Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere234IntroductionIn epidemiology studies, the term ‘oral cancer’ is some-times employed to connote both oral cavity cancer andoropharyngeal cancer. However, these are differentclinical entities and in contemporary practice often havedifferent etiologies and are frequently managed differ-ently. The latter largely occurs for reasons that pertainto local anatomy, functional outcome, and long-termtoxicity, especially bone. This review will embrace theclinical definition of “oral cancer”, as defined by theAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and theUnion for International Cancer Control (UICC) in thetumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging classification.This includes squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cav-ity (OSCC) originating from the mucosal lip, anteriortwo-thirds of the tongue (oral tongue), buccal mucosa,floor of mouth, hard palate, lower and upper alveolusand gingiva, and the retromolar trigone.Treatment of OSCC includes single modality surgery,radiotherapy [external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy], or various combinations of these mo-dalities with or without systemic therapy (chemother-apy and/or target agents). The selection of treatment isbased on considerations of disease control, anticipatedfunctional and cosmetic outcomes, and availability ofresources and expertise. From a practical stand-point,the availability of reports largely dictates that we needto rely on retrospective case series and a few availablerandomized trials and several combined analysis thatinclude meta-analysis data.The mainstay of treatment for OSCC is usually surgery(1). EBRT with or without chemotherapy is generallyemployed in 3 situations: a) adjuvant to primary surgeryto enhance loco-regional control (LRC) for cases withunfavorable pathological features, b) primary treatmentfor cases unable to tolerate or unsuited for surgery, andc) salvage treatment in the persistent or recurrent dis-ease setting. Brachytherapy may be employed as a solemodality for early disease with a well-defined primarytumor, or as an adjuvant to surgery for cases with closeor positive resection margins. Alternatively it may beused as a “boost” technique to the primary tumor inaddition to EBRT (Table 1). Recently, epithelial grownfactor receptor (EGFR) targeted therapy, such as ce-tuximab, has emerged as a promising treatment optionin conjunction with EBRT to enhance disease control.External BeamRadiotherapy (EBRT)Chemotherapy Interstitial BrachytherapyPrimary setting Early disease when patientintolerant of surgeryEarly disease whenanticipated cosmeticconsequence of surgery is aconcern, especially for lipcancer involvingcommissureUnresectable disease,usually combined withchemotherapyAdvanced disease forpatients intolerant of surgerydue to poor performancestatus or comobiditiesAdvanced disease orunresectable disease,in combination withradiotherapyEarly and superficial well-defined tumor locatedmore than 5 mm from themandibleAdjuvant setting Unfavorable pathologicalfeaturesCombined withchemotherapy for positiveresection margins andextracapsular nodalextensionCombined withradiotherapy forpositive resectionmargins orextracapsular nodalextensionBrachytherapy alone forpositive resection marginsIn combination withexternal beam radiotherapyto augment radiotherapydose to the high risk areaSalvage setting Adjuvant treatment aftersalvage surgeryPrimary treatment modality,usually combined withchemotherapy if furthersurgery is not feasibleCombined withradiotherapyEspecially useful for re-irradiation:for persistent orrecurrent disease afterprevious radiation,2ndprimary canceroccurrence withinprevious radiation fieldTable 1. Summary of Role of Radiotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy in Oral Cavity Cancer.