Patterns of failure for hypopharynx cancer patients treated with limited high-dose radiotherapy treatment volumes

Article information

Radiat Oncol J. 2022;40(4):225-231
Publication date (electronic) : 2022 December 2
doi : https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2022.00311
1Department of Human Oncology, Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
2Division of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
Correspondence: Matthew E. Witek Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, K4/B100-0600, Madison, WI 53792, USA. Tel: +1-608-263-8500 E-mail: witek@humonc.wisc.edu
*

Current affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA (matthew.witek@umm.edu)

Received 2022 May 29; Revised 2022 September 6; Accepted 2022 September 20.

Abstract

Purpose

Optimal radiotherapy treatment volumes for patients with locally advanced hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma should ensure maximal tumor coverage with minimal inclusion of normal surrounding structures. Here we evaluated the effectiveness of a direct 3-mm high-dose gross tumor volume to planning target volume expansion on clinical outcomes for hypopharynx cancers.

Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with hypopharynx carcinoma treated between 2004 and 2018 with primary radiotherapy using a direct high-dose gross tumor volume to planning target volume expansion and with or without concurrent systemic therapy. Diagnostic imaging of recurrences was co-registered with the planning CT. Spatial and volumetric analyses of contoured recurrences were compared with planned isodose lines. Failures were initially defined as in field, marginal, elective nodal, and out of field. Each failure was further classified as central high-dose, peripheral high-dose, central intermediate/low-dose, peripheral intermediate/low-dose, and extraneous. Clinical outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimation.

Results

Thirty-six patients were identified. At a median follow-up at 52.4 months, estimated 5-year overall survival was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3%–74.1%), 5-year local and nodal control was 71.7% (95% CI, 47.1%–86.3%) and 69.9% (95% CI, 57.0%–82.6%), respectively. The most common failure was in the high-dose primary target volume. The gastrostomy tube retention rate at 1 year among patients without recurrence was 13.0% (95% CI, 3.2%–29.7%).

Conclusion

Minimal high-dose target volume expansions for hypopharynx cancers were associated with favorable locoregional control. This approach may enable therapy intensification to improve clinical outcomes.

Introduction

In the United States, there are approximately 3,000 patients per year diagnosed with hypopharynx cancer with most cases presenting with locally advanced disease [1,2]. Radiotherapy (RT)-based management of locally advanced disease is the predominant treatment approach [3]. The intimate association of the hypopharynx with dysphagia and aspiration risk structures (DARS) such as the larynx, pharyngeal constrictors, and cricopharyngeus muscle [4-8] challenges the normal tissue sparing capabilities associated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) [9]. This difficulty is further complicated by the submucosal extension and numerous pathways of tumor spread associated with hypopharynx cancers leading to recommendations for generous high- and intermediate-dose RT treatment volumes [10-12]. Therefore, patients with hypopharynx cancer treated with RT are at increased risk for developing significant long-term toxicities compared to other head and neck subsites [13,14].

There is limited data on patterns of failure in the IMRT era for patients receiving curative intent therapy for hypopharynx cancer. The series that have been reported, however, demonstrate favorable local control with most failures occurring within the high-dose clinical target volume (CTV) generated by a 5–10 mm expansion from the gross tumor volume (GTV) [15,16]. Despite favorable local control, the large high-dose CTV increases dose to nearby DARS placing patients at risk for long-term aspiration and dysphagia. Alternative methods of reducing risk to DARS from high-dose RT beyond that achieved with IMRT-generated steep dose gradients are required.

We recently reported our experience of patients with oropharynx and larynx cancer treated with a high-dose planning target volume (PTV) created by a direct 3-mm expansion of the GTV without an intermittent high-dose CTV. The high-dose PTV was surrounded by an intermediate-dose CTV created by a 10-mm expansion of the GTV to cover microscopic tumor spread [17,18]. Local control was excellent in both oropharynx and larynx cohorts with nearly all failures occurring in the high-dose target volume and dose to adjacent organs-at-risk was decreased. Given the unique submucosal spread, tumor extension pathways, and anatomic relationship with DARS, the efficacy of minimal high-dose target volume expansion for patients with hypopharynx cancer was evaluated.

Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Institutional Review Board (No. UW17001). The informed consent was waived. We identified 36 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx treated with definitive IMRT with or without systemic therapy between 2004 and 2018. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system was used for reporting of patient data.

