Next Article in Journal
Sex Differences in the Survival of Patients with Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Comparative Study of Two National Databases
Next Article in Special Issue
New Frontiers in the Treatment of Patients with HER2+ Cancer and Brain Metastases: Is Radiotherapy Always Useful?
Previous Article in Journal
Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Outcomes of Online Adaptive Magnetic Resonance-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Adrenal Metastases from a Single Institution
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Current Position of Postoperative Radiotherapy for Salivary Gland Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100021, China
2
Department of Biostatistics, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, 170 Jomaru-ro, Wongmi-gu, Bucheon-si 14584, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, 170 Jomaru-ro, Wongmi-gu, Bucheon-si 14584, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2024, 16(13), 2375; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132375
Submission received: 19 May 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 22 June 2024 / Published: 28 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Approaches in Radiotherapy for Cancer)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Given the low incidence, heterogeneous behavior, and diverse anatomical sites of salivary gland cancer (SGC), there are a limited number of clinical studies on its management. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to report the cumulative evidence on postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for SGC of the head and neck. Based on 2962 patients with SGC from 26 studies, this study demonstrated the long-term survival and toxicities of PORT as a local treatment modality for SGC. Considering the suboptimal disease-free survival and distant metastasis-dominant recurrent patterns, however, an intensified treatment strategy is needed.

Abstract

Background: Because of the rarity, heterogeneous histology, and diverse anatomical sites of salivary gland cancer (SGC), there are a limited number of clinical studies on its management. This study reports the cumulative evidence of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for SGC of the head and neck. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases between 7th and 10th November 2023. Results: A total of 2962 patients from 26 studies between 2007 and 2023 were included in this meta-analysis. The median RT dose was 64 Gy (range: 56–66 Gy). The median proportions of high-grade, pathological tumor stage 3 or 4 and pathological lymph node involvement were 42% (0–100%), 40% (0–77%), and 31% (0–75%). The pooled locoregional control rates at 3, 5, and 10 years were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89–94%), 89% (95% CI, 86–93%), and 84% (95% CI, 73–92%), respectively. The pooled disease-free survival (DFS) rates at 3, 5, and 10 years were 77% (95% CI, 70–83%), 67% (95% CI, 60–74%), and 61% (95% CI, 55–67%), respectively. The pooled overall survival rates at 3, 5, and 10 years were 84% (95% CI, 79–88%), 75% (95% CI, 72–79%), and 68% (95% CI, 62–74%), respectively. Severe late toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 7% (95% CI, 3–14%). Conclusion: PORT showed favorable long-term efficacy and safety in SGC, especially for patients with high-grade histology. Considering that DFS continued to decrease, further clinical trials exploring treatment intensification are warranted.

1. Introduction

Salivary gland cancer (SGC) is a rare malignancy that accounts for less than 5% of all head and neck cancers and encompasses a widely heterogeneous histology, with more than 20 different subtypes, according to the latest World Health Organization (WHO) classification [1]. The most common subtypes include mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC), acinic cell carcinoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (Ca ex PA), and adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified [2]. In addition, SGC exhibits different rates of incidence and prevalence depending on the anatomical site [3]. Most cases occur in the parotid gland, followed by submandibular, sublingual, and minor salivary glands [4]. The probability of cancer in a parotid mass ranges from 15% to 32% compared to that from 41% to 50% in a submandibular mass, 70% to 90% in minor salivary gland masses, and almost 100% in sublingual masses [5]. Given the low incidence, heterogeneous behavior, and diverse anatomical sites of SGC, there are limited clinical studies on its management. Additionally, only a few guidelines have recently been published to provide relevant practical recommendations for patients with SGC [6,7,8,9,10].
Although there are no randomized trials comparing surgery alone with surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in patients with SGC of the head and neck, several retrospective studies have shown the effectiveness of PORT in patients with adverse prognostic factors. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines recommend that PORT should be offered to all patients with resected ACC and those with high-grade tumors, positive resection margin (RM), lymph node (LN) metastases, perineural invasion (PNI), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), or T3–4 tumors [6]. PORT may be offered to patients with close RM or intermediate-grade tumors. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)—European Reference Network on Rare Adult Solid Cancers (EURACAN) guidelines recommend PORT for patients with T3–4, high/intermediate-grade tumors, close and/or positive RM, and/or PNI [7]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend PORT as the preferred modality for patients with T3–4, LN metastases, high/intermediate-grade tumors, close or positive RM, PNI, and/or LVI [9]. However, these guidelines and consensus were mainly based on retrospective studies with a limited number and great heterogeneity among the study patients. To date, there are no meta-analyses about treatment outcomes encompassing the diverse and heterogeneous features of SGC treated with PORT.
Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the cumulative evidence on PORT for SGC of the head and neck.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines [11]. Although prospective registration of systemic reviews is generally recommended, there is no information on the overall processing time in PROSPERO, and some state that it may take up to several months [12]. A recent study reported the median time from registering a protocol in PROSPERO to publication was 16 months [13]. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed as an international cooperative research study and conducted on schedule without registration in PROSPERO.

2.1. Study Search

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases between 7th and 10th November 2023. The keywords used regarding the patient/problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) model are listed in Supplementary Table S1. We cooperated with a professional librarian at the Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, to develop and review the search strategy. Studies on humans published in English from 1974 to 2023 were included. In addition, the reference lists of the review articles, relevant studies, and clinical practice guidelines were reviewed. A total of 5178 articles were identified, and three authors (J. Wang, X. Guo, and J. Yu) independently screened the article titles, abstracts, and full texts as necessary. Disagreements were resolved by a fourth author (S.H. Bae).

