• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.152-158
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Mandibulotomy approach and mandible sparing approach are most common methods for oropharyngeal cancer surgery. Good surgical view and convenience of flap inset are advantages of mandibulotomy approach but deformity of mandible contour, postoperative malocclusion and radionecrosis are its limitations. To make up for the limitations, mandible sparing method is commonly performed, but limited surgical view and difficulties of flap inset are the weak points of this approach. The purpose of the study is to compare mandibulotomy and mandible sparing approaches in postoperative complications and progression of the treatment in oropharyngeal cancer operation and reconstruction. Methods: Single reconstructive microsurgeon operated for oropharyngeal cancer patients with different surgeons of head and neck department who prefer mandibulotomy and mandible sparing approach respectively, and we compared the frequency of postoperative complication, operation time, duration of hospitalization and recurrence rate between two different surgical approaches. Results: Mandibulotomy approach was used in 18 patients and mandible sparing approach was used in 15 patients. In mandibulotomy approach, there happened one case of teeth injury and one case of necrosis of skin and gingiva, but there happened no malocclusion and radionecrosis. In mandible sparing approach, there were 3 cases of fistula and 2 cases of infection which are significantly higher than mandibulotomy approach. There were no significant differences between early regional recurrence and duration of hospitalization. Conclusion: In this study we compared two different methods for the surgical approach in oropharyngeal cancer surgery. As mandible sparing approach has difficulties of limited surgical view, it can be used for the limited indications of anterior tongue and mouth floor cancer. Mandibulotomy approach has advantages of good surgical view and convenience of flap inset. In this method preservation of gingival tissue, watertight fashion suture, delicate osteotomy and plate fixation to maintain occlusion are the key points for the successful results.

• Korean Journal of Head & Neck Oncology
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.7-13
• /
• 2022

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a causative agent for a subset of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). The current standard of care (SOC) for locally advanced OPC is 70 Gy definitive radiotherapy (RT) concurrent with cisplatin, which entails significant proportions of acute and late grade 3 or higher toxicities. Accordingly, discovery of favorable prognosis of HPV-related OPC has led to enthusiasm to attenuate subspecialties therapy in multidisciplinary treatment. Diverse deintensification strategies were investigated in multiple phase 2 trials with an assumption that attenuated treatments result in comparable oncologic outcome and less toxicities compared with SOC. Several trials on chemotherapy deintensification revealed that concomitant administration of cisplatin is not to be omitted or substituted for cetuximab without compromising progression-free survival or local control. A transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is investigated as alternative local treatment, but TORS plus SOC or mild deintensified adjuvant RT showed similar toxicities and inferior oncologic outcomes compared with SOC definitive RT or moderately deintensified RT. However, it has been reported that TORS plus deintensified 30-36 Gy adjuvant RT results in excellent outcome and less late toxicity compared with SOC adjuvant RT. Several phase 2 trials reported apparently equivalent progression-free survival and local control and similar adverse effects with moderately deintensified 60 Gy RT compared with SOC 70 Gy RT. Further dose reduction below 60 Gy has been investigated using biology-directed approaches, which use response to induction chemotherapy or metabolic images to triage HPV-positive OPC for deintensified RT. In summary, these trials provide valuable insights for future directions. Available evidence consistently showed that moderately deintensified RT is effective and safe for HPV-positive OPC in both definitive and adjuvant settings. Concurrent cisplatin remains an essential component without which progression-free survival is significantly compromised for advanced HPV-positive OPC. A simple incorporation of TORS to SOC may be detrimental for oncologic outcome without anticipated toxicity reduction. Given the lack of level 1 evidence, it is prudent to curb an unjustified deviation from the current SOC and limit any deintensified strategies to clinical trials and adhere to the current SOC.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.205-210
• /
• 2001

Purpose : This study tried to evaluate the effectiveness of combined treatment using radiation therapy and concurrent cisplatin as a radiosensitizer in the management of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and methods : From January 1995 to August 1998, 29 evaluable patients with locally advanced head & neck cancels (AJCC stage $II\~IV$) were received curative radiation therapy $(total\;70\~75.6\;Gy/35\~42\;fractions,\;1.8\~2\;Gy/fraction)$ and concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy ($100\;mg/m^2$, D1, D22, D43). The neck dissections were peformed for residual lymphadenopathy. Follow-up ranged from 5 to 55 months (median 24 months). Results : Twenty-one $(72.4\%)$ patients achieved clinical complete responses. The partial response and minimal response rates were $17.2\%\;and\;10.4\%$, respectively. Locoregional failure rate was $27.6\%$, and included 6 patients with local failures, 4 patients with regional failures, and 2 patients with combined local and regional failures. Four of 29 patients $(13.8\%)$ developed distant metastasis. The disease free survival rate at 3 years was $60\%$. Nasopharyngeal primary tumors or complete responders showed significantly higher disease free survival rate. The grade 3 mucositis and nausea/vomiting was noted in $34.5\%$, respectively. Major prolongation of radiation therapy duration was inevitable in three patients. Twenty-one patients $(72.4\%)$ completed 3 courses of cisplatin and 5 patients received 2 courses of cisplatin. Three patients received only one course of cisplatin due to nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity, and then changed to 5-FU regimen. Conclusions : Concurrent cisplatin-radiation therapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer showed high response rate, reasonable locoregional control, and survival rate. As expected, acute toxicities were increased, but compliance to treatment was acceptable. Assessment of the effect of the combination in this setting requires further accrual and follow-up.