1. Treatment

Patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic head and neck mask for simulation using. Intravenous contrast was used unless medically contraindicated. The high-dose gross tumor volume (HD-GTV70Gy) included the primary tumor and pathologic lymph nodes determined by the treating radiation oncologist using physical exam findings and cross-sectional imaging. The intermediate-dose CTV (ID-CTV60Gy) was generated by a 10-mm expansion of the HD-GTV70Gy, trimmed from air, bone and areas considered as natural borders against tumor extension, and involved high-risk nodal stations. A low-dose CTV (LD-CTV54-56Gy) was used for prophylactic coverage of low-risk uninvolved nodal stations. HD-GTV70Gy and all CTVs were volumetrically expanded by 3 mm to create respective PTVs. Patients received radiotherapy to total doses of 70 Gy, 60–63 Gy, and 54–56 Gy to the HD-, ID-, and LD-PTVs, respectively, in 33–35 fractions using TomoTherapy with daily CT image-guidance. The most common concurrent systemic therapies consisted of either weekly cisplatin at 30–40 mg/m2, cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 given every three weeks, or cetuximab with a 400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2 weekly. Less common systemic regimens are listed in Table 1.

Patient and treatment characteristics

2. Patterns of failure determination

Imaging at the time of failure was deformably co-registered with the treatment planning CT and 95% isodose lines using MIM software (MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA) as previously described [19]. Failures were defined as in field, marginal, elective nodal, and out of field. Treatment volumes were further classified as central high-dose, peripheral high-dose, central intermediate/low-dose, peripheral intermediate/low-dose, and extraneous. If <95% of the contoured recurrent tumor volume was located within the 95% isodose line of the high-dose, intermediate-dose, or low-dose, it was considered a marginal failure. Conversely, if ≥ to 95% of the volume was located within the 95% isodose line of the prescription, the failure was considered to be central.

3. Statistics

Time to local, regional, and distant failure was defined from the date of diagnosis. Overall survival, local and regional control, and gastrostomy tube placement was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Gastrostomy tube rate was analyzed for the subgroup of patients without recurrence or death at one year.

Results

1. Patient data and clinical outcomes

We identified 36 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx who received RT-based treatment. Patient, disease, and treatment characteristics are detailed in Table 1. At a median follow-up of 52.4 months, the estimated 5-year overall survival was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3%–74.1%). Five-year local and nodal control were 69.9% (95% CI, 57.0%–82.6%) and 71.7% (95% CI, 47.1%–86.3%), respectively (Fig. 1A, 1B).

Fig. 1.

Clinical outcomes of hypopharynx patients treated with a minimal high-dose radiation target volume. (A) Overall survival at 5 years was 59.3% (95% CI, 36.3%–74.1%). (B) Local and nodal control at 5 years was 69.9% (95% CI, 57.0%–82.6%) and 71.7% (95% CI, 47.1%–86.3%), respectively. CI, confidence interval.

2. Patterns of failure

We initially analyzed patterns of first recurrence in 15 patients who developed recurrent or metastatic disease. Seven patients developed metastatic disease of which two patients had isolated metastatic disease, four patients developed metastatic and nodal recurrence, and one patient developed primary and metastatic recurrence. There were eight locoregional recurrences with two in the primary and nodal regions and six with only primary recurrence. There were no isolated nodal recurrences in this cohort (Fig. 2A). Of the initial 15 recurrent patients, 13 had a component of locoregional failure with 12 having analyzable treatment plans. We further characterized these recurrences to determine if they occurred within the high-dose region defined as 95% of the recurrent tumor volume within the 95% isodose line of the 70 Gy field. We found that 9 of 12 analyzable failures occurred within the high-dose field with 8 of 9 occurring at the primary site. One failure was classified as marginal failure because only 91% of the failure was within the high-dose region. The recurrent lesion was well centered in the high-dose volume but did extend into the cervical esophagus inferiorly, which was out of the high-dose field (Fig. 3). One patient recurred in the intermediate dose elective region in level IV with additional widespread metastatic disease. The final recurrence was out of field in level V (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2.

(A) Venn diagram depicting location of first failure. (B) Diagram depicting types of failure. In field is defined when 95% of the recurrence occurred within the 95% isodose line of the highest dose region. Marginal failure is defined when the recurrence was is in the high-dose region but <95% of the recurrence was contained within the 95% isodose line of the highest dose region. Elective failure is defined when the recurrence occurs in a low-dose region. Out of field failure is defined by a recurrence in a nodal region not receiving radiation.

Fig. 3.

A single marginal failure was identified. Green represents the planning target volume, and the red outline corresponds to the contoured recurrence. It was classified as a marginal failure because only 91% of the failure was within the high-dose region.