2.2. Selection Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original studies including randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized clinical trials, case series, or observational studies on SGC of head and neck; (2) primary SGC diagnosed as per the WHO classification; (3) the inclusion of ≥10 patients who received surgery followed by PORT with curative intent; (4) the use of megavoltage equipment; (5) reporting of at least ≥2 years locoregional control (LRC) and/or survival and/or toxicities. In the absence of numerical data, the LRC and survival were assumed indirectly using descriptive plots. In cases of multiple studies from one institution with overlapping patients, the following criteria were applied to determine inclusion and were prioritized in numerical order: (1) studies that described treatment outcomes of SGC patients treated with PORT in detail, (2) studies with the largest number of patients, and (3) the most recently published study. Studies from the same institution were independently categorized if they were conducted during different periods. Additionally, the two treatment groups in one study were independently categorized if LRC and survival were reported separately. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) reviews, letters, comments, replies, editorials, and other nonoriginal studies, (2) duplicate patient data, (3) recurrent and/or metastatic SGC, (4) previous RT history for head and neck cancer, (5) intraoperative radiotherapy, (6) 60Co gamma ray, neutron therapy, brachytherapy, Gamma Knife, and charged-particle therapy.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Data extraction was carried out independently by four authors using a standardized form, and the following data were obtained: (1) study, patient, and tumor characteristics; (2) treatment; (3) survival; and (4) late toxicity. Survival rates at 3–10 years were investigated. For studies lacking reported survival rates while having available survival curves, the corresponding numeric rates were extracted from the survival curves by employing the Engauge Digitizer (version 12.1, http://markummitchell.github.io/engauge-digitizer. accessed on 5 December 2023). Late toxicities were defined according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events or toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EOTRC). The overall incidence of late toxicities and severe toxicities ≥ grade 3 was assessed.
Because most studies were retrospective, we used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess study quality [14]. Studies with over 7 points were categorized as high-quality, and studies with scores 4–6 were categorized as medium-quality.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the Higgins I2 statistic [15]. An I2 value > 50% corresponded to substantial heterogeneity. Given the variations in treatment decision-making and the periods for which the study was applicable, the random-effects model was considered superior to the fixed-effects model when calculating pooled estimates. The DerSimonian and Laird method was applied for the random-effects analysis, and we present both estimates in the tables [16]. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests. If the funnel plot was symmetrical or the p-value exceeded 0.05 in Egger’s test, then the null hypothesis of no publication bias was accepted. For comparison between subgroups, a Q test based on an analysis of variance and a random effects model was used, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Rex Excel-based statistical analysis software, version 3.6.0 (RexSoft, Seoul, Republic of Korea, http://rexsoft.org/).
Table 1. Study details for salivary gland carcinoma treated with surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy.
Table 1. Study details for salivary gland carcinoma treated with surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy.
AuthorCountryStudy TypeNOSTime of StudyNo.Anatomical SiteHistology (%)Grade
H/I/L (%)
Surgery Type (%)RT TechniqueMedian Total Dose (Gy) (Range)RT TargetPost-op CCRT (%)
Yan, 2023 [17]ChinaS/R52004–2020418Major salivary glandsAll subtypes22/0/78-3D, IMRT--11
Park, 2023 [18]KoreaM/R62004–2019118Parotid glandAll subtypes42/8/50P (83)/P + LND (17)3D, IMRT63 (54–78.75)TB (71)/TB + NI (29)2
Duru Birgi, 2023 [19]TurkeyS/R62013–201818Parotid glandAll subtypes-P (67)/
P + LND (33)
IMRT66 (60–70)TB (39)/TB + NI (61)17
Hsieh_A, 2023 [20]TaiwanM/R72000–2015263All salivary glandsAll subtypes72/28 aP ± LND3D, IMRT62 ± 9 bTB + NI0
Hsieh_B, 2023 [20]TaiwanM/R72000–2015148All salivary glandsAll subtypes88/12 aP ± LND3D, IMRT65 ± 8 bTB + NI100
Zang, 2022 [21]ChinaS/R52009–201660Major salivary glandsAll subtypes-P (30)/
P + LND (70)
IMRT63 (60–68)TB (7)/TB + NI (93)7
Franco, 2021 [22]USAS/R52008–202072All salivary glandsAll subtypes excluding ACC--IMRT--42
Dou, 2019 [23]ChinaS/P262016–201852All salivary glandsIntermediate or high-grade histology--IMRTNR (60–66)-100
Nutting_A, 2018 [24]UKM/P372008–201354Parotid glandAll subtypes43/17/30-3D65 (58–65)TB+/−NI0
Nutting_B, 2018 [24]UKM/P372008–201356Parotid glandAll subtypes32/20/38-IMRT65 (60–65)TB+/−NI0
Nishikado, 2018 [25]JapanS/R41999–200758Parotid glandAll subtypes---60 c (NR)-0
Li, 2018 [26]ChinaM/P262013–201620All salivary glandsIntermediate/high-grade histology40/60/0-3D, IMRT66 (NR)TB + NI100
Gebhardt, 2018 [27]USAS/R62002–2015128All salivary glandsAll subtypes45/23/24P (47)/
P + LND (53)
IMRT66 (45–70.2)TB (17)/TB + NI (83)22
Boon, 2018 [28]NetherlandM/R52000–201615All salivary glandsSecretory carcinoma with ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene0/0/100P ± LND-66 (60–66)TB (27)/TB + NI (27)0
Zhang, 2017 [29]ChinaS/R52008–201430Parotid glandAll subtypes-P (33)/
P + LND (67)
2D, IMRTNR (60–70)TB+/−NI0
Gutschenritter, 2017 [30]USAS/R42002–201478All salivary glandsAll subtypes-P ± LND3D, IMRTNR (50–66)-0
Sayan, 2016 [31]USAS/R52006–201520Major salivary glandsAll subtypes-P (60)/
P + LND (40)
3D, IMRT60 (NR)TB (55)/TB + NI (45)0
Mifsud_A, 2016 [32] USA S/R61998–2013103All salivary glandsAll subtypes37/26/29--64 (45–72) d-0
Mifsud_B, 2016 [32] USA S/R61998–201337All salivary glandsAll subtypes73/5/11--64 (45–72) d-100
Hosni, 2016 [33]CanadaS/R72000–2012304Major salivary glandsAll subtypes41/21/38P (49)/
P + LND (51)
3D, IMRT66 (46–74)TB (62)/TB + NI (38)3
Haderlein, 2016 [34]GermanyS/R52000–201463All salivary glandsAll subtypes64/19/14P (6)/
P + LND (94)
3D, IMRT64 (45–74)TB (25)/TB + NI (75)46
Kaur, 2014 [35]IndiaS/R51998–200839Major salivary glandsAll subtypes-P ± LND2D, 3D60 (24–64)-0
Tam, 2013 [36]USAS/R61990–2011200Major salivary glandsAll subtypes-P (64)/
P + LND (36)
2D, 3D, IMRT63 (60–66)TB+/−NI10
Chung, 2013 [37]USAS/R51998–201137Major salivary glandsAll subtypes excluding ACC-P (65)/
P + LND (35)
3D, IMRT60 (46–70)TB+/−NI24
Kim, 2012 [38]KoreaS/R51998–201035Major salivary glandsSalivary duct carcinoma100/0/0P (11)/P + LND (89)-59.4 (50.4–71.4)TB + NI (100)9
Al-Mamgani, 2012 [39]NetherlandsS/R61995–2010186Parotid glandAll subtypes40/10/41P (77)/
P + LND (23)
2D,3D, IMRT66 (54–70)TB+/−NI2
Pederson, 2011 [40]USAM/R51991–200724All salivary glandsAll subtypes79/0/21P (12)/
P + LND (88)
2D,3D, IMRT65 (55–68)-100
Noh, 2010 [41]KoreaS/R51995–200675Major salivary glandsAll subtypes83/0/17P (64)/
P + LND (36)
3D56 (54–70)TB (73)/P + NI (27)0
Chen, 2007 [42]USAS/R71960–2004251All salivary glandsAll subtypes--2D,3D, IMRT63 (45–72)TB (48)/TB + NI (52)4
S, single center; M, multicenter; R, retrospective study; P2, prospective phase 2 study; P3, prospective phase 3 study; NOS, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; No., number of patients; NR, not reported; ACC, adenoid cystic carcinoma; H, high-grade; I, intermediate-grade; L, low-grade; P, primary resection; LND, lymph node dissection; 2D, two-dimensional radiotherapy; 3D, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; TB, tumor bed; NI, nodal irradiation; postop CCRT, postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. a means patients with a high grade versus patients with an intermediate/low grade. b means mean dose ± standard deviation. c means mean dose. d means the median dose which the entire patients received.

3. Results

3.1. Search Result

A total of 5164 studies were initially screened from the four databases, and 14 additional studies were added through cross-referencing. After excluding 1465 duplicate studies, the remaining 3713 studies were identified and screened. After screening the titles and abstracts, 64 studies were selected for full-text reviews. Finally, a total of 2962 patients from 26 studies were selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis, as shown in Figure 1 [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Among these, three studies separately analyzed the outcomes of patients who received PORT in two treatment groups, and each treatment group was categorized into a different cohort [20,24,32]. Therefore, a total of 29 cohorts were included in this study.

