Search

Background: Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011., Objectives: To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting., Search Methods: An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration., Data Collection and Analysis: For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary., Main Results: We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early-stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. This is an update of a review originally published in 2007 and first updated in 2011., Objectives: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease-free survival and locoregional control and reduced recurrence. To determine the implication of treatment modalities in terms of morbidity, quality of life, costs, hospital days of treatment, complications and harms., Search Methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 December 2017) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 December 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, or where separate data could be extracted for these participants, and that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities., Data Collection and Analysis: Two or more review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We collected adverse events data from included studies., Main Results: We identified five new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 12 (2300 participants; 2148 with cancers of the oral cavity). We assessed four trials at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear. None of the included trials compared different surgical approaches for the excision of the primary tumour. We grouped the trials into seven main comparisons.Future research may change the findings as there is only very low-certainty evidence available for all results.Five trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic (delayed) ND in participants with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate in most cases. Four of these trials reported overall and disease-free survival. The meta-analyses of two trials found no evidence of either intervention leading to greater overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.72; 571 participants), or disease-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.11; 571 participants), but one trial found a benefit for elective supraomohyoid ND compared to therapeutic ND in overall survival (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 67 participants) and disease-free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; 67 participants). Four individual trials assessed locoregional recurrence, but could not be meta-analysed; one trial favoured elective ND over therapeutic delayed ND, while the others were inconclusive.Two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND, but we were unable to pool the data for two outcomes. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival or disease-free survival. A single trial found no evidence of a difference in recurrence.One trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.One trial comparing positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (either before or after chemoradiotherapy), showed no evidence of a difference in mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; 564 participants). The trial did not provide usable data for the other outcomes.Three single trials compared: surgery plus adjunctive radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy; supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND; and super selective ND versus selective ND. There were no useable data from these trials.The reporting of adverse events was poor. Four trials measured adverse events. Only one of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome., Authors' Conclusions: Twelve randomised controlled trials evaluated ND surgery in people with oral cavity cancers; however, the evidence available for all comparisons and outcomes is very low certainty, therefore we cannot rely on the findings. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about elective ND of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour compared to therapeutic (delayed) ND. Two trials combined in meta-analysis suggested there is no difference between these interventions, while one trial (which evaluated elective supraomohyoid ND) found that it may be associated with increased overall and disease-free survival. One trial found elective ND reduced locoregional recurrence, while three were inconclusive. There is no evidence that radical ND increases overall or disease-free survival compared to more conservative ND surgery, or that there is a difference in mortality between PET-CT surveillance following chemoradiotherapy versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy). Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of people undergoing different surgical treatments.

