Morse Ryan T, Nelson Tyler J, Liu Hannah C, Sangchan Prangrawee, Chitti Bhargava, Thompson Caroline A, Henderson Gerald, Williamson Casey W, Todd Jake R, Prajapati Divya P, Vitzthum Lucas K, Sharabi Andrew B, Zou Jingjing, Sacco Assuntina G, Coffey Charley S, Sanghvi Parag, Rahn Douglas A, Lominska Christopher E, Shen Colette J, Chera Bhishamjit S, Mell Loren K
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025 Mar 1;121(3):684-692. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.09.035. Epub 2024 Sep 21.
Randomized trials have found that patients with locoregionally advanced p16+ oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) do not benefit from treatment deintensification, even among favorable risk groups. Although various methods have been used to identify candidates for treatment deintensification, the optimal approach is unknown.
We conducted a multi-institutional cohort study of 444 patients with previously untreated p16+ OPSCC undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy between 2009 and 2022. We compared the following 2 approaches for identifying candidates for deintensification: (1) favorable versus unfavorable risk, using NRG-HN005 eligibility criteria, and (2) low versus high relative risk of cancer events, using the Head and Neck Cancer Intergroup predictive classifier ("omega score"). We tested differences in outcomes and systemic therapy allocation by risk group using multivariable Cox models, competing event models, and logistic regression, and compared characteristics of hypothetical deintensification trials using the 2 approaches. Progression-free survival events were defined as cancer recurrence (locoregional or distant) or death from any cause.
Median follow-up time was 52 months; 120 patients (27.0%) were favorable risk; a different 120 patients had low omega score; 28 patients (6.3%) met both criteria; 184 patients (41.4%) had discordant classification. On ordinal logistic regression, decreasing omega score was associated with a statistically significantly lower odds of receiving intensive therapy (normalized odds ratio, 0.37 per SD; 95% CI, 0.24-0.57), with a greater magnitude than favorable risk group (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99). Among patients receiving cisplatin and/or platinum-based induction (n = 374), favorable risk was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.99), whereas lower omega score was associated with a significantly decreased relative hazard for cancer events (relative hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.070-0.46). In simulations, selecting patients with low omega scores increased the efficiency of hypothetical noninferiority trials.
Considering patients' relative risk of cancer events can help define optimal populations for treatment deintensification in p16+ OPSCC.
随机试验发现,局部区域晚期p16阳性口咽鳞状细胞癌(OPSCC)患者即使在低风险组中,也无法从治疗强度降低中获益。尽管已采用多种方法来识别可进行治疗强度降低的候选患者,但最佳方法尚不清楚。
我们对2009年至2022年间444例未经治疗的p16阳性OPSCC患者进行了一项多机构队列研究,这些患者接受了确定性放疗,部分患者还接受了全身治疗。我们比较了以下两种识别强度降低候选患者的方法:(1)使用NRG-HN005纳入标准分为低风险组和高风险组,(2)使用头颈癌协作组预测分类器(“ω评分”)分为癌症事件低相对风险组和高相对风险组。我们使用多变量Cox模型、竞争事件模型和逻辑回归测试了风险组在结局和全身治疗分配方面的差异,并比较了使用这两种方法的假设性强度降低试验的特征。无进展生存事件定义为癌症复发(局部区域或远处)或任何原因导致的死亡。
中位随访时间为52个月;120例患者(27.0%)为低风险;另有120例患者ω评分低;28例患者(6.3%)符合两项标准;184例患者(41.4%)分类不一致。在有序逻辑回归中,ω评分降低与接受强化治疗的几率在统计学上显著降低相关(标准化优势比,每标准差为0.37;95%置信区间,0.24 - 0.57),其幅度大于低风险组(优势比,0.66;95%置信区间,0.44 - 0.99)。在接受顺铂和/或铂类诱导治疗的患者(n = 374)中,低风险与无进展生存期显著改善相关(风险比,0.59;95%置信区间,0.36 - 0.99),而ω评分较低与癌症事件的相对风险显著降低相关(相对风险比,0.18;95%置信区间,0.070 - 0.46)。在模拟中,选择ω评分低的患者提高了假设性非劣效性试验的效率。
考虑患者癌症事件的相对风险有助于确定p16阳性OPSCC治疗强度降低的最佳人群。