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere235Postoperative Radiotherapy ± Chemotherapy-Risk profile and indications for adjuvant treatmentPrimary surgery is the traditional approach for resect-able OSCC in most centers. For patients with unfavour-able pathological features, postoperative radiotherapy(PORT) or postoperative concurrent chemo-radiother-apy (POCRT) have been shown to improve LRC andsurvival in several clinical trials (2-4). General indi-cations for PORT include: T3 or T4 tumor; comprom-ised surgical resection margins (<5 mm from the inkedsurface of the specimen); presence of lympho-vascularinvasion (LVI) and/or peri-neural invasion (PNI); andpositive lymph nodes with or without extracapsular in-vasion (ECE) (2,5).The presence of multiple risk factors is common inOSCC. To understand the loco-regional recurrence riskprofile, Langendijk, et al. studied 801 head-and-neckcancer patients (73% of whom had OSCC) who under-went PORT in 1985-2000. They did not include theirmost favourable cases that did not require PORT in thereport. A recursive partitioning analysis addressingloco-regional recurrence stratified patients into threerisk groups: a) intermediate-risk: clear resection mar-gins and no ECE, b) high-risk: T1, T2 and T4 tumorwith close or positive margins or one pathological posi-tive lymph node with ECE, c) very high-risk: T3 tumorwith close or positive surgical margins or multiplepathological positive lymph nodes with ECE or an N3neck (6). For the latter two groups, the 5-year LRC withPORT was unsatisfactory (78% and 58%, respectively).The authors concluded that more intensive approaches,such as POCRT with concurrent chemotherapy shouldbe considered for these two sub-groups.Pathological stage I-II disease with sufficiently clearresection margins is generally considered low-risk anddoes not require PORT (7). Studies suggest that PNIalone appears to be non-predictive for recurrence (8,9).However, the presence of LVI or microscopic tumor fociin muscle increased the risk of recurrence and PORTshould be considered. Tumor thickness, or alternativesynonyms such as “depth of invasion” or “tumor depth”,has been consistently identified as a predictor for cer-vical lymph node metastasis (10). Recent studies haveshown that pathological tumor thickness ≥ 4 mm com-bined with poorly differentiated pT1-2N0 OSCC tumorsare associated with poor regional control and such pa-tients may benefit from PORT (11).The effectiveness of PORT for T1 or T2 primary with com-pletely resected N1 disease is yet to be confirmed. Current-ly, there is an on-going European clinical trial evaluatingthe effectiveness of PORT in pT1-T2pN1 oral cavity andoropharyngeal cancers with clear resection margins (12).The presence of microscopic positive margins and/orECE is considered high-risk for recurrence. The addi-tion of chemotherapy to PORT for these patients resultedin a 13% absolute reduction in loco-regional relapse at5-years in the EORTC trial 22931 reported by Bernieret al. (13) and a 10% absolute reduction at 2-years in theRTOG trial 9501 reported by Cooper, et al. (3). Otherfeatures may also be considered “high-risk”. The RTOG85-03 and 88-24 trials indicated the presence of 2 ormore pathological positive lymph nodes as a high-riskfeature for loco-regional failure (14). Some studies havealso shown that multiple (> 2) minor risk factors com-bined with LVI were associated with poor prognosis(15-17) suggesting that more intensive regimens such asconcurrent chemotherapy, may be justified in additionto PORT (Fig. 1).-Definition of close resection marginThe definition of ‘close’ resection margins is generallyaccepted as tumor within 5 mm of the inked resectionmargin in formalin fixed surgical specimens (18). Sev-eral small retrospective studies suggested that the trad-itional margin of 5 mm may be too generous, especiallywhen one consider the shrinkage that take place in thefinal surgical specimen; this may amount to as muchas 40%~50% compared to fresh specimens (19). Theseauthors suggested that a 2 mm inked margin as “cutoff”for the “close” margin definition is sufficient (20,21).However, these findings are based on small retrospect-ive studies and need confirmation.The risk associated with an intra-operatively ‘revised’margin following a positive resection margin excisionhas not been well studied. Compromised local controland disease-specific survival for those with intra-opera-tive positive margin was described recently even thoughthe final tumor margin was negative after revision (22).The latter study supports the adverse nature of an intra-operative positive margin regardless of final tumor mar-gin, and PORT should be considered.