Background: Oral cancers are the sixth most common cancer worldwide, yet the prognosis following a diagnosis of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers remains poor, with approximately 50% survival at five years. Despite a sharp increase in research into molecularly targeted therapies and a rapid expansion in the number of clinical trials assessing new targeted therapies, their value for treating oral cancers is unclear. Therefore, it is important to summarise the evidence to determine the efficacy and toxicity of targeted therapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of these cancers., Objectives: To assess the effects of molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in addition to standard therapies, for the treatment of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 3 February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 3 February 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 3 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference abstracts and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials protocols for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared targeted therapy or immunotherapy, plus standard therapy, with standard therapy alone., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where necessary. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models when there were at least four studies and fixed-effect models when fewer than four studies. We obtained or calculated a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes where possible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs., Main Results: Twelve trials (2488 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the included trials, 12% of participants (298 participants) had tumours of the oral cavity and 59% (1468 participants) had oropharyngeal tumours. The remaining 29% had tumours of the larynx or hypopharynx and less than 1% had tumours at other sites.No included trial was at low risk of bias; seven had an unclear risk of bias, and five had a high risk of bias. We grouped trials by intervention type into three main comparisons: standard therapy plus epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (EGFR mAb) therapy (follow-up period 24 to 70 months); standard therapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (follow-up period 40 to 60 months) and standard therapy plus immunotherapy (follow-up period 24 to 70 months), all versus standard therapy alone.Moderate quality evidence showed that EGFR mAb therapy may result in 18% fewer deaths when added to standard therapy (HR of mortality 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 1421 participants, three studies, 67% oropharyngeal tumours, 2% oral cavity tumours).There was also moderate quality evidence that EGFR mAb may result in 32% fewer locoregional failures when added to radiotherapy (RT) (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours).A subgroup analysis separating studies by type of standard therapy (radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) showed some evidence that adding EGFR mAb therapy to RT may result in a 30% reduction in the number of people whose disease progresses (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours, unclear risk of bias). For the subgroup comparing EGFR mAb plus CRT with CRT alone there was insufficient evidence to determine whether adding EGFR mAb therapy to CRT impacts on progression-free survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.32; 891 participants, one study, 70% oropharyngeal tumours, high risk of bias). The high subgroup heterogeneity meant that we were unable to pool these subgroups.There was evidence that adding cetuximab to standard therapy may result in increased skin toxicity and rash (RR 6.56; 95% CI 5.35 to 8.03; 1311 participants, two studies), but insufficient evidence to determine any difference in skin toxicity and rash in the case of nimotuzumab (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; 92 participants, one study).There was insufficient evidence to determine whether TKIs added to standard therapy impacts on overall survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.57; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), locoregional control (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), disease-free survival (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.61 to 3.71; 60 participants, one study; very low quality evidence) or progression-free survival (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.28; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence). We did find evidence of an increase in skin rash (erlotinib: RR 6.57; 95% CI 3.60 to 12.00; 191 participants, one study; lapatinib: RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.32; 67 participants, one study) and gastrointestinal complaints (lapatinib: RR 15.53; 95% CI 2.18 to 110.55; 67 participants, one study).We found very low quality evidence from one small trial that adding recombinant interleukin (rIL-2) to surgery may increase overall survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 201 participants, 62% oral cavity tumours, 38% oropharyngeal tumours) and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rIL-2 impacts on adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: We found some evidence that adding EGFR mAb to standard therapy may increase overall survival, progression-free survival and locoregional control, while resulting in an increase in skin toxicity for some mAb (cetuximab).There is insufficient evidence to determine whether adding TKIs to standard therapies changes any of our primary outcomes.Very low quality evidence from a single study suggests that rIL-2 combined with surgery may increase overall survival compared with surgery alone.

Background: The early detection and excision of potentially malignant disorders (PMD) of the lip and oral cavity that require intervention may reduce malignant transformations (though will not totally eliminate malignancy occurring), or if malignancy is detected during surveillance, there is some evidence that appropriate treatment may improve survival rates., Objectives: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination (COE), vital rinsing, light-based detection, biomarkers and mouth self examination (MSE), used singly or in combination, for the early detection of PMD or cancer of the lip and oral cavity in apparently healthy adults., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to April 2013) and four other electronic databases (the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, EMBASE (OVID), and MEDION) from inception to April 2013. The electronic databases were searched on 30 April 2013. There were no restrictions on language in the searches of the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references., Selection Criteria: We selected studies that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of any of the aforementioned tests in detecting PMD or cancer of the lip or oral cavity. Diagnosis of PMD or cancer was made by specialist clinicians or pathologists, or alternatively through follow-up., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using QUADAS-2. We reported the sensitivity and specificity of the included studies., Main Results: Thirteen studies, recruiting 68,362 participants, were included. These studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of COE (10 studies), MSE (two studies). One randomised controlled of test accuracy trial directly evaluated COE and vital rinsing. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating light-based detection or blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of bio-markers of PMD and oral cancer). Given the clinical heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of the participants recruited, setting, prevalence of target condition, the application of the index test and reference standard and the flow and timing of the process, the data could not be pooled. For COE (10 studies, 25,568 participants), prevalence in the diagnostic test accuracy sample ranged from 1% to 51%. For the eight studies with prevalence of 10% or lower, the sensitivity estimates were highly variable, and ranged from 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00) with uniform specificity estimates around 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.83) for one study with prevalence of 22% and 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.98) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.77) for one study with prevalence of 51%. Three studies were judged to be at low risk of bias overall; two were judged to be at high risk of bias resulting from the flow and timing domain; and for five studies the overall risk of bias was judged as unclear resulting from insufficient information to form a judgement for at least one of the four quality assessment domains. Applicability was of low concern overall for two studies; high concern overall for three studies due to high risk population, and unclear overall applicability for five studies. Estimates of sensitivity for MSE (two studies, 34,819 participants) were 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65); specificity for MSE was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69). One study (7975 participants) directly compared COE with COE plus vital rinsing in a randomised controlled trial. This study found a higher detection rate for oral cavity cancer in the conventional oral examination plus vital rinsing adjunct trial arm., Authors' Conclusions: The prevalence of the target condition both between and within index tests varied considerably. For COE estimates of sensitivity over the range of prevalence levels varied widely. Observed estimates of specificity were more homogeneous. Index tests at a prevalence reported in the population (between 1% and 5%) were better at correctly classifying the absence of PMD or oral cavity cancer in disease-free individuals that classifying the presence in diseased individuals. Incorrectly classifying disease-free individuals as having the disease would have clinical and financial implications following inappropriate referral; incorrectly classifying individuals with the disease as disease-free will mean PMD or oral cavity cancer will only be diagnosed later when the disease will be more severe. General dental practitioners and dental care professionals should remain vigilant for signs of PMD and oral cancer whilst performing routine oral examinations in practice.

