PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for practicing physicians and other healthcare providers on the management of salivary gland malignancy. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, neuroradiology, pathology, and patient advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 2000 through 2020. Outcomes of interest included survival, diagnostic accuracy, disease recurrence, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 293 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Six main clinical questions were addressed, which included subquestions on preoperative evaluations, surgical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, appropriate radiotherapy techniques, the role of systemic therapy, and follow-up evaluations. RECOMMENDATIONS When possible, evidence-based recommendations were developed to address the diagnosis and appropriate preoperative evaluations for patients with a salivary gland malignancy, therapeutic procedures, and appropriate treatment options in various salivary gland histologies. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines .

PURPOSE Reducing radiation treatment dose could improve the quality of life (QOL) of patients with good-risk human papillomavirus–associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Whether reduced-dose radiation produces disease control and QOL equivalent to standard chemoradiation is not proven. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, phase II trial, patients with p16-positive, T1-T2 N1-N2b M0, or T3 N0-N2b M0 OPSCC (7th edition staging) with ≤ 10 pack-years of smoking received 60 Gy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over 6 weeks with concurrent weekly cisplatin (C) or 60 Gy IMRT over 5 weeks. To be considered for a phase III study, an arm had to achieve a 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate superior to a historical control rate of 85% and a 1-year mean composite score ≥ 60 on the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). RESULTS Three hundred six patients were randomly assigned and eligible. Two-year PFS for IMRT + C was 90.5% rejecting the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS ≤ 85% ( P = .04). For IMRT, 2-year PFS was 87.6% ( P = .23). One-year MDADI mean scores were 85.30 and 81.76 for IMRT + C and IMRT, respectively. Two-year overall survival rates were 96.7% for IMRT + C and 97.3% for IMRT. Acute adverse events (AEs) were defined as those occurring within 180 days from the end of treatment. There were more grade 3-4 acute AEs for IMRT + C (79.6% v 52.4%; P < .001). Rates of grade 3-4 late AEs were 21.3% and 18.1% ( P = .56). CONCLUSION The IMRT + C arm met both prespecified end points justifying advancement to a phase III study. Higher rates of grade ≥ 3 acute AEs were reported in the IMRT + C arm.

Merck; past honoraria and travel expenses from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; a past advisory board position with Regeneron; and past honoraria from the University of Florida and University of Rochester. Dr Bhatnagar reports a position of state chapter president for the Arizona Radiologic Society; stock with Cancer Treatment Services International; and consulting and research for Icad. Dr Devlin is the task force chair and reports membership of the Massachusetts Medical Society Finance and Audit Committee and past honoraria, travel expenses, and advisory board membership for Sirtex. Dr Geiger, an American Society of Clinical Oncology representative, reports research and advisory board membership for Regeneron and research for Genentech/Roche. Dr Likhacheva is task force vice chair and reports spouse employment with Reflexion and travel expenses from the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology. Drs Brady (Society of Surgical Oncology representative), Buzurovic, Parvathaneni, and Zaky reported no disclosures. Disclaimer and Adherence: American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines present scientific, health, and safety information and may reflect scientific or medical opinion. They are available to ASTRO members and the public for educational and informational purposes only. Commercial use of any content in this guideline without the prior written consent of ASTRO is strictly prohibited. Adherence to this guideline does not ensure successful treatment in every situation. This guideline should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other methods reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The physician must make the ultimate judgment regarding therapy considering all circumstances presented by the patient. ASTRO assumes no liability for the information, conclusions, and findings contained in its guidelines. This guideline cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions performed in the context of clinical trials. This guideline is based on information available at the time the task force conducted its research and discussions on this topic. There may be new developments that are not reflected in this guideline and that may, over time, be a basis for ASTRO to revisit and update the guideline.

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on the diagnosis and management of squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck (SCCUP). METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 2008 through 2019. Outcomes of interest included survival, local and regional disease control, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 100 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Four main clinical questions were addressed, which included subquestions on preoperative evaluations, surgical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, appropriate pathology techniques, and adjuvant therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address preoperative evaluation for patients with a neck mass, surgical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, appropriate treatment options in unilateral versus bilateral SCCUP. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines .

BackgroundCemiplimab, a high-affinity, potent human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to programmed cell death-1 demonstrated antitumor activity in a Phase 1 advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) expansion cohort (NCT02383212) and the pivotal Phase 2 study (NCT02760498). Here we report the primary analysis of fixed dose cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) (Group 3) and provide a longer-term update after the primary analysis of weight-based cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W) (Group 1) among metastatic CSCC (mCSCC) patients in the pivotal study (NCT02760498).MethodsThe primary objective for each group was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included ORR by investigator review (INV), duration of response (DOR) per ICR and INV, and safety and tolerability.ResultsFor Group 3 (n=56) and Group 1 (n=59), median follow-up was 8.1 (range, 0.6 to 14.1) and 16.5 (range, 1.1 to 26.6) months, respectively. ORR per ICR was 41.1% (95% CI, 28.1% to 55.0%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 45.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 54.8%) in both groups combined. Per ICR, Kaplan–Meier estimate for DOR at 8 months was 95.0% (95% CI, 69.5% to 99. 3%) in responding patients in Group 3, and at 12 months was 88.9% (95% CI, 69.3% to 96.3%) in responding patients in Group 1. Per INV, ORR was 51.8% (95% CI, 38.0% to 65.3%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 50.4% (95% CI, 41.0% to 59.9%) in both groups combined. Overall, the most common adverse events regardless of attribution were fatigue (27.0%) and diarrhea (23.5%).ConclusionIn patients with mCSCC, cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously Q3W produced substantial antitumor activity with durable response and an acceptable safety profile. Follow-up data of cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously Q2W demonstrate ongoing durability of responses.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02760498. Registered May 3, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02760498

SUMMARY Proteins of the signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) family mediate cellular responses to cytokines and growth factors. Aberrant regulation of the STAT3 oncogene contributes to tumor formation and progression in many cancers, including head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), where hyperactivation of STAT3 is implicated in both treatment resistance and immune escape. There are no oncogenic gain-of-function mutations in HNSCC. Rather, aberrant STAT3 signaling is primarily driven by upstream growth factor receptors, such as Janus kinase (JAK) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Moreover, genomic silencing of select protein tyrosine phosphatase receptors (PTPRs), tumor suppressors that dephosphorylate STAT3, may lead to prolonged phosphorylation and activation of STAT3. This review will summarize current knowledge of the STAT3 pathway and its contribution to HNSCC growth, survival, and resistance to standard therapies, and discuss STAT3-targeting agents in various phases of clinical development.

The NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers address tumors arising in the oral cavity (including mucosal lip), pharynx, larynx, and paranasal sinuses. Occult primary cancer, salivary gland cancer, and mucosal melanoma (MM) are also addressed. The specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guide treatment (eg, the appropriate surgical procedure, radiation targets, dose and fractionation of radiation, indications for systemic therapy). The NCCN Head and Neck Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding management of HPV-positive oropharynx cancer and ongoing research in this area.

No abstract