Surgeon practice patterns in transoral robotic surgery for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES\nAnalyze how otolaryngologists approach HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer in terms of patient selection for transoral surgery, perceptions of treatment related risks and benefits, and adjuvant treatment decisions.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nA survey on HPV-related cancer management was distributed to otolaryngologists in the US through RedCap. Differences in responses were analyzed using Pearson s chi-squared and Fisher s exact tests.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 111 out of 143 (77.6%) otolaryngologists completed the survey. Overall, most prefer treating T1/T2 tumors using transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and T3 tumors through primary radiation therapy (RT), though there were significant differences between cohorts. Non-fellowship-trained surgeons and those in community practices favored RT for T1/T2 more than their fellowship-trained and academic counterparts, respectively. For adjuvant treatment, non-fellowship-trained surgeons favored adjuvant CRT, whereas fellowship-trained surgeons preferred only adjuvant RT, for patients with lymphovascular or perineural invasion, >1 lymph node involvement, or close deep margins. TORS was viewed as having less adverse sequelae (i.e. dysphagia, dysphonia, xerostomia). Though the two modalities had similar oncologic outcomes, TORS was perceived as providing better quality of life (QOL).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThere are variations in HPV-related OPSCC management based on surgeon background and preferences across the US. TORS and primary RT are believed to offer similar oncologic control, but the former provides lesser adverse sequelae and better QOL. Additionally, surgeon demographics (i.e. fellowship status, practice type, and region) can affect management decisions, including patient selection for TORS and adjuvant therapy decisions. Further study is required to better understand and standardize appropriate HPV-positive OPSCC management.