Background: Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population-based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 July 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 July 2013) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 22 July 2013). There were no restrictions on language in the search of the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. Meta-analyses would have been undertaken using a random-effects model if the number of studies had exceeded a minimum of three. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information., Main Results: A total of 3239 citations were identified through the searches. Only one RCT, with 15-year follow-up met the inclusion criteria (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (15.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (17.1/100,000 person-years), with a RR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.12). A 24% reduction in mortality was reported between the screening group (30/100,000 person-years) and the control group (39.0/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97). No statistically significant differences were found for incidence rates. A statistically significant reduction in the number of individuals diagnosed with stage III or worse oral cancer was found for those in the screening group (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.93). No harms were reported. The study was assessed as at high risk of bias., Authors' Conclusions: There is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population-based screening programme reduces the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals. In addition, there is a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole. However, the evidence is limited to one study, which has a high risk of bias and did not account for the effect of cluster randomisation in the analysis. There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality. Further RCTs are recommended to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population-based screening programme in low, middle and high-income countries.

Background: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers., Objectives: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence., Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials., Main Results: Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment., Authors' Conclusions: Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries.

Background: Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients., Objectives: To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes., Search Strategy: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 1st December 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Eighty-nine trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and data were extracted by two or more review authors. The primary outcome was total mortality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information or for clarification., Main Results: There is evidence of a small increase in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone (25 trials), hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00, P = 0.06). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (10 trials), HR of mortality 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, P = 0.03), and there is some evidence that this improvement may be greater with concomitant adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (4 trials), HR of mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03). In patients with unresectable tumours, there is evidence that concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy is associated with improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone (26 trials), HR of mortality 0.78 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.83, P < 0.00001). These findings are confirmed by sensitivity analyses based on studies assessed at low risk of bias. There is insufficient evidence to identify which agent(s) and/or regimen(s) are the most effective. The additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified., Authors' Conclusions: Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy may prolong survival by 8 to 20% and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by up to 16%. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by 10 to 22%. There is insufficient evidence as to which agent or regimen is most effective and the additional toxicity associated with chemotherapy given in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery cannot be quantified.

Background: The management of advanced oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is problematic and has traditionally relied on surgery and radiotherapy, both of which are associated with substantial adverse effects. Radiotherapy has been in use since the 1950s and has traditionally been given as single daily doses. This method of dividing up the total dose, or fractionation, has been modified over the years and a variety of approaches have been developed with the aim of improving survival whilst maintaining acceptable toxicity., Objectives: To determine which radiotherapy regimens for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and locoregional control., Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 July 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 July 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 July 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more radiotherapy regimens, radiotherapy versus other treatment modality, or the addition of radiotherapy to other treatment modalities., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials., Main Results: 30 trials involving 6535 participants were included. Seventeen trials compared some form of altered fractionation (hyperfractionation/accelerated) radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy; three trials compared different altered fractionation regimens; one trial compared timing of radiotherapy, five trials evaluated neutron therapy and four trials evaluated the addition of pre-operative radiotherapy. Pooling trials of any altered fractionation radiotherapy compared to a conventional schedule showed a statistically significant reduction in total mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98). In addition, a statistically significant difference in favour of the altered fractionation was shown for the outcome of locoregional control (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). No statistically significant difference was shown for disease free survival.No statistically significant difference was shown for any other comparison., Authors' Conclusions: Altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with an improvement in overall survival and locoregional control in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. More accurate methods of reporting adverse events are needed in order to truly assess the clinical performance of different radiotherapy regimens.