-Optimal surgery-to-radiotherapy intervalThe optimal surgery-to-radiotherapy interval is con-troversial. A systematic review of published literatureshowed an increased odds ratio (2.9) for local recur-rence in head and neck cancer patients whose PORTwere started more than 6 weeks after surgery vs. thosewithin 6 weeks of surgery (23). The optimal nature of asurgery-to-radiotherapy interval of “6 weeks” was alsoechoed in a recent OSCC series (24) but not confirmedby others (5,25). Nevertheless, commencing PORT assoon as possible seems desirable but requires carefulplanning and multidisciplinary collaboration, and maynot always be achievable when surgical complicationsare present. Furthermore, such complications are morelikely following larger and more extensive surgical re-section for more locally invasive lesions, larger tumors,and those with extensive lymph node involvement. Pa-tients with such tumors are more likely to be candidatesfor intensive adjuvant treatments and the most likely tosuffer from their omission. The greater prevalence of
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere236more advanced cancer in the latter time cohort due towound healing delay may also partly explain any puta-tive adverse influence of delay in the initiation of PORT.Therefore, no arbitrary time limit has been scientificallyestablished during which PORT must begin, or beyondwhich PORT has been shown not to have an effect (5).In essence, high risk cases should still be consideredin circumstances where there has been delay in initiat-ing radiotherapy due to the grave consequences of loco-regional recurrence that might be prevented by the useof adjuvant treatment.Primary Radiotherapy ± Chemotherapy with-out SurgeryPrimary radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy isnot used routinely but may be deployed for the follow-ing reasons: a) in early stage disease to avoid anticipatedfunctional and cosmetic defect, b) for unresectable dis-ease, c) for high operative risk patients due to comor-bidity or poor performance status, d) recurrent diseasewhen previous multiple surgeries have been undertakenand further surgery would be technically improbable,and e) patient’s preference. No prospective trial has dir-ectly compared primary surgery vs. primary radiother-apy in OSCC specifically. Two case series comparingRT vs. surgery suggested a lower LRC with primaryradiotherapy compared to surgery approach (26,27).However, these patients were mostly treated with lessintensified treatment regimens and the retrospectivenature of the studies questions whether case selectionfor both treatments was equal. Also, whether intensi-fied treatment approaches, such as concurrent chemo-radiotherapy, could improve outcome sufficiently to beOral CavitySquamous Cell CarcinomaIntermediate-risk (any):T3-T4Close resection marginLVIPNIPositive lymph node(s)without ECEHigh-risk (any):Positive resectionmarginECETreatment:PORTExpected Outcome:5-year LRC: ~78%Treatment effect size:(PORT vs. Surgery alone)-30% difference in DFS-10% difference in OS butNSTreatment:POCRTExpected Outcome:5-year LRC: ~80%Treatment effect size:(POCRT vs. PORT)-28% difference in OS-42% difference in LRCTreatment:Surgery aloneExpected Outcome:5-year LRC: >90%(Only retrospective dataavailable)Low-risk (all):T1-T2Clear resection margin ( 5mm)no LVIno microscopic muscleinvasionFig. 1. Summary of Risk Grouping and Role of Postoperative Radiotherapy +/- Chemotherapy.Abbreviations: LVI: lympho-vascular invasion; ECE: extra-capsular invasion; PORT: postoperative radiotherapy; POCRT:postoperative chemoradiotherapy; LRC: locoregional control; DFS: disease-free survival; OS: overall survival; NS: not statisti-cal significantNote:1. Crude estimates of expected outcomes were obtained from the following sources:• Low-risk: Huang, et al. (8)• Intermediate-risk: Langendjk, et al. (25),• High-risk: Bernier, et al. (2) from the experimental arms of the combined report of RTOG #9501 and EORTC #229312. Treatment effect size:• PORT vs. Surgery: Mishra, et al (55)• POCRT vs. PORT: Bernier, et al (2)