3.2. Selected Studies’ Characteristics

Table 1 and Table 2 present the characteristics of the 29 cohorts in 26 studies conducted between 2007 and 2023. Three studies were prospective, and the remaining were retrospective. The quality of each study according to the NOS is presented in Table 1.
Six studies included only carcinomas in the parotid gland, followed by carcinomas in the major salivary glands (n = 9), and carcinomas in all salivary glands (n = 11). Most studies included all the histological subtypes. The remaining six studies included only specific histological subtypes: intermediate- to high-grade subtypes (n = 2), all subtypes excluding ACC (n = 2), secretory carcinoma with the ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene (n = 1), and salivary duct carcinoma (n = 1). The proportion of high-grade histology was 0–100% (median, 42%). Individual anatomical sites and histological data are summarized in Supplementary Table S2. Facial nerve palsy or dysfunction as the initial symptom was present in 3–8% [18,21,38]. Lymph node dissection (LND) was conducted in 17–94% (median, 46%). Pathological tumor (pT) stage 3 or 4 and pathological LN (pN) involvement were 0–77% (median, 40%), and 0–75% (median, 31%). LVI and PNI were detected in 0–51% (median, 20%) and 10–84% (median, 39%). The definition of close and positive RMs was variable according to the study (Supplementary Table S2), and positive RM was 4–93% (median, 46%). RT was delivered using two-dimensional (2D) RT, three-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT), and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). The median RT dose was 64 Gy (range: 56–66 Gy). The proportion of nodal irradiation, including the involved LN and/or elective LN regions, was described in only 11 studies and ranged from 27% to 100% (median, 52%). Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) was applied in 0–100% (median, 4%).

3.3. Survivals

The median follow-up period was 50 months (range: 11–131 months). The median 3-, 5-, and 10-year LRC rates were 91% (range: 77–99%), 89% (range: 63–97%), and 82% (range: 63–96%), respectively. The median 3- and 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 83% (range, 53–95%) and 75% (range: 62–80%), respectively. Accordingly, the 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 79% (range: 42–100%) and 61% (range: 27–89%). The median 3-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 85% (range: 52–100%), 77% (range: 55–89%), and 68% (range: 57–89%), respectively (Table 2). Using the random effects model, the pooled 3-, 5-, and 10-year LRC rates were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89–94%), 89% (95% CI, 86–93%), and 84% (95% CI, 73–92%), respectively. The pooled 3- and 5-year DMFS rates were 81% (95% CI, 76–86%) and 74% (95% CI, 70–79%), respectively, whereas the pooled 3- and 5-year DFS rates were 77% (95% CI, 70–83%) and 67% (95% CI, 60–74%), respectively. The pooled 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS rates were 84% (95% CI, 79–88%), 75% (95% CI, 72–79%), and 68% (95% CI, 62–74%), respectively.
There was significant heterogeneity among the included cohorts for survival estimates (Table 3); however, publication bias was not detected (Supplementary Figure S1). In the subgroup comparison, cohorts with the proportion of a high grade < 50% had significantly better 3- and 10-year LRC, 3-year DFS, and 3- and 5-year DMFS than cohorts with the proportion of a high grade ≥ 50%. Cohorts treated with postoperative CCRT had significantly inferior 3-year DFS and 10-year OS than cohorts treated with PORT alone. No association was found between the RT dose and any survival index, the details of which are summarized in Supplementary Table S3 and Figure 2.

3.4. Late Toxicities

The overall incidence and evaluated types of late toxicities were variable among the included studies, as shown in Table 4. The pooled rates assessed using the random-effects model for the overall incidences of xerostomia, hearing impairment, and osteoradionecrosis were 37% (95% CI, 11–68%), 25% (95% CI, 7–49%), and 1% (95% CI, 1–2%), respectively. Severe late toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 0–34%, and the pooled rate was 7% (95% CI, 3–14%), respectively (Supplementary Figure S2).

4. Discussion

The principal treatment for SGC is surgical resection with adequate free margins. PORT is considered for patients with adverse prognostic factors; however, its survival benefit is unclear. Gutschenritter et al. [30] reported no statistically significant difference in survival between patients who underwent surgery alone and those who underwent surgery followed by PORT for SGC: 72% vs. 58% at 5-year DFS rates; and 88% vs. 68% at 5-year OS rates, respectively. Noh et al. [41] showed a similar 5-year LCR between surgery alone and PORT (100% vs. 96%) for major SGC, despite PORT being administered only to patients with high-risk factors. However, the 5-year DFS and OS rates were lower in the PORT (74% and 78%, respectively) than in the surgery-alone (95% and 100%, respectively) group. A recent study on parotid gland cancer reported that PORT was associated with a significant improvement in the 5-year LRC (p = 0.005) and DFS (p = 0.009) compared with surgery alone [18]. To overcome the limitations of these retrospective studies with a small number of patients and an imbalance in prognostic factors between the treatment groups, several studies using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) have been published. A study of 4068 patients with SGC with pT1–4NX–1M0 high-grade tumors, pT3–4NX–0M0, or pT1–4N1M0 low-grade tumors showed a statistically improved OS with PORT, with minimal absolute benefit (56% vs. 51% at 5 years) [43]. Another two studies (4145 patients with SGC who were treated with primary resection and LND [44] and 7342 patients with SGC who had MEC, acinic cell carcinoma, ACC, adenocarcinoma, or Ca ex PA [45]) also showed better OS with PORT. Collectively, the three NCDB studies enrolled almost all contemporary patient cohorts treated between 2004 and the early 2010s.
To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on the treatment outcomes of patients with SGC who underwent surgery followed by PORT. Compared with the abovementioned studies, our pooled cohort included more recent patients who were treated up to 2020, implying a higher proportion of more advanced RT techniques and a more meticulous histological classification being applied. The pooled 5-year LRC, DFS, and OS rates were 89% (95% CI, 86–93%), 67% (95% CI, 60–74%), and 75% (95% CI, 72–79%), respectively. The favorable survival compared to that reported in previously published studies supports the efficacy of PORT as a local modality. Considering that the LRC, DMFS, and DFS continue to decrease, however, further clinical trials are warranted to improve both locoregional and distant tumor control.