Background: Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 20 May 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 20 May 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2010) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 20 May 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: The original review identified 1389 citations and this update identified an additional 330 studies, highlighting 1719 studies for consideration. Only one study met the inclusion criteria and validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation were undertaken by six independent review authors., Main Results: One 9-year RCT has been included (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (16.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (20.7/100,000 person-years). A 43% reduction in mortality was reported between the intervention cohort (29.9/100,000 person-years) and the control arm (45.4/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant. However, this study had a number of methodological weaknesses and the associated risk of bias was high., Authors' Conclusions: Although there is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme reduced the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals, whilst producing a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole, the evidence is limited to one study and is associated with a high risk of bias. This was compounded by the fact that the effect of cluster randomisation was not accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, no robust evidence was identified to support the use of other adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging within a primary care environment. Further randomised controlled trials are recommended to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme.

Background: Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients., Objectives: To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes., Search Strategy: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 28th July 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other possible sources of bias. Data were extracted using a specially designed form and entered into the characteristics of included studies table and the analysis sections of the review. The proportion of participants in each trial with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are recorded in Additional Table 1., Main Results: There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone in 25 trials (hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery +/- radiotherapy alone in 10 trials (HR of mortality 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and there was an additional benefit of adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy in 4 of these trials (HR of mortality 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Concomitant chemoradiotherapy resulted in improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone in patients whose tumours were considered unresectable in 25 trials (HR of mortality 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). However, the additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified., Authors' Conclusions: Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy is associated with a 9% increase in survival and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a 16% increase in overall survival following surgery. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant chemoradiotherapy showed a 22% benefit in overall survival compared with radiotherapy alone.

Background: Screening programmes for major cancers, such as breast and cervical cancer have effectively decreased the mortality rate and helped to reduce the incidence of these cancers. Although oral cancer is a global health problem with increasing incidence and mortality rates, no national population-based screening programmes for oral cancer have been implemented. To date there is debate on whether to employ screening methods for oral cancer in the daily routine work of health providers., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Strategy: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 1966 to July 2005, The Cochrane Library - Issue 3, 2005), bibliographies, handsearching of specific journals and contact authors were used to identify published and unpublished data., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of screening for oral cancer or precursor oral lesions using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: The search found 112 citations and these have been reviewed. One randomised controlled trial of screening strategies for oral cancer was identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation were undertaken by two independent review authors., Main Results: One 10-year randomised controlled trial has been included (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (16.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (20.7/100,000 person-years). Interestingly, a significant 34% reduction in mortality was recorded in high-risk subjects between the intervention cohort (29.9/100,000 person-years) and the control arm (45.4/100,000). However, this study has some methodological weaknesses. Additionally, the study did not provide any information related to costs, quality of life or even harms of screening from false-positive or false-negative findings., Authors' Conclusions: Given the limitation of evidence (only one included randomised controlled trial) and the potential methodological weakness of the included study, it is valid to say that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of a visual examination as a method of screening for oral cancer using a visual examination in the general population. Furthermore, no robust evidence exists to suggest that other methods of screening, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy, are either beneficial or harmful. Future high quality studies to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and costs of screening are required for the best use of public health resources. In addition, studies to elucidate the natural history of oral cancer, prevention methods and the effectiveness of opportunistic screening in high risk groups are needed. Future studies on improved treatment modalities for oral cancer and precancer are also required.