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere237comparable to surgery remains to be investigated. Asubgroup analysis of 39 T4 OSCC with primary CRTfrom four multi-institutional phase II studies showed a5-year LRC rate of 75% (28); in turn this opens the po-tential for organ preservation approaches with CRT inpatients with T4 OSCC.In the meta-analysis of individual patient data fromclinical trials comparing RT vs. CRT (MACH-NC) inlocally advanced head and neck cancers, OSCC com-prised 21% of cases (29). Result showed an improve-ment of survival in OSCC with CRT compared to RTalone (HR =0.8). In the meta-analysis of individual pa-tient data from clinical trials comparing hyper-fraction-ated or accelerated vs. conventional radiotherapy sched-ule (MARCH) (30), OSCC consisted of only 12.6% ofcases. Again, intensified regimens, in this case alteredfractionation radiotherapy, improved survival over con-ventional radiotherapy (hazard ratio = 0.8) . The resultsfrom these two meta-analyses seem to suggest that forpatient unable to receive primary surgery, treatmentintensification by concurrent chemotherapy or alteredfractionation RT may be considered.Interstitial Radiotherapy (Brachytherapy)Interstitial brachytherapy represents a traditional ap-proach for OSCC and is an alternative to external beamradiotherapy (EBRT). Brachytherapy delivers radiother-apy by positioning radioactive sources in direct proximityto the tumor target area. The advantage of brachytherapyis its highly conformal dose distribution to a small targetarea by virtue of a rapid “fall-off” within surroundingnormal tissue. It can be applied as a definitive treatmentfor early OSCC; as a complimentary treatment in com-bination with surgery; as a local “boost” in combinationwith EBRT to enhance the local dose to the immediatetumor region; or as a salvage option for small burden per-sistent or recurrent disease (31).-Brachytherapy aloneNo randomized trials have been performed comparingbrachytherapy versus other conventional treatment forOSCC. Based on clinical experience, a consensus state-ment from GEC-ESTRO has recommended that brachy-therapy alone could be used for T1-T2N0 oral mucosa(<1.5 cm in thickness), oral tongue lesion, or floor ofmouth lesions locate at least 5 mm from the mandibledue to the high risk of inducing osteoradionecrosis(ORN). Brachytherapy is not suitable for T4 tumorwith bone involvement (31). An additional concernabout the use of brachytherapy alone for early OSCC isits inability to addressing occult neck disease. For ex-ample, an increased rate of late lymph node recurrencefor clinical T1N0 OSCC has been reported followingbrachytherapy alone, especially in tumors exceeding 6mm in thickness. The authors have consequently rec-ommended prophylactic nodal irradiation in additionto brachytherapy for early-stage OSCC exceeding thisthickness (32).-Postoperative brachytherapyPostoperative brachytherapy could be offered in T1-3tumor with narrow or positive resection margins or LVI.A retrospective study of local tumor excision followedby postoperative interstitial brachytherapy with andwithout external radiotherapy has shown excellent loco-regional control (33). In addition, brachytherapy can bedelivered as an adjuvant “boost” to augment the radia-tion dose to a high risk area for advanced OSCC under-going EBRT (34-37). An alternative approach is the useof simultaneous integrated boost IMRT but the relativevalue of both approaches remains to be determined.Brachytherapy for re-irradiationThe feasibility of re-irradiation with EBRT after de-finitive EBRT is limited by concerns about excessivemorbidity related to normal tissue tolerance. Therefore,surgical resection is often and appropriately presentedas the main or potentially only curative option. How-ever, carotid involvement in persistent disease is rela-tively common in recurrent disease and carotid arteryresection carries significant risk including potentialdramatic adverse sequelae, such as cerebrovascularevent. Because of the ability to curtail the size of the ir-radiated volume, brachytherapy seems especially indi-cated to minimize the risk of severe complications inre-irradiation for persistent/recurrent disease or for newprimary tumors located within previously irradiatedvolumes (33,38,39).