In the subgroup analysis, cohorts with a proportion of a high grade ≥ 50% had statistically worse 3- and 10-year LRC, 3-year DFS, and 3- and 5-year DMFS. A high grade is one of the most important risk factors for the recurrence of SGC, and all guidelines recommend PORT for patients with high-grade tumors [6,7,8,9]. On the other hand, the necessity of PORT is controversial in cases of low- and intermediate-grade tumors. One NCDB study of 744 patients with intermediate-grade, early T-stage, LN-negative parotid cancer reported that PORT significantly and independently improved survival only in patients with positive RM [46]. A Canadian-led multicenter retrospective study of 621 patients with low- or intermediate-grade major SGC estimated that the marginal probability of locoregional recurrence (LRR) within 10 years was 15.4% without PORT and 8.8% with PORT on the multivariable model [47]. The authors suggested that PORT may reduce LRR in some patients with low- and intermediate-grade SGC with advanced pT stage, LVI, and RM (+). The study, using the Taiwan Cancer Registry and National Health Insurance Research Database, analyzed 655 patients with early-stage major SGC [48]. No significant differences were noted in the LRR and disease-specific survival between patients who received PORT and those who did not. Although RM (+) patients had a higher LRR, the stratified analysis indicated that the use of PORT had no protective effects. The status of RM is generally considered a major determinant in applying PORT for low- and intermediate-grade SGC; however, the definition of close and positive RM varies among studies, as shown in Supplementary Table S2. This discrepancy might have caused the conflicting results of PORT in terms of survival. Subgroup analysis on RM in the current meta-analysis was challenging because of the lack of individual patient data and variable definitions of RM. Efforts should be made to establish a uniform definition of the proper RM for SGC and assess whether the status of RM truly affects survival in low-to intermediate-grade SGC.
Compared with good LCR achieved by surgery followed by PORT, suboptimal survival and DM-dominant recurrent patterns of SGC require the development of several intensified treatment strategies, such as postoperative CCRT. Notwithstanding, this meta-analysis showed that postoperative CCRT led to significantly inferior 3-year DFS and 10-year OS rates to those of PORT. Among the 26 studies, three retrospective studies compared PORT with postoperative CCRT, and the cohorts receiving postoperative CCRT apparently harbored more adverse prognostic factors than those receiving PORT, with statistical significance [20,31,32]. Overall, no statistically significant survival benefit existed from postoperative CCRT, with only one study showing improved long-term OS and PFS in SGC patients with LN metastases and superior LRC in patients with R2 resection or ACC [20]. The NCDB studies failed to show improved outcomes with the addition of chemotherapy to PORT in SGC patients [49,50]. Another NCDB study reported that postoperative CCRT was associated with increased mortality on both multivariable and propensity score-adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR]:1.39; 95% CI: 1.07–1.79 and HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.14–1.94, respectively) [51]. Therefore, the current level of evidence on postoperative CCRT is still low in unselected patients with SGC, and this treatment strategy is not recommended outside clinical studies. The ongoing phase III RTOG 1008 study (NCT01220583), which compares PORT with postoperative CCRT using weekly cisplatin in patients with high-risk SGC after surgery, might provide some answers.
This meta-analysis includes studies that used megavoltage equipment and reflects the treatment outcomes of modern RT techniques for SGC. Because the theoretical advantages of IMRT dose distributions over 2DRT and 3DCRT are generally accepted, IMRT has been routinely used throughout all tumor sites, and guidelines for SGC also recommend the use of IMRT [6,7,52,53]. In the current meta-analysis, the pooled rate for severe toxicity ≥ grade 3 was 7% (95% CI, 3–14%), indicating that PORT can be used as a local modality with an acceptable level of safety. Although IMRT has changed the practice of RT, it is unclear whether its use provides a clinically relevant advantage in SGC [54]. The overall incidence of late toxicity varied among the included cohorts, as presented in Table 4. Among these, two studies focused on RT-related toxicity in SGC. A phase 3 trial comparing 3DCRT with cochlear-sparing IMRT for parotid gland cancer showed no significant differences in hearing loss or other secondary endpoints, including patient-reported hearing outcomes, although the median dose to the ipsilateral cochlea was significantly reduced (56 Gy with 3DCRT vs. 36 Gy with IMRT, p < 0.0001) [24]. The second was a retrospective study that evaluated trigeminal nerve toxicity after IMRT for resected parotid gland cancer [19]. Grades 1 and 2 of trigeminal nerve toxicities occurred in 22% and 39% of patients, respectively, which were higher than the incidence of cranial nerve toxicity of 4–31% observed in head and neck studies treated with definitive RT [55,56,57]. The authors suggested that surgical interventions could potentially induce alterations in the postoperative tissues, leading to increased susceptibility. Therefore, further observations are required to evaluate the long-term safety of IMRT for SGC.
This study has some limitations. First, prospective or retrospective studies were included, except for one phase 3 study that focused on RT-related toxicity. The heterogeneity of observational studies and selection bias may have affected the pooled analysis [58]. In addition, there was a time interval between the literature search and publication, and this might give rise to publication bias. Considering that the median time from the literature search to publication was 8 months, and the time interval of recent meta-analyses was not significantly different, our systematic review provides timely, up-to-date evidence [13,59]. Second, 26 studies published between 2007 and 2023 were included in this analysis. The WHO classification system for SGC was updated until 2022, and the classification of histological subtypes changed several times during this period. Boon et al. [28] found that secretory carcinoma characterized by the ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene, a new subtype of SGC in 2010, was previously diagnosed as acinic cell carcinoma, polymorphous adenocarcinoma, or adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified. However, this effect may have been minimized, because the current study included all the histological subtypes. Lastly, we included the use of megavoltage equipment and excluded studies treated with 60Co gamma rays. In addition, we did not permit duplicate patient data and selected the most recent study from one institution. This might reduce the number of late toxicities, and long-term outcomes and toxicities were not complete in some studies. Among the twenty-six studies, nine studies reported 10-year survival outcomes, and eleven evaluated late treatment-related toxicities. Further studies are needed to validate the long-term efficacy and safety of PORT for SGC.