3. Salvage

Thirteen patients had a component of locoregional recurrence at first recurrence, eight were able to undergo salvage surgery. All salvage surgeries involved a total laryngectomy with five undergoing concurrent neck dissection. No patients developed isolated nodal failure; thus, no patients were salvaged with neck dissection alone. There was one perioperative death due to arrythmia with the rest of the salvage surgeries representing negative margin resections. The locoregional recurrence free survival at 1 year was 42.9% (95% CI, 9.8%–73.5%). Ultimately six of seven patients who underwent savaged surgery experienced further locoregional recurrence. Overall survival at one year was 37.5% (95% CI, 8.8%–67.5%) with a median overall survival of 9.3 months. One patient is alive without recurrence following salvage with 3.5 years of follow-up.

4. Toxicity

Late toxicity data was gathered for 33 patients with at least 1 year of follow-up. The gastrostomy tube retention rate at 1 year among patients without recurrence was 13.0% (95% CI, 3.2%–29.7%). Among patients without recurrence, only two patients required tracheostomy tube placement. One patient had a tracheostomy 6 months after radiation therapy due to laryngeal edema. A second patient had a tracheostomy prior to radiation therapy, which was removed after 3 months. Seven patients (21.2%) developed hypopharyngeal stricture requiring dilation. Seven patients also developed aspiration pneumonia (21.2%) while three additional patients developed aspiration without pneumonia.

Discussion and Conclusion

RT-based management of hypopharynx cancer is well established and represents the most common treatment approach [3,20,21]. Historically, locoregional control rates of 40%–70% were achieved with 2D and 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without systemic therapy [21-28]. These rates have been maintained or improved with decreased long-term toxicity using IMRT despite the risk for marginal misses given its inherent steep dose gradient. These series and current consensus guidelines [11] recommend a 0.5–1.5 cm expansion of the GTV to create a high-dose CTV to account for subclinical tumor spread. We demonstrate that replacing a gross tumor and high-dose CTV with a GTV encompassed by a 1-cm intermediate-dose CTV resulted in clinical outcomes similar to other reported contemporaneous IMRT series that used larger high-dose target volumes. This approach was associated with excellent locoregional control and a favorable toxicity profile.

GTV expansions are created to account for tumor cells not apparent on imaging or direct visualization. Histopathologic data suggests that the extent of microscopic tumor spread beyond gross disease is 5 mm in greater than 90% of cases [29]. Primary tumor failures identified in this series were nearly all within the high-dose target volume suggesting that microscopic disease was sterilized by the intermediate dose expansion that received doses of approximately 60 Gy to 66 Gy, which are the recommended doses used for microscopic disease in the postoperative setting [30,31].

Beyond the sterilizing capacity of microscopic tumor extension using 60 Gy to 66 Gy in the definitive setting, another consideration for eliminating a high-dose GTV expansion is the documented discrepancy of histopathologic tumor volumes and those generated using modern imaging. In a robust study looking at resected hypopharynx specimens processed in a fashion to eliminate tissue retraction demonstrated that contoured GTVs on axial images generated by CT, MRI, and PET scans were all larger than the actual tumor [32]. Therefore, the contoured GTV receiving 70 Gy may in fact cover microscopic tumor extension.

In further support of limiting the 70 Gy volume to the GTV, recent data suggests that doses as low as 40 Gy (equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions) is sufficient to sterilize microscopic tumor cells. In a randomized study of reduced dose to the elective neck in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, at 5 years there was no difference in overall survival, local control, regional control, nor distant metastases between those that received 40 Gy versus 50 Gy [33].

The proposed benefit of a refined high-dose target volume is reduced dose to DARS. Indeed, here we report 1-year gastrostomy tube retention of 13% and a 21% risk of aspiration induced pneumonia. These rates are similar to historical rates of 28% and 24% of gastrostomy tube dependence and aspiration induced pneumonia, respectively [34,35]. Additional patients are necessary to confirm a significant reduction in toxicity.

The interpretation of the results of this study must be interpreted in the context of its relatively small size and retrospective nature. We attempted to utilize objective metrics of toxicity to mitigate the uncertainty associated with interpreting toxicity from a retrospective study. These findings require confirmation in a prospective setting.

In conclusion, we demonstrate expected rates of locoregional disease control using minimal high-dose target volumes for patients with hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with favorable long-term toxicity. Despite these findings, patients with hypopharynx cancer exhibit worse clinical outcomes and toxicities compared to other head and neck disease sites. Therefore, there is a pressing need for novel approaches to improve clinical management and toxicity profiles.