-Brachytherapy delivery techniquesCommonly used radioactive sources are I-125 and Ir-192. Considerable experience has been accumulatedwith low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy and its effect-iveness for OSCC has been confirmed in large clinicalseries (40). Recently, high-dose rate (HDR) and pulsed-dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy have emerged as newbrachytherapy delivery techniques offering the advan-tage of optimizing dose distribution by varying dwelltimes and employing computerized planning and deliv-ery techniques. However, these techniques require theavailability of particular expertise and resources thathas affected their widespread adoption in many centersespecially in settings with insufficient operating roomresources and radiotherapy protection requirements.Biotherapy with Targeted AgentEmerging data also indicate that the epidermal growthfactor (EGFR) and its signal transduction pathwayplay an important role in head and neck cancer. Over-expression of EGFR has been confirmed in OSCC andhas been reported to be associated with a poor progno-sis (41-43). The addition of a targeted agent, such as amonoclonal antibody EGFR inhibitor, has been reportedto improve outcome over primary radiotherapy alone in
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere238head and neck cancers of the oropharynx, hypopharynxand larynx (44). Its role in OSCC has yet to be con-firmed. Recently, the RTOG 0920 trial was launched toaddress intermediate-risk (PNI, LVI, close margin, T3or T4a tumor, T2 with > 5mm thickness, single lymphnode > 3 cm or ≥ 2 lymph node < 6 cm without ECE)OSCC patients to evaluate whether the addition of ce-tuximab to PORT will improve overall survival (OS) inpostoperative patients.Radiation-related Toxicity ± ChemotherapyRadiotherapy with or without chemotherapy to enhancedisease control is associated with radiation-inducedtoxicity. The acute toxicity includes grade 2/3 oral mu-cositis and dysphagia. The incidence is generally high,especially with bilateral irradiation, though is usuallyself-limiting (45). Common late toxicities include ORN,xerostomia, and dysphagia (46). The general impressionof practitioners is that toxicity is enhanced by the use ofconcurrent chemotherapy with PORT. For example, thecombined severe acute and late toxicity frequency in theRTOG trial 9501 reported by Cooper, et al. (3) amountedto 46% vs. 78% for PORT vs. POCRT respectively. Forreasons that are not immediately apparent, the toxicityprofile seems less clear in EORTC 22931; for examplethe severe muscular fibrosis rate was higher for POCRT(10% vs. 5%) but severe xerostomia was lower (14%vs. 22%) (13). These observations underline the needto prospectively include comprehensive toxicity datacollection in future trials. Spontaneous ORN is dose-dependent and related to the volume of mandible receiv-ing radiotherapy beyond 50~60 Gy (47). The incidenceis generally low (<15%) with conventional conformalradiotherapy (48) with the exception of one unexpectedretrospective report in the recent literature (49). Intensi-ty modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a newer method ofradiotherapy that uses intensity-modulated beams thatcan provide multiple intensity levels allowing concavedose distributions and dose gradients with narrowermargins than those possible using traditional radiother-apy (50) (Fig. 2). The incidence of ORN can be furtherreduced significantly by minimizing the percentage ofmandibular volume exposed to >50~60 Gy using IMRT(47,51,52). In addition, careful oral dental hygiene andsmoking cessation are also important for preventingORN. Xerostomia rates are high with conventionalHuang SH & O’Sullivan B - REF.18772A. Conventional 3D-conformal Radiotherapy B. Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT)Primary tongue tumor50 Gy Isodose LineParotid GlandParotid Gland50 Gy Isodose Line60 Gy Isodose Line60 Gy Isodose LineFig. 2. Example of partial mandible and parotid-sparing IMRT vs. conventional 3D-conformal radiotherapy.Note:•Two actual cases of T4aN0 oral tongue cancer. The dose prescription is 70 Gy in 35 fractions in both cases•White arrows indicate radiation beam arrangement:• Conventional radiotherapy: two lateral beams: 90° and 270°• IMRT: equally spaced 9 beam plan configuration: 200°, 240°, 280°, 320°, 0°, 40°, 80°, 120°, 160°•For the same stage of disease, IMRT is able to partially spare the ipsi-lateral and totally spare the contra-lateral mandible andparotid gland to receive 60 Gy; while both side of mandibles and almost both parotid glands received >60 Gy in conventional3D-conformal radiotherapy.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere239radiotherapy when salivary gland and oral cavity mu-cosa are inevitably included in the radiation field. IMRThas demonstrated an ability to enhance salivary spar-ing to reduce the rate of permanent xerostomia withoutcompromising disease control (45,53). It is also capableof reducing the rate of severe dysphagia compared toconventional radiotherapy (54).References1. Bessell A, Glenny AM, Furness S, Clarkson JE, Oliver R, Con-way DI, et al. Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropha-ryngeal cancers: surgical treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2011;9:CD006205.2. Bernier J, Cooper JS, Pajak TF, van Glabbeke M, Bourhis J, Foras-tiere A, et al. Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neckcancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radia-tion plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (#9501). Head Neck. 2005;27:843-50.3. Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA, Jacobs J, Campbell BH, Sax-man SB, et al. Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemother-apy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. NEngl J Med. 2004;350:1937-44.4. Shrime MG, Gullane PJ, Dawson L, Kim J, Gilbert RW, Irish JC,et al. The impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival in T1-2N1squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Arch Otolaryngol HeadNeck Surg. 2010;136:225-8.5. Peters LJ, Goepfert H, Ang KK, Byers RM, Maor MH, Guillam-ondegui O, et al. Evaluation of the dose for postoperative radiationtherapy of head and neck cancer: first report of a prospective ran-domized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:3-11.6. Langendijk JA, Slotman BJ, van der Waal I, Doornaert P, Berkof J,Leemans CR. Risk-group definition by recursive partitioning analysisof patients with squamous cell head and neck carcinoma treated withsurgery and postoperative radiotherapy. Cancer. 2005;104:1408-1417.7. Brown JS, Shaw RJ, Bekiroglu F, Rogers SN. Systematic review ofthe current evidence in the use of postoperative radiotherapy for oralsquamous cell carcinoma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;50:481-489.8. Huang TY, Hsu LP, Wen YH, Huang TT, Chou YF, Lee CF, et al.Predictors of locoregional recurrence in early stage oral cavity can-cer with free surgical margins. Oral Oncol. 2010;46:49-55.9. Liao CT, Chang JT, Wang HM, Ng SH, Hsueh C, Lee LY, et al.Does adjuvant radiation therapy improve outcomes in pT1-3N0 oralcavity cancer with tumor-free margins and perineural invasion? Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:371-6. 10. Huang SH, Hwang D, Lockwood G, Goldstein DP, O’Sullivan B.Predictive value of tumor thickness for cervical lymph-node involve-ment in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a meta-analysisof reported studies. Cancer. 2009;115:1489-1497.11. Liao CT, Lin CY, Fan KH, Wang HM, Ng SH, Lee LY, et al.Identification of a high-risk group among patients with oral cavitysquamous cell carcinoma and pT1-2N0 disease. Int J Radiat OncolBiol Phys. 2012;82:284-90.12. Moergel M, Jahn-Eimermacher A, Krummenauer F, ReichertTE, Wagner W, Wendt TG, et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant radio-therapy in patients with oropharyngeal and floor of mouth squamouscell carcinoma and concomitant histological verification of singularipsilateral cervical lymph node metastasis (pN1-state)--a prospectivemulticenter randomized controlled clinical trial using a comprehen-sive cohort design. Trials. 2009;10:118.13. Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, Matuszewska K, LefèbvreJL, Greiner RH, et al. Postoperative irradiation with or without con-comitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer.N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1945-52.14. Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere A, Jacobs J, Fu KK, Ang KK, etal. Precisely defining high-risk operable head and neck tumors basedon RTOG #85-03 and #88-24: targets for postoperative radiochemo-therapy? Head Neck.1998;20:588-94.15. Fan KH, Wang HM, Kang CJ, Lee LY, Huang SF, Lin CY, etal. Treatment results of postoperative radiotherapy on squamous cellcarcinoma of the oral cavity: coexistence of multiple minor risk fac-tors results in higher recurrence rates. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2010;77:1024-9.16. Liao CT, Chang JT, Wang HM, Ng SH, Hsueh C, Lee LY, et al.Analysis of risk factors of predictive local tumor control in oral cav-ity cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:915-22.17. Parsons JT, Mendenhall WM, Stringer SP, Cassisi NJ, MillionRR. An analysis of factors influencing the outcome of postoperativeirradiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Int J Ra-diat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;39:137-48.18. Looser KG, Shah JP, Strong EW. The significance of “positive”margins in surgically resected epidermoid carcinomas. Head NeckSurg. 