT for advanced head and neck cancer has been studied in clinical trials for more than 2 decades without clear demonstration of the benefit for loco regional tumor control or overall patient survival. Its benefit remains controversial in the absence of clear evidence to define its role. However, there is widespread use of NACT among oncologists. We conducted an online survey to find out the frequency, pattern, prevalence, and aims for use of NACT in locally advanced head and neck cancers among radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists. Materials and Methods: Oncologists across India who expressed interest to participate in our survey were asked to complete a short online questionnaire designed to identify the current practice pattern of NACT in head and neck cancer. A mobile app-based questionnaire was sent to 200 oncologists across the country to assess the pattern of NACT use and to solicit their most frequent therapy approach for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: One hundred and fifty (150) oncologists completed and returned the survey (75%), and 130 were finalized (94 radiation oncologists, 19 medical oncologists, and 17 surgical oncologists). The single most common treatment approach reported for patients with locoregionally advanced H&N cancer was that of sequential chemoradiation (61%), specifically NACT with the TPF regimen (78.5%), followed by radiation therapy. The primary objectives cited by respondents for the use of NACT included the desire to buy time for definitive treatment (20%) and to achieve R0 resection (19.2%). Use of NACT in most patients was more preferred by medical oncologists (21.1%) and radiation oncologists (19.1%) than surgical oncologists (11.8%). Thus, there is not much difference in perception in practice of NACT in radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists. A minimum of two cycles of NACT was preferred by more than half of the doctors (55.4%) with 59.6% radiation oncologists using it before further assessment. Conclusion: Although level I evidence for inferior outcomes with NACT as compared to concurrent chemoradiation therapy is there, the use of NACT is quite common among various oncologists in the country because of reasons such as buying time for definitive treatment, achieving R0 resection, better outcome and survival, partial response, better tolerability, better distant control, LN size regression, down-staging of primary tumor, selection of chemosensitive patients, reducing the volume of the radiation field, and better tolerability of subsequent Chemoradiation (CTRT) intensity of subsequent chemoradiation therapy.