Twenty case series including eight IMRT studies (1,287 patients) and 12 TORS studies (772 patients) were included. Patients receiving definitive IMRT also received chemotherapy (43%) or neck dissections for persistent disease (30%), whereas patients receiving TORS required adjuvant radiotherapy (26%) or chemoradiotherapy (41%). Two-year overall survival estimates ranged from 84% to 96% for IMRT and from 82% to 94% for TORS. Adverse events for IMRT included esophageal

stenosis (4.8%), osteoradionecrosis (2.6%), and gastrostomy tubes (43%), and for TORS included hemorrhage (2.4%), fistula (2.5%), and gastrostomy tubes at Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the time of surgery (1.4%) or during adjuvant treatment (30%). Tracheostomy tubes were click here needed in 12% of patients at the time Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of surgery, but most were decannulated prior to discharge. FURTHER RESEARCH Comparisons of outcomes after TORS versus chemoradiotherapy across studies are hampered by differences in baseline patient populations, selection, and treatment technique. Therefore, direct comparisons across these reported functional outcomes are difficult. According to Nichols et al.81

all the reports about TORS till now involve prospective or retrospective single-arm case series with varying use of adjuvant Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical therapy without adequate controls. This is in contrast to the large number of randomized controlled trials of CRT for OPSCC. Although the data described thus far would appear to favor a surgical approach, a careful review of

the literature suggests that this comparison Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical may be biased. For example, the TORS studies include a much smaller fraction of T3/T4 tumors (0%–30%) and N3 neck disease (0%–4%) compared with CRT series (31%–86% T3/T4 Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and 2.5%–12% N3).27,42,73 There are also numerous additional confounders, among them: HPV status, the socio-economic background of patients, patient selection bias, and referral center bias. Most importantly, the majority of TORS patients receive adjuvant therapy including radiation (24%) or chemoradiation (54%), making the true benefits of TORS unclear.20 Given the rapid treatment paradigm shift in the absence of level I evidence with the high cost of TORS, a randomized trial is critical to guide the optimal management of OPSCC. Nichols et al.81 see more suggested a randomized phase II study with the goal of comparing the QOL in patients with OPSCC (T1–2, N0–2) after TORS versus primary RT, along with a phase III trial assessing survival. Further multi-institutional studies with standardized protocol comparing surgery with RT and/or CRT are required to determine the optimal treatment for patients with OPSCC. CONCLUSIONS OPSCC is an evolving cancer that affects a younger and healthier population without traditional risk factors of tobacco and alcohol use.