Survival for HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with surgical versus non-surgical treatment approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis

•Systematic review of 73 studies on HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma outcomes.•No meaningful survival difference with surgical versus non-surgical approach.•Absence of high-quality data on survival from surgical versus non-surgical approach.•HPV-positivity remains a key prognostic factor irrespe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOral oncology Vol. 86; pp. 121 - 131
Main Authors Sinha, Parul, Karadaghy, Omar A., Doering, Michelle M., Tuuli, Methodius G., Jackson, Ryan S., Haughey, Bruce H.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Elsevier Ltd 01.11.2018
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:•Systematic review of 73 studies on HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma outcomes.•No meaningful survival difference with surgical versus non-surgical approach.•Absence of high-quality data on survival from surgical versus non-surgical approach.•HPV-positivity remains a key prognostic factor irrespective of treatment modality. The optimal management of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) with primary surgical versus non-surgical treatment is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature and compare survival for primary surgical versus non-surgical treatment of HPV-positive OPSCC. We performed a comprehensive literature search of multiple electronic databases for relevant articles up to February, 2017. Studies reporting mortality or hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) in primary HPV-positive OPSCC patients were eligible. Seventy-three articles were eligible, of which 66 included single-modality (19 surgical, 47 non-surgical), and 7 included both surgical and non-surgical modalities. There were no randomized studies comparing outcomes between both modalities. In a meta-analysis of both-modality studies, OS with surgical treatment was not significantly different from non-surgical treatment (pooled HR 1.12; 95% CI: 0.35, 3.57). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 82.4%). Among single-modality studies, the mortality rate was lower with surgical [pooled proportion 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.21)] versus non-surgical treatment [0.20 (95% CI:0.15, 0.24)]. In a subgroup analysis, OS was higher for HPV-positive versus HPV-negative OPSCC, irrespective of the treatment modality. We conclude that there is an absence of high-quality studies that compare survival for HPV-positive OPSCC treated with primary surgical versus non-surgical approach. The available data suggest no statistical or clinically meaningful difference in survival between the two approaches. HPV-positivity was a key prognostic factor irrespective of treatment modality. Further high-quality studies with consistent data reporting are needed to inform the choice for optimal treatment modality for HPV-positive OPSCC.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1368-8375
1879-0593
DOI:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.09.018