1978;1:107-111.19. Batsakis JG. Surgical excision margins: a pathologist’s perspec-tive. Adv Anat Pathol. 1999;6:140-148.20. Binahmed A, Nason RW, Abdoh AA. The clinical significance ofthe positive surgical margin in oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2007;43:780-784.21. Chen PY, Chen HH, Hsiao JR, Yang MW, Hsueh WT, Tasi ST, etal. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improves outcomes in postop-erative patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. OralOncol. 2012;48:747-52.22. Guillemaud JP, Patel RS, Goldstein DP, Higgins KM, EnepekidesDJ. Prognostic impact of intraoperative microscopic cut-through onfrozen section in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. J OtolaryngolHead Neck Surg. 2010;39:370-7.23. Huang J, Barbera L, Brouwers M, Browman G, Mackillop WJ.Does delay in starting treatment affect the outcomes of radiothera-py? A systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:555-63.24. Daly ME, Le QT, Kozak MM, Maxim PG, Murphy JD, Hsu A,et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oral cavity squamous cellcarcinoma: patterns of failure and predictors of local control. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:1412-22.25. Langendijk JA, de Jong MA, Leemans CR, de Bree R, SmeeleLE, Doornaert P, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in squamous cellcarcinoma of the oral cavity: the importance of the overall treatmenttime. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:693-700.26. Studer G, Zwahlen RA, Graetz KW, Davis BJ, Glanzmann C.IMRT in oral cavity cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2007;2:16.27. Murthy V, Agarwal JP, Laskar SG, Gupta T, Budrukkar A, Pai P,et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1180 patients with oral cav-ity primary cancer treated with definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy. JCancer Res Ther. 2010;6:282-9.28. Cohen EE, Baru J, Huo D, Haraf DJ, Crowley M, Witt ME, BlairEA, Weichselbaum RR, Rosen F, Vokes EE, Stenson K. Efficacy andsafety of treating T4 oral cavity tumors with primary chemoradio-therapy. Head Neck. 2009;31:1013-21.29. Pignon JP, le Maître A, Maillard E, Bourhis J. MACH-NC Col-laborative Group. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neckcancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346patients. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:4-14.30. Bourhis J, Overgaard J, Audry H, Ang KK, Saunders M, BernierJ, et al. Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head andneck cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;368:843-54.31. Mazeron JJ, Ardiet JM, Haie-Méder C, Kovács G, Levendag P,Peiffert D, et al. GEC-ESTRO recommendations for brachytherapyfor head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Radiother Oncol.2009;91:150-6.32. Chakrabarti B, Ghorai S, Basu B, Ghosh SK, Gupta P, Ghosh K,et al. Late nodal metastasis in early-stage node-negative oral cavitycancers after successful sole interstitial brachytherapy: an institu-tional experience of 42 cases in India. Brachytherapy. 2010;9:254-9.33. Grabenbauer GG, Rödel C, Brunner T, Schulze-Mosgau S, StrnadV, Müller RG, et al. Interstitial brachytherapy with Ir-192 low-dose-rate in the treatment of primary and recurrent cancer of the oral cav-ity and oropharynx. Review of 318 patients treated between 1985 and1997. Strahlenther Onkol. 2001;177:338-44.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Mar 1;18 (2):e233-40. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral cavity cancere24034. Do L, Puthawala A, Syed N. Interstitial brachytherapy as boostfor locally advanced T4 head and neck cancer. Brachytherapy.2009;8:385-91.35. Patra NB, Goswami J, Basu S, Chatterjee K, Sarkar SK. Outcomesof high dose rate interstitial boost brachytherapy after external beamradiation therapy in head and neck cancer--an Indian (single institu-tional) learning experience. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:248-54.36. Chatani M, Tsuboi K, Yagi M, Fujiwara K, Tachimoto R, Yosh-ioka H. High dose rate brachytherapy using molds after chemoradio-therapy for oral cavity cancer. Jpn J Radiol. 