Objective: To survey two broad areas of oral cancer awareness and management of patients at risk of oral cancer by specialists in oral surgery, oral medicine, surgical dentistry and general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the UK. The first of these included knowledge and awareness of aetiological factors, changing patterns of disease, and screening/detection programmes including their effectiveness. The second included oral cancer detection methods, advice on avoidance of high-risk activity and self-examination, and referral pattern of GDPs., Design and Method: A pretested, 44-item questionnaire, a covering letter, a brief outline of the research protocol and return, stamped envelope were mailed in March 2003. A sample of 200 GDPs whose names were obtained from the General Dental Council's main list and 305 dental specialist names obtained from specialist's list in surgical dentistry, oral medicine and oral surgery were selected randomly. Information on oral cancer awareness and practice, screening practice and education was obtained., Results: The response rate was 66.9%. The knowledge of the dental specialists was consistent with that in reports of current aetiological studies on oral cancer. However there were gaps in the GDP's knowledge and ascertainment of oral cancer risk factors. Over 70% of the dental specialists provided counselling advice on the risks of tobacco and alcohol habits compared with 41.2% of GDPs. More GDPs (52.4%) than specialists (35.4%) believed that oral cancer screening on a national basis would be effective in decreasing the mortality of oral cancer. Over 95% of all respondents used a visual examination for oral cancer screening and 89.9% of all respondents strongly believed that visual screening is effective in the early detection of oral cancer., Conclusion: The results showed that GDPs had knowledge gaps in their awareness of oral cancer risk factors and the application of preventive measures. Most dental health providers in the UK perform visual screening of the oral mucosa for their patients. Opinion was equivocal as to whether a nationally based screening programme similar to cervical cancer would be effective in improving the mortality and morbidity of oral cancer.

Worldwide, oral cancer has one of the lowest survival rates. It is well recognized that survival rates are improved if the disease is treated in its early stages. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of screening methods in decreasing the mortality of oral cancer. A systematic review on the effectiveness of oral cancer screening was performed using all publications in MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, and Cochrane CCTR between 1966 and September 2002. The evidence was evaluated using the standardized methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. The search strategy revealed 1,389 citations. From these, 100 potentially relevant articles were selected for review. However, only one randomized controlled study using visual examination as the method for screening fulfilled the selection criteria. Given the limitation of evidence and the potential methodological weakness in the included study, it is valid to say that there is no evidence to recommend inclusion or exclusion of screening programs for oral cancer using visual examination in the general population. In addition, no robust evidence exists that indicates whether other screening methods including toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging, or brush biopsy are either beneficial or harmful. Further high-quality studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of screening are required. Additional investigations aimed at elucidating the natural history of oral cancer and evaluating the effectiveness of prevention and opportunistic screening in high-risk groups are needed. A greater understanding of the genetic basis of oral cancer is an essential prerequisite to the development of molecular markers for screening.

Background: Although the second half of the last century has generated a rich and complex body of knowledge, the burden of oral cancer is still largely present. As with other cancers, there has been a strong debate whether screening strategies for oral cancer such as visual examination, the use of toluidine blue or newer methods such as brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging are effective in reducing the mortality rate associated with oral cancer., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Strategy: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 1966 to September 2002, The Cochrane Library - Issue 2, 2002), bibliographies, handsearching of specific journals and contact authors were used to identify published and unpublished data., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of screening for oral cancer or potentially premalignant oral lesions using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: The search found 100 citations and these have been reviewed. One randomised controlled trial of screening strategies for oral cancer was identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation have been undertaken by two independent reviewers., Main Results: One ongoing randomised controlled trial has been included (n = 13 clusters: 153,708 eligible subjects, 130,799 included subjects). There was no difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (21.2/1000,000 person years) and the control group (21.3/100,000 person years). However this study has some methodological weaknesses., Reviewer's Conclusions: Given the limitation of evidence (only one included randomised controlled trial) and the potential methodological weakness in the included study, it is valid to say that there is no evidence to support or refute the use of a visual examination as a method of screening for oral cancer using a visual examination in the general population. Furthermore, no robust evidence exists to suggest other methods of screening, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy, are either beneficial or harmful. Further cost-effective, high quality studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of screening are required. In addition, studies to elucidate the natural history of oral cancer, prevention methods and the effectiveness of opportunistic screening in high risk groups are needed.