Acknowledgements

We thank Heather M. Geye for maintaining the University of Wisconsin-Madison Head and Neck database.

Notes

Statement of Ethics

This study was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Institutional Review Board (No. UW17001).

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Financial Support

This work was supported in part by the Wisconsin Head & Neck Cancer SPORE (No. P50DE026787).

Author Contribution

Conceptualization, MW, AB. Funding acquisition, PH, RK. Investigation and methodology, MW, AB. Writing of the original draft, AB. Writing of the review and editing, MW, PH, RK, AW, GH. Formal analysis, AB, PH, MW. Data curation, AB. All the authors have proofread the final version.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article [and/or] its supplementary material files. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

References

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2021. [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2021.html.
2. Hoffman HT, Karnell LH, Shah JP, et al. Hypopharyngeal cancer patient care evaluation. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1005–17.
3. The American College of Surgeons benchmark report: the National Cancer Database [Internet]. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2011. [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer-programs/national-cancer-database/.
4. Caglar HB, Tishler RB, Othus M, et al. Dose to larynx predicts for swallowing complications after intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:1110–8.
5. Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:1425–39.
6. Jensen K, Lambertsen K, Grau C. Late swallowing dysfunction and dysphagia after radiotherapy for pharynx cancer: frequency, intensity and correlation with dose and volume parameters. Radiother Oncol 2007;85:74–82.
7. O’Hare J, Maclean J, Szczesniak M, et al. Laryngeal tumours and radiotherapy dose to the cricopharyngeus are predictive of death from aspiration pneumonia. Oral Oncol 2017;64:9–14.
8. Rancati T, Schwarz M, Allen AM, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in the larynx and pharynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(3 Suppl):S64–9.
9. Lee N, Puri DR, Blanco AI, Chao KS. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: an update. Head Neck 2007;29:387–400.
10. Eisbruch A, Foote RL, O’Sullivan B, Beitler JJ, Vikram B. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: emphasis on the selection and delineation of the targets. Semin Radiat Oncol 2002;12:238–49.
11. Gregoire V, Evans M, Le QT, et al. Delineation of the primary tumour Clinical Target Volumes (CTV-P) in laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: AIRO, CACA, DAHANCA, EORTC, GEORCC, GORTEC, HKNPCSG, HNCIG, IAG-KHT, LPRHHT, NCIC CTG, NCRI, NRG Oncology, PHNS, SBRT, SOMERA, SRO, SSHNO, TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 2018;126:3–24.
12. Lapeyre M, Bailly C, Toledano I, Montalban A, Russier M. Hypopharynx and larynx cancers: propositions for the selection and the delineation of peritumoral microscopic disease volumes (lymph nodes excluded). Cancer Radiother 2010;14 Suppl 1:S43–51.
13. Langerman A, Maccracken E, Kasza K, Haraf DJ, Vokes EE, Stenson KM. Aspiration in chemoradiated patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:1289–95.
14. Machtay M, Moughan J, Farach A, et al. Hypopharyngeal dose is associated with severe late toxicity in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:983–9.
15. Daly ME, Le QT, Jain AK, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced cancers of the larynx and hypopharynx. Head Neck 2011;33:103–11.
16. Studer G, Lutolf UM, Davis JB, Glanzmann C. IMRT in hypopharyngeal tumors. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182:331–5.
17. Burr AR, Harari PM, Haasl AM, et al. Clinical outcomes for larynx patients with cancer treated with refinement of high-dose radiation treatment volumes. Head Neck 2020;42:1874–81.
18. Burr AR, Harari PM, Ko HC, Bruce JY, Kimple RJ, Witek ME. Reducing radiotherapy target volume expansion for patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol 2019;92:52–6.
19. Mohamed AS, Rosenthal DI, Awan MJ, et al. Methodology for analysis and reporting patterns of failure in the Era of IMRT: head and neck cancer applications. Radiat Oncol 2016;11:95.
20. Lefebvre JL, Andry G, Chevalier D, et al. Laryngeal preservation with induction chemotherapy for hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: 10-year results of EORTC trial 24891. Ann Oncol 2012;23:2708–14.
21. Lefebvre JL, Chevalier D, Luboinski B, Kirkpatrick A, Collette L, Sahmoud T. Larynx preservation in pyriform sinus cancer: preliminary results of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial. EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Cooperative Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:890–9.
22. Bahadur S, Thakar A, Mohanti BK, Lal P. Results of radiotherapy with, or without, salvage surgery versus combined surgery and radiotherapy in advanced carcinoma of the hypopharynx. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:29–32.
23. Featherstone CJ, Clarke S, Jackson MA, et al. Treatment of advanced cancer of the larynx and hypopharynx with chemoradiation. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:554–8.
24. Hall SF, Groome PA, Irish J, O’Sullivan B. The natural history of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx. Laryngoscope 2008;118:1362–71.
25. Kim S, Wu HG, Heo DS, Kim KH, Sung MW, Park CI. Advanced hypopharyngeal carcinoma treatment results according to treatment modalities. Head Neck 2001;23:713–7.
26. Lefebvre JL, Pointreau Y, Rolland F, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by either chemoradiotherapy or bioradiotherapy for larynx preservation: the TREMPLIN randomized phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:853–9.
27. Samant S, Kumar P, Wan J, et al. Concomitant radiation therapy and targeted cisplatin chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced pyriform sinus carcinoma: disease control and preservation of organ function. Head Neck 1999;21:595–601.
28. Zelefsky MJ, Kraus DH, Pfister DG, et al. Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus surgery and postoperative radiotherapy for advanced hypopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 1996;18:405–11.
29. Fleury B, Thariat J, Barnoud R, et al. Microscopic extensions of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: impact for clinical target volume definition. Cancer Radiother 2014;18:666–71.
30. Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, et al. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1945–52.
31. Cooper JS, Zhang Q, Pajak TF, et al. Long-term follow-up of the RTOG 9501/intergroup phase III trial: postoperative concurrent radiation therapy and chemotherapy in high-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:1198–205.
32. Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology 2004;233:93–100.
33. Deschuymer S, Nevens D, Duprez F, et al. Randomized clinical trial on reduction of radiotherapy dose to the elective neck in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; update of the long-term tumor outcome. Radiother Oncol 2020;143:24–9.
34. Bhayani MK, Hutcheson KA, Barringer DA, Roberts DB, Lewin JS, Lai SY. Gastrostomy tube placement in patients with hypopharyngeal cancer treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy: factors affecting placement and dependence. Head Neck 2013;35:1641–6.
35. Xu B, Boero IJ, Hwang L, et al. Aspiration pneumonia after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Cancer 2015;121:1303–11.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1.