5. Conclusions

The current systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively demonstrated the short- and long-term survival and toxicities of PORT as a local treatment modality for SGC. High-grade histology has been confirmed to be a strong indicator of the utilization of PORT, whereas the value of PORT in low- to intermediate-grade tumors is still questionable and needs further assessment. Considering the suboptimal DFS and DM-dominant recurrent patterns, an intensified treatment strategy would be needed. However, concurrent chemotherapy accompanied by PORT may not be a good option as an intensified modality based on the pooled data. Further prospective investigations are warranted.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers16132375/s1, Table S1. Search strategy and results. Table S2. Tumor details for salivary gland carcinoma treated with surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Table S3. Pooled rates of distant metastases free survival (DMFS). Figure S1. Funnel plots for survivals. Figure S2. Forrest plots of toxicities

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.H.B. and J.Y. (Junlin Yi); data curation: S.H.B.; formal analysis: S.H.B., J.W. and J.E.M.; funding acquisition: S.H.B.; investigation: S.H.B., X.G. and J.Y. (Jiaqi Yu); methodology: S.H.B. and J.W.; software: S.H.B., X.G. and J.Y. (Jiaqi Yu); validation: S.H.B.; visualization: S.H.B.; writing—original draft: S.H.B. and J.W.; writing—review and editing: S.H.B. and J.Y. (Junlin Yi). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund. No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Skalova, A.; Hyrcza, M.D.; Leivo, I. Update from the 5th Edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Head and Neck Tumors: Salivary Glands. Head Neck Pathol. 2022, 16, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Young, A.; Okuyemi, O.T. Malignant Salivary Gland Tumors. In Statpearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dos Santos, E.S.; Rodrigues-Fernandes, C.I.; Speight, P.M.; Khurram, S.A.; Alsanie, I.; Normando, A.G.C.; Prado-Ribeiro, A.C.; Brandao, T.B.; Kowalski, L.P.; Guerra, E.N.S.; et al. Impact of Tumor Site on the Prognosis of Salivary Gland Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2021, 162, 103352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Thomson, D.J.; Slevin, N.J.; Mendenhall, W.M. Indications for Salivary Gland Radiotherapy. Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016, 78, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Spiro, R.H. Management of Malignant Tumors of the Salivary Glands. Oncology 1998, 12, 671–680, Discussion 683. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Geiger, J.L.; Ismaila, N.; Beadle, B.; Caudell, J.J.; Chau, N.; Deschler, D.; Glastonbury, C.; Kaufman, M.; Lamarre, E.; Lau, H.Y.; et al. Management of Salivary Gland Malignancy: Asco Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1909–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. van Herpen, C.; Poorten, V.V.; Skalova, A.; Terhaard, C.; Maroldi, R.; van Engen, A.; Baujat, B.; Locati, L.D.; Jensen, A.D.; Smeele, L.; et al. Salivary Gland Cancer: Esmo-European Reference Network on Rare Adult Solid Cancers (Euracan) Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. ESMO Open 2022, 7, 100602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Thariat, J.; Ferrand, F.R.; Fakhry, N.; Even, C.; Vergez, S.; Chabrillac, E.; Sarradin, V.; Digue, L.; Troussier, I.; Bensadoun, R.J. Radiotherapy for Salivary Gland Cancer: Refcor Recommendations by the Formal Consensus Method. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2023, 23, S1879–S7296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers Version 2. 2024. Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_Gls/Pdf/Head-and-Neck.Pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  10. Locati, L.D.; Ferrarotto, R.; Licitra, L.; Benazzo, M.; Preda, L.; Farina, D.; Gatta, G.; Lombardi, D.; Nicolai, P.; Poorten, V.V.; et al. Current Management and Future Challenges in Salivary Glands Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1264287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The Prisma 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pieper, D.; Rombey, T. Where to Prospectively Register a Systematic Review. Syst. Rev. 2022, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Andersen, M.; Fonnes, S.; Andresen, K.; Rosenberg, J. Most Published Meta-Analyses Were Made Available within Two Years of Protocol Registration. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 2021, 44, 101342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stang, A. Critical Evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the Assessment of the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analyses. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 25, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Raudenbush, S.W. Analyzing Effect Sizes: Random-Effects Models. In Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd ed.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 295–315. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yan, W.; Ou, X.; Shen, C.; Hu, C. A Nomogram Involving Immune-Inflammation Index for Predicting Distant Metastasis-Free Survival of Major Salivary Gland Carcinoma Following Postoperative Radiotherapy. Cancer Med. 2023, 12, 2772–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Park, J.B.; Wu, H.G.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, J.H.; Ahn, S.H.; Chung, E.J.; Eom, K.Y.; Jeong, W.J.; Kwon, T.K.; Kim, S.; et al. Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Node-Negative Salivary Malignancies of the Parotid Gland: A Multi-Institutional Analysis. Radiother. Oncol. 2023, 183, 109554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Duru Birgi, S.; Akyurek, S.; Birgi, E.; Arslan, Y.; Gumustepe, E.; Bakirarar, B.; Gokce, S.C. Dosimetric Investigation of Radiation-Induced Trigeminal Nerve Toxicity in Parotid Tumor Patients. Head Neck 2023, 45, 2907–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Hsieh, R.C.; Chou, Y.C.; Hung, C.Y.; Lee, L.Y.; Venkatesulu, B.P.; Huang, S.F.; Liao, C.T.; Cheng, N.M.; Wang, H.M.; Wu, C.E.; et al. A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Patients with Salivary Gland Carcinoma Treated with Postoperative Radiotherapy Alone or Chemoradiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2023, 188, 109891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zang, S.; Chen, M.; Huang, H.; Zhu, X.; Li, X.; Yan, D.; Yan, S. Oncological Outcomes of Patients with Salivary Gland Cancer Treated with Surgery and Postoperative Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2022, 12, 2841–2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Franco, I.I.; Shin, K.Y.; Jo, V.; Hanna, G.J.; Schoenfeld, J.D.; Tishler, R.B.; Milligan, M.G.; Rettig, E.M.; Margalit, D.N. Identification of Salivary Gland Tumors (Sgt) at Risk for Local or Distant Recurrence after Postoperative Radiation Therapy (Port) with or without Systemic Therapy (St) Using Clinical Risk Grouping. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2021, 111, e414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dou, S.; Wang, X.; Li, R.; Wu, S.; Ruan, M.; Yang, W.; Zhu, G. Prospective Phase Ii Study of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in High-Risk Malignant Salivary Gland Tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 105, S214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nutting, C.M.; Morden, J.P.; Beasley, M.; Bhide, S.; Cook, A.; De Winton, E.; Emson, M.; Evans, M.; Fresco, L.; Gollins, S.; et al. Results of a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Cochlear-Sparing Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Radiotherapy in Patients with Parotid Cancer (Costar; Cruk/08/004). Eur. J. Cancer 2018, 103, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nishikado, A.; Kawata, R.; Haginomori, S.I.; Terada, T.; Higashino, M.; Kurisu, Y.; Hirose, Y. A Clinicopathological Study of Parotid Carcinoma: 18-Year Review of 171 Patients at a Single Institution. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 23, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Li, R.; Dou, S.; Ruan, M.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, G. A Feasibility and Safety Study of Concurrent Chemotherapy Based on Genetic Testing in Patients with High-Risk Salivary Gland Tumors: Preliminary Results. Medicine 2018, 97, e0564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gebhardt, B.J.; Ohr, J.P.; Ferris, R.L.; Duvvuri, U.; Kim, S.; Johnson, J.T.; Heron, D.E.; Clump, D.A., 2nd. Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in the Adjuvant Treatment of High-Risk Primary Salivary Gland Malignancies. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 41, 888–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Boon, E.; Valstar, M.H.; van der Graaf, W.T.A.; Bloemena, E.; Willems, S.M.; Meeuwis, C.A.; Slootweg, P.J.; Smit, L.A.; Merkx, M.A.W.; Takes, R.P.; et al. Clinicopathological Characteristics and Outcome of 31 Patients with Etv6-Ntrk3 Fusion Gene Confirmed (Mammary Analogue) Secretory Carcinoma of Salivary Glands. Oral. Oncol. 2018, 82, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, X.; Zeng, X.; Lan, X.; Huang, J.; Luo, K.; Tian, K.; Wu, X.; Xiao, F.; Li, S. Reoperation Following the Use of Non-Standardized Procedures for Malignant Parotid Tumors. Oncol. Lett. 2017, 14, 6701–6707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gutschenritter, T.; Machiorlatti, M.; Vesely, S.; Ahmad, B.; Razaq, W.; Razaq, M. Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Resected Salivary Gland Malignancies: Examining a Single Institution’s 12-Year Experience. Anticancer Res. 2017, 37, 5019–5025. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  31. Sayan, M.; Vempati, P.; Miles, B.; Teng, M.; Genden, E.; Demicco, E.G.; Misiukiewicz, K.; Posner, M.; Gupta, V.; Bakst, R.L. Adjuvant Therapy for Salivary Gland Carcinomas. Anticancer Res. 2016, 36, 4165–4170. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Mifsud, M.J.; Tanvetyanon, T.; McCaffrey, J.C.; Otto, K.J.; Padhya, T.A.; Kish, J.; Trotti, A.M.; Harrison, L.B.; Caudell, J.J. Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for the Management of High-Risk Salivary Gland Carcinomas. Head Neck 2016, 38, 1628–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hosni, A.; Huang, S.H.; Goldstein, D.; Xu, W.; Chan, B.; Hansen, A.; Weinreb, I.; Bratman, S.V.; Cho, J.; Giuliani, M.; et al. Outcomes and Prognostic Factors for Major Salivary Gland Carcinoma Following Postoperative Radiotherapy. Oral Oncol. 2016, 54, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Haderlein, M.; Scherl, C.; Semrau, S.; Lettmaier, S.; Uter, W.; Neukam, F.W.; Iro, H.; Agaimy, A.; Fietkau, R. High-Grade Histology as Predictor of Early Distant Metastases and Decreased Disease-Free Survival in Salivary Gland Cancer Irrespective of Tumor Subtype. Head Neck 2016, 38 (Suppl. S1), E2041–E2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kaur, J.; Goyal, S.; Muzumder, S.; Bhasker, S.; Mohanti, B.K.; Rath, G.K. Outcome of Surgery and Post-Operative Radiotherapy for Major Salivary Gland Carcinoma: Ten Year Experience from a Single Institute. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 8259–8263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tam, M.; Riaz, N.; Salgado, L.R.; Spratt, D.E.; Katsoulakis, E.; Ho, A.; Morris, L.G.T.; Wong, R.; Wolden, S.; Rao, S.; et al. Distant Metastasis Is a Critical Mode of Failure for Patients with Localized Major Salivary Gland Tumors Treated with Surgery and Radiation. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2013, 2, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chung, M.P.; Tang, C.; Chan, C.; Hara, W.Y.; Loo, B.W., Jr.; Kaplan, M.J.; Fischbein, N.; Le, Q.T.; Chang, D.T. Radiotherapy for Nonadenoid Cystic Carcinomas of Major Salivary Glands. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2013, 34, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kim, J.Y.; Lee, S.; Cho, K.J.; Kim, S.Y.; Nam, S.Y.; Choi, S.H.; Roh, J.L.; Choi, E.K.; Kim, J.H.; Song, S.Y.; et al. Treatment Results of Post-Operative Radiotherapy in Patients with Salivary Duct Carcinoma of the Major Salivary Glands. Br. J. Radiol. 2012, 85, e947–e952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Al-Mamgani, A.; van Rooij, P.; Verduijn, G.M.; Meeuwis, C.A.; Levendag, P.C. Long-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life of 186 Patients with Primary Parotid Carcinoma Treated with Surgery and Radiotherapy at the Daniel Den Hoed Cancer Center. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pederson, A.W.; Salama, J.K.; Haraf, D.J.; Witt, M.E.; Stenson, K.M.; Portugal, L.; Seiwert, T.; Villaflor, V.M.; Cohen, E.E.; Vokes, E.E.; et al. Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locoregionally Advanced and High-Risk Salivary Gland Malignancies. Head Neck Oncol. 2011, 3, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Noh, J.M.; Ahn, Y.C.; Nam, H.; Park, W.; Baek, C.H.; Son, Y.I.; Jeong, H.S. Treatment Results of Major Salivary Gland Cancer by Surgery with or without Postoperative Radiation Therapy. Clin. Exp. Otorhinolaryngol. 2010, 3, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chen, A.M.; Garcia, J.; Lee, N.Y.; Bucci, M.K.; Eisele, D.W. Patterns of Nodal Relapse after Surgery and Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Carcinomas of the Major and Minor Salivary Glands: What Is the Role of Elective Neck Irradiation? Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007, 67, 988–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Safdieh, J.; Givi, B.; Osborn, V.; Lederman, A.; Schwartz, D.; Schreiber, D. Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Malignant Salivary Gland Tumors. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2017, 157, 988–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aro, K.; Ho, A.S.; Luu, M.; Kim, S.; Tighiouart, M.; Yoshida, E.J.; Clair, J.M.-S.; Shiao, S.L.; Leivo, I.; Zumsteg, Z.S. Survival Impact of Adjuvant Therapy in Salivary Gland Cancers Following Resection and Neck Dissection. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019, 160, 1048–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ferrell, J.K.; Mace, J.C.; Clayburgh, D. Contemporary Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Salivary Gland Carcinoma: A National Cancer Database Review. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2019, 276, 1135–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. North, L.; Stadler, M.; Massey, B.; Campbell, B.; Shukla, M.; Awan, M.; Schultz, C.J.; Shreenivas, A.; Wong, S.; Graboyes, E.; et al. Intermediate-Grade Carcinoma of the Parotid and the Impact of Adjuvant Radiation. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2019, 40, 102282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morand, G.B.; Eskander, A.; Fu, R.; de Almeida, J.; Goldstein, D.; Noroozi, H.; Hosni, A.; Seikaly, H.; Tabet, P.; Pyne, J.M.; et al. The Protective Role of Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Low and Intermediate Grade Major Salivary Gland Malignancies: A Study of the Canadian Head and Neck Collaborative Research Initiative. Cancer 2023, 129, 3263–3274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hong, W.J.; Chang, S.L.; Tsai, C.J.; Wu, H.C.; Chen, Y.C.; Yang, C.C.; Ho, C.H. The Effect of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Clinical Outcomes in Early Major Salivary Gland Cancer. Head Neck 2022, 44, 2865–2874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Amini, A.; Waxweiler, T.V.; Brower, J.V.; Jones, B.L.; McDermott, J.D.; Raben, D.; Ghosh, D.; Bowles, D.W.; Karam, S.D. Association of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy vs. Radiotherapy Alone with Survival in Patients with Resected Major Salivary Gland Carcinoma: Data from the National Cancer Data Base. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 142, 1100–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cheraghlou, S.; Kuo, P.; Mehra, S.; Agogo, G.O.; Bhatia, A.; Husain, Z.A.; Yarbrough, W.G.; Burtness, B.A.; Judson, B.L. Adjuvant Therapy in Major Salivary Gland Cancers: Analysis of 8580 Patients in the National Cancer Database. Head Neck 2018, 40, 1343–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tanvetyanon, T.; Fisher, K.; Caudell, J.; Otto, K.; Padhya, T.; Trotti, A. Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus with Radiotherapy Alone for Locally Advanced Salivary Gland Carcinoma among Older Patients. Head Neck 2016, 38, 863–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dennis, K.; Linden, K.; Gaudet, M. A Shift from Simple to Sophisticated: Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Conventional Nonstereotactic Palliative Radiotherapy. Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2023, 17, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, E.; Jang, W.I.; Yang, K.; Kim, M.S.; Yoo, H.J.; Paik, E.K.; Kim, H.; Yoon, J. Clinical Utilization of Radiation Therapy in Korea between 2017 and 2019. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2022, 40, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jang, W.I.; Jo, S.; Moon, J.E.; Bae, S.H.; Park, H.C. The Current Evidence of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2023, 15, 4914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kong, L.; Lu, J.J.; Liss, A.L.; Hu, C.; Guo, X.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Radiation-Induced Cranial Nerve Palsy: A Cross-Sectional Study of Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients after Definitive Radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2011, 79, 1421–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rong, X.; Tang, Y.; Chen, M.; Lu, K.; Peng, Y. Radiation-Induced Cranial Neuropathy in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. A Follow-up Study. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2012, 188, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Luk, Y.S.; Shum, J.S.; Sze, H.C.; Chan, L.L.; Ng, W.T.; Lee, A.W. Predictive Factors and Radiological Features of Radiation-Induced Cranial Nerve Palsy in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma following Radical Radiotherapy. Oral Oncol. 2013, 49, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Blettner, M.; Sauerbrei, W.; Schlehofer, B.; Scheuchenpflug, T.; Friedenreich, C. Traditional Reviews, Meta-Analyses and Pooled Analyses in Epidemiology. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1999, 28, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Beller, E.M.; Chen, J.K.; Wang, U.L.; Glasziou, P.P. Are Systematic Reviews up-to-Date at the Time of Publication? Syst. Rev. 2013, 2, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) algorithm.
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) algorithm.
Cancers 16 02375 g001
Figure 2. Forest plot of (A) 3-year locoregional control (LRC), (B) 5-year LRC, (C) 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), (D) 5-year DFS, (E) 3-year DFS between cohorts treated with postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (Post-op_CCRT) versus cohorts with postoperative radiotherapy alone (PORT), and (F) 3-year DFS between cohorts with the proportion of a high grade ≥ 50% versus cohorts with the proportion of a high grade < 50%.
Figure 2. Forest plot of (A) 3-year locoregional control (LRC), (B) 5-year LRC, (C) 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), (D) 5-year DFS, (E) 3-year DFS between cohorts treated with postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (Post-op_CCRT) versus cohorts with postoperative radiotherapy alone (PORT), and (F) 3-year DFS between cohorts with the proportion of a high grade ≥ 50% versus cohorts with the proportion of a high grade < 50%.
Cancers 16 02375 g002aCancers 16 02375 g002bCancers 16 02375 g002c
Table 2. Pathologic details and treatment outcomes for salivary gland carcinoma treated with surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy.
Table 2. Pathologic details and treatment outcomes for salivary gland carcinoma treated with surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy.
AuthorpTstage:
1/2/3/4(%)
pNstage:
0/1/2/3(%)
LVI (%)PNI (%)Median f/u (mo)3-yr
LRC (%)
5-yr
LRC (%)
10-yr
LRC (%)
3-yr
DMFS (%)
5-yr
DMFS (%)
10-yr
DMFS (%)
3-yr DFS (%)5-yr DFS (%)10-yr DFS (%)3-yr OS (%)5-yr OS (%)10-yr OS (%)
Yan [17]28/48/11/1367/13/17/382660---797259---908163
Park [18]30/30/32/8100/0/0/01620-9995----9586----
Duru Birgi [19]22/45/11/056/11/11/001130------------
Hsieh_A [20]30/33/19/1885/3/12/01339131 c928985---787264888072
Hsieh_B [20]13/36/24/2758/9/33/02049131 c878382---665953807161
Zang [21]23/7 a68/13/19/0-3256878282857866807363918585
Franco [22]----41------------
Dou [23]----16------------
Nutting_A [24]30/28/13/2259/7/26/0--50 c------81--81--
Nutting_B [24]29/39/14/1666/13/16/0--50 c------81--86--
Nishikado [25]------------53----
Li [26]---102188--95--------
Gebhardt [27]31/31/16/2270/5/25/0375354-86--77--61--73.7-
Boon [28]47/47/0/093/0/7/0---------10089891008989
Zhang [29]-----92 d87 d----9388-8782-
Gutschenritter [30]-----------7058-7968-
Sayan [31]35/25/40/090/10/0/0-253796-----90--100--
Mifsud_A [32]32/23/23/2280/6/14/0215335 c91--83--7460-78--
Mifsud_B [32]16/14/30/4035/14/51/0388435 c79--53--4227-52--
Hosni [33]63/37 a73/9/18/022538297 d96 d96 d848077---847875
Haderlein [34]24/15/44/1449/22/29/0-60318686--62--58--63-
Kaur [35]----11------49-----
Tam [36]31/33/19/1565/14/18/0--5091 d88 d-8173----857759
Chung [37]14/30/16/4051/49 b--569797-------7776-
Kim [38]17/31/43/926/74 b513443776363---564747-55-
Al-Mamgani [39]27/49/16/880/6/13/1--589289----8383-7268-
Pederson [40]4/34/25/3725/13/62/0-54429696----6255-7959-
Noh [41]21/28/35/1681/7/12/01619--96-----74--78-
Chen [42]17/33/27/24--7462-------8163968157
pTstage, pathologic tumor stage; pNstage, pathologic lymph node stage; LVI, lymphovascular invasion; PNI, perineural invasion; f/u, follow-up; mo, months; LRC, locoregional control; DMFS, distant metastases-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival. a means patients with pT1/2 versus patients with pT3/4. b means patients with pN0 versus patients with pN+. c means the median follow-up period of the entire patients. d reported local control rates.
Table 3. Pooled rates of survival.
Table 3. Pooled rates of survival.
GroupCohorts (n)Patients (n)p, HeterogeneityI2Egger’s Test, pFixed Event Rate (95% CI)Random Event Rate (95% CI)p (between Groups)
3-year LRC
All161648<0.000171.09%0.17520.93 (0.92–0.94)0.92 (0.89–0.94)
Post-op CCRT a42290.282421.32%0.87960.88 (0.83–0.92)0.88 (0.82–0.93)0.0875
PORT b44160.98450%0.72150.93 (0.90–0.95)0.93 (0.90–0.95)
High grade > 50% c65700.031359.25%0.20160.89 (0.86–0.92)0.87 (0.82–0.92)0.0150
High grade ≤ 50%57310.002575.63%0.58670.96 (0.94–0.97)0.95 (0.91–0.98)
mRT dose > 64 Gy56820.003574.52%0.53710.94 (0.92–0.96)0.93 (0.88–0.97)0.5628
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy10936<0.000173.85%0.34660.92 (0.90–0.94)0.91 (0.87–0.95)
5-year LRC
All141671<0.000177.99%0.30340.90 (0.89–0.92)0.89 (0.86–0.93)
Post-op CCRT21720.094364.28%-0.86 (0.80–0.91)0.89 (0.75–0.98)0.6259
PORT33680.114053.95%0.85970.91 (0.88–0.94)0.91 (0.85–0.96)
High grade > 50%66080.000378.75%0.75490.88 (0.85–0.90)0.87 (0.80–0.93)0.1827
High grade ≤ 50%47360.000981.73%0.38540.93 (0.91–0.95)0.92 (0.87–0.96)
mRT dose > 64 Gy5790<0.000184.57%0.58320.91 (0.89–0.93)0.90 (0.84–0.95)0.7043