2012;30:40-4.37. Lapeyre M, Bollet MA, Racadot S, Geoffrois L, Kaminsky MC,Hoffstetter S, et al. Postoperative brachytherapy alone and combinedpostoperative radiotherapy and brachytherapy boost for squamouscell carcinoma of the oral cavity, with positive or close margins.Head Neck. 2004;26:216-23. 38. Grimard L, Esche B, Lamothe A, Cygler J, Spaans J. Interstitiallow-dose-rate brachytherapy in the treatment of recurrent head andneck malignancies. Head Neck. 2006;28:888-95.39. Grimard L, Esche B, Lamothe A, Spaans JN. Interstitialbrachytherapy in the management of persistent head and neck dis-ease after definitive external beam radiation therapy. Brachytherapy.2009;8:284-9.40. Mazeron JJ, Noël G, Simon JM. Head and neck brachytherapy.Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:95-108.41. Huang SF, Cheng SD, Chien HT, Liao CT, Chen IH, Wang HM, etal. Relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor gene copynumber and protein expression in oral cavity squamous cell carci-noma. Oral Oncol. 2012;48:67-72. 42. Chen IH, Chang JT, Liao CT, Wang HM, Hsieh LL, ChengAJ. Prognostic significance of EGFR and Her-2 in oral cavity can-cer in betel quid prevalent area cancer prognosis. Br J Cancer.2003;89:681-6.43. Wheeler S, Siwak DR, Chai R, LaValle C, Seethala RR, Wang L,et al. Tumor epidermal growth factor receptor and EGFR PY1068 areindependent prognostic indicators for head and neck squamous cellcarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2278-89.44. Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, Azarnia N, Shin DM, Cohen RB,et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma ofthe head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:567-78. 45. Bhide SA, Ahmed M, Newbold K, Harrington KJ, Nutting CM.The role of intensity modulated radiotherapy in advanced oral cavitycarcinoma. J Cancer Res Ther. 2012;8 Suppl 1:S67-71.46. Sher DJ, Thotakura V, Balboni TA, Norris CM, Haddad RI, Pos-ner MR, et al. Treatment of oral cavity squamous cell carcinomawith adjuvant or definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy. IntJ Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:e215-22.47. Tsai CJ, Hofstede TM, Sturgis EM, Garden AS, Lindberg ME,Wei Q, et al. Osteoradionecrosis and radiation dose to the mandiblein patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2013;85:415-20.48. Balogh JM, Sutherland SE. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible:a review. J Otolaryngol. 1989;18:245-50.49. Monnier Y, Broome M, Betz M, Bouferrache K, Ozsahin M,Jaques B. Mandibular osteoradionecrosis in squamous cell carci-noma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: incidence and risk factors.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144:726-32.50. O’Sullivan B, Rumble RB, Warde P, Members of the IMRT In-dications Expert Panel. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in thetreatment of head and neck cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol).2012;24:474-87.51. Ben-David MA, Diamante M, Radawski JD, Vineberg KA,Stroup C, Murdoch-Kinch CA, et al. Lack of osteoradionecrosis ofthe mandible after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head andneck cancer: likely contributions of both dental care and improveddose distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:396-402.52. Studer G, Studer SP, Zwahlen RA, Huguenin P, Grätz KW, LütolfUM, et al. Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible: minimized risk pro-file following intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahl-enther Onkol. 2006;182:283-8.53. Little M, Schipper M, Feng FY, Vineberg K, Cornwall C, Mur-doch-Kinch CA, et al. Reducing xerostomia after chemo-IMRT forhead-and-neck cancer: beyond sparing the parotid glands. Int J Ra-diat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1007-14.54. Chen WC, Hwang TZ, Wang WH, Lu CH, Chen CC, Chen CM,et al. Comparison between conventional and intensity-modulatedpost-operative radiotherapy for stage III and IV oral cavity cancer interms of treatment results and toxicity. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:505-10. 55. Mishra RC, Singh DN, Mishra TK. Post-operative radiotherapyin carcinoma of buccal mucosa, a prospective randomized trial. EurJ Surg Oncol. 1996;22:502-4.