Clinical outcomes of hypopharynx patients treated with a minimal high-dose radiation target volume. (A) Overall survival at 5 years was 59.3% (95% CI, 36.3%–74.1%). (B) Local and nodal control at 5 years was 69.9% (95% CI, 57.0%–82.6%) and 71.7% (95% CI, 47.1%–86.3%), respectively. CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 2.

(A) Venn diagram depicting location of first failure. (B) Diagram depicting types of failure. In field is defined when 95% of the recurrence occurred within the 95% isodose line of the highest dose region. Marginal failure is defined when the recurrence was is in the high-dose region but <95% of the recurrence was contained within the 95% isodose line of the highest dose region. Elective failure is defined when the recurrence occurs in a low-dose region. Out of field failure is defined by a recurrence in a nodal region not receiving radiation.

Fig. 3.

A single marginal failure was identified. Green represents the planning target volume, and the red outline corresponds to the contoured recurrence. It was classified as a marginal failure because only 91% of the failure was within the high-dose region.

Table 1.

Patient and treatment characteristics

n (%)
Age (yr) Median 65
 ≥65 20 (55.6)
Sex
 Female 8 (22.2)
 Male 28 (77.8)
Tobacco use
 Never 2 (5.6)
 Former smoker 19 (52.8)
 Current smoker 15 (41.7)
Pack-years Median 42.5
Alcohol
 Never drinker 2 (5.6)
 0–21 drinks per week 22 (61.1)
 >21 drinks per week 12 (33.3)
T stage
 T1 7 (19.4)
 T2 15 (41.7)
 T3 6 (16.7)
 T4 8 (22.2)
N stage
 N0 7 (8.3)
 N1 6 (16.7)
 N2 22 (61.1)
 N3 1 (2.8)
Stage
 I 2 (5.6)
 II 2 (5.6)
 III 8 (22.2)
 IV 24 (66.6)
Chemotherapy
 Concurrent cisplatin 19 (52.8)
 Concurrent cetuximab 4 (11.1)
 Concurrent docetaxel 1 (2.8)
 Concurrent lapatinib 1 (2.8)
 Concurrent lapatinib and cisplatin 1 (2.8)
 Concurrent platinum and cetuximab 1 (2.8)
 None 9 (25)