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy8851<0.000177.55%0.63160.90 (0.87–0.92)0.89 (0.84–0.93)
10-year LRC
All5810<0.000191.93%0.15460.89 (0.86–0.91)0.84 (0.73–0.92)
Post-op CCRT1148---0.82 (0.75–0.88)0.82 (0.75–0.88)0.3608
PORT1263---0.85 (0.81–0.89)0.85 (0.81–0.89)
High grade > 50%34460.013076.96%0.01510.83 (0.79–0.86)0.80 (0.70–0.88)<0.0001
High grade ≤ 50%1304---0.96 (0.94–0.98)0.96 (0.94–0.98)
mRT dose > 64 Gy2452<0.000195.66%-0.92 (0.90–0.95)0.90 (0.72–0.99)0.2421
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy33580.013176.92%0.30250.83 (0.79–0.87)0.79 (0.66–0.89)
3-year DFS
All161266<0.000185.97%0.66500.78 (0.76–0.80)0.77 (0.70–0.83)
Post-op CCRT32090.042168.44%0.53430.62 (0.55–0.69)0.58 (0.43–0.73)0.0090
PORT9658<0.000176.08%0.42830.78 (0.74–0.81)0.80 (0.72–0.86)
High grade > 50%5507<0.000183.26%0.08110.70 (0.66–0.74)0.63 (0.51–0.75)0.0054
High grade ≤ 50%55170.000182.42%0.75170.84 (0.81–0.87)0.84 (0.75–0.91)
mRT dose > 64 Gy64830.000279.55%0.62550.78 (0.74–0.82)0.80 (0.70–0.88)0.4020
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy8675<0.000190.67%0.30450.78 (0.75–0.81)0.73 (0.60–0.84)
5-year DFS
All171672<0.000187.62%0.10340.71 (0.68–0.73)0.67 (0.60–0.74)
Post-op CCRT32090.002283.69%0.55420.53 (0.46–0.59)0.47 (0.27–0.67)0.0522
PORT76220.000873.74%0.80010.68 (0.65–0.72)0.69 (0.61–0.77)
High grade > 50%7645<0.000184.82%0.08660.64 (0.60–0.67)0.58 (0.46–0.68)0.0780
High grade ≤ 50%4535<0.000191.90%0.44480.75 (0.71–0.78)0.73 (0.59–0.85)
mRT dose > 64 Gy5501<0.000188.32%0.84740.70 (0.66–0.74)0.69 (0.55–0.81)0.6700
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy101063<0.000189.39%0.02520.71 (0.68–0.74)0.65 (0.55–0.74)
10-year DFS
All67720.030759.39%0.87290.61 (0.58–0.65)0.61 (0.55–0.67)
Post-op CCRT1148---0.53 (0.45–0.61)0.53 (0.45–0.61)0.1010
PORT22780.065570.53%-0.66 (0.60–0.71)0.73 (0.50–0.91)
High grade > 50%34460.037969.44%0.44650.59 (0.54–0.64)0.57 (0.47–0.66)-
High grade ≤ 50%00----
mRT dose > 64 Gy21630.008085.78%-0.56 (0.48–0.64)0.69 (0.34–0.95)0.7471
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy46090.38880.61%0.22910.63 (0.59–0.67)0.63 (0.59–0.67)
3-year OS
All182284<0.000184.23%0.82290.84 (0.83–0.86)0.84 (0.79–0.88)
Post-op CCRT32090.003882.04%0.60170.75 (0.69–0.81)0.71 (0.52–0.87)0.0755
PORT86190.007063.94%0.45030.86 (0.83–0.89)0.87 (0.81–0.92)
High grade > 50%4472<0.000187.60%0.22950.83 (0.79–0.86)0.77 (0.63–0.88)0.5862
High grade ≤ 50%611210.048155.24%0.88110.80 (0.78–0.83)0.80 (0.76–0.84)
mRT dose > 64 Gy77870.007166.03%0.44980.81 (0.78–0.84)0.82 (0.76–0.87)0.4812
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy8971<0.000189.66%0.32860.88 (0.86–0.90)0.85 (0.77–0.92)
5-year OS
All1723150.000164.47%0.08750.77 (0.75–0.79)0.75 (0.72–0.79)
Post-op CCRT21720.218533.97%-0.70 (0.62–0.76)0.68 (0.56–0.78)0.0903
PORT54610.240427.17%0.99740.79 (0.75–0.82)0.78 (0.73–0.83)
High grade > 50%66080.002173.40%0.04240.74 (0.70–0.78)0.70 (0.62–0.78)0.2397
High grade ≤ 50%410360.003078.45%0.17430.77 (0.75–0.80)0.76 (0.70–0.81)
mRT dose > 64 Gy68050.061552.52%0.62910.74 (0.70–0.77)0.73 (0.68–0.78)0.3252
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy89840.006364.42%0.13600.78 (0.75–0.81)0.76 (0.71–0.81)
10-year OS
All81659<0.000185.03%0.36940.67 (0.64–0.69)0.68 (0.62–0.74)
Post-op CCRT1148---0.61 (0.53–0.69)0.61 (0.53–0.69)0.0453
PORT22780.247225.32%-0.74 (0.68–0.79)0.75 (0.65–0.85)
High grade > 50%24110.025779.91%-0.68 (0.64–0.73)0.67 (0.56–0.77)0.8249
High grade ≤ 50%27220.000591.67% 0.68 (0.65–0.72)0.69 (0.57–0.80)
mRT dose > 64 Gy34670.006280.33%0.94090.72 (0.67–0.76)0.72 (0.60–0.83)0.6456
mRT dose ≤ 64 Gy4774<0.000189.58%0.41030.65 (0.62–0.69)0.68 (0.57–0.78)
n, number; CI, confidence interval; LRC, locoregional control; post-op CCRT, postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy; PORT, postoperative radiotherapy; mRT dose, median radiotherapy dose; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival. a includes cohorts with all patients receiving post-op CCRT. b includes cohorts with all patients receiving PORT alone. Cohorts with mixed patients receiving post-op CCRT or PORT were excluded. c means that the proportion of patients with a high grade is greater than 50% among the entire patients.
Table 4. Late toxicities after surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy for salivary gland cancer.
Table 4. Late toxicities after surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy for salivary gland cancer.
AuthorCriteriaOverall Toxicity (%)Severe Toxicity (%)
Park [18]CTCAEv5.0Hearing loss of Gr3 (1)Gr3 (1)
Duru Birgi [19]CTCAEv4.0Trigeminal nerve toxicity of Gr1 (22) and Gr2 (39)No ≥ Gr3 toxicity
Zang [21]-Xerostomia (30); Hearing impairment (28); Taste abnormalities (25); Paresthesia (23); Fibrosis of the skin (18); Trismus (10); ORN (3)Gr3 (3)
Nutting_A [24]CTCAEv3.0Hearing toxicity of Gr1 (31), Gr2 (29), Gr3 (12), and Gr4 (2); OE of Gr1 (26), Gr2 (6), and Gr3 (2); OM of Gr1 (28), Gr2 (4), and Gr3 (2); Tinnitus of Gr2 (56) and Gr3 (2); Otalgia of Gr1 (24), Gr2 (10), and Gr3 (2); Skin pigmentation of Gr1 (49) and Gr 2 (6); Skin atrophy of Gr1 (48) and Gr2 (2); Skin fibrosis of Gr1 (52) and Gr2 (10); Functional mucous membrane toxicity of Gr1(20), Gr2 (8), and Gr3 (2); Clinical exam-mucous membrane toxicity of Gr1 (24) and Gr2 (4); Dry mouth of Gr1 (58), Gr2 (22), and Gr3 (4); Salivary gland changes of Gr1 (54) and Gr2 (20); ORN of Gr1 (2); Trismus of Gr1 (30) and Gr2 (6); Fatigue of Gr1 (26), Gr2 (10), and Gr3 (6)Gr3 (32)/Gr4 (2)
Nutting_B [24]CTCAEv3.0Hearing toxicity of Gr1 (37), Gr2 (20), Gr3 (9), and Gr4 (7); OE of Gr1 (30) and Gr2 (7); OM of Gr1 (30) and Gr2 (4); Tinnitus of Gr1 (4), Gr2 (37), and Gr3 (7); Otalgia of Gr1 (28) and Gr2 (2); Skin pigmentation of Gr1 (43) and Gr 2 (4); Skin atrophy of Gr1 (44) and Gr2 (2); Skin fibrosis of Gr1 (56) and Gr2 (4); Functional mucous membrane toxicity of Gr1 (33) and Gr2 (9); Clinical exam-mucous membrane toxicity of Gr1 (24) and Gr2 (4); Dry mouth of Gr1 (72), Gr2 (20), and Gr3 (2)/Salivary gland changes of Gr1 (69), Gr2 (7), and Gr3 (2); ORN of Gr1 (2); Trismus of Gr1 (43) and Gr2 (6); Fatigue of Gr1 (40) and Gr2 (8)Gr3 (20)/Gr4 (7)
Gebhardt [27]CTCAEv4.0Gr1 (52) and Gr2 (13)No ≥ Gr3 toxicity
Sayan [31]RTOG/EORTCXerostomia of Gr2 (25); Hearing loss (5)Gr3 (5)
Hosni [33]RTOGORN of Gr3 (1); Neck fibrosis of Gr3 (1); Trismus of Gr3 (0.3); Dysphagia of Gr3 (0.3)Gr3 (3)
Tam [36]CTCAEv4.0Xerostomia of Gr 1–2 (54) and Gr 3 (1); Hearing loss of Gr 1–3 (19); PEG replacement (2); Radiation necrosis of Gr1 (1)Gr3 (19)
Chung [37]CTCAEv4.0Hypothyroidism of Gr2, Xerostomia of Gr2, Trismus of Gr2; Fibrosis of Gr3 in 1 patient (3)Gr3 (3)
Al-Mamgani [39]CTCAEv3.0Overall toxicities ≥ Gr2 (8); ORN of Gr3 (2); Hearing loss requiring hearing aid (6); Dysphagia and xerostomia of Gr2 (2); Subcutaneous toxicities of Gr2 (2)Gr3 (9)
Pederson [40]CTCAEv3.0Xerostomia (21)/Esophageal stricture requiring dilatation (4)/TMJ syndrome (4)/Feeding tubes (13)Gr3 (21)
CTCAE, the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; RTOG/EORTC, Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; ORN, osteoradionecrosis; OE, otitis externa; OM, otitis media; TMJ, temporomandibular joint; Gr, grade.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Moon, J.E.; Guo, X.; Yu, J.; Yi, J.; Bae, S.H. The Current Position of Postoperative Radiotherapy for Salivary Gland Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2024, 16, 2375. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132375

AMA Style

Wang J, Moon JE, Guo X, Yu J, Yi J, Bae SH. The Current Position of Postoperative Radiotherapy for Salivary Gland Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2024; 16(13):2375. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132375

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jingbo, Ji Eun Moon, Xin Guo, Jiaqi Yu, Junlin Yi, and Sun Hyun Bae. 2024. "The