Human Papillomavirus Impact on Temporal Treatment Trends in Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: 2010–2016

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The study objective was to identify practice patterns in oropharyngeal cancer management from 2010 to 2016 among human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated and non-HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify OPSCC patients from 2010 to 2016. Frequency distributions and multivariable analyses were generated to identify practice patterns and predictors of treatment modality. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 35,956 patients with nonmetastatic OPSCC were included. HPV status was not associated with a treatment modality preference. At academic centers, the proportion of HPV-associated OPSCC patients versus non-HPV-associated OPSCC patients undergoing surgical management was similar (35.7%; 35.9%). Community cancer programs treated patients less often surgically but with no significant treatment preference based on HPV status. Within each facility type, HPV status was not a predictor of surgical or nonsurgical management. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> HPV association does not appear to significantly influence treatment modality preference among OPSCC patients. The proportion of OPSCC patients undergoing surgical treatment declined from 2010 to 2016.

The Impact of Hospital Safety‐Net Burden Status on Patients with HPV‐Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer

“…In the present study, however, 20.3% of HBH were academic centers. Previous literature has shown that patients treated at academic centers are more likely to be treated surgically, treated with TORS, and have better overall survival 20–22 . In an additional exploratory analysis, however, we found that high safety‐net burden academic centers treat fewer patients with surgery, when compared to lower safety‐net burden academic centers.…”

“…Previous literature has shown that patients treated at academic centers are more likely to be treated surgically, treated with TORS, and have better overall survival. [20][21][22] In an additional exploratory analysis, however, we found that high safety-net burden academic centers treat fewer patients with surgery, when compared to lower safety-net burden academic centers. These findings highlight that the treatment disparities in safety-net burden facilities may apply to academic and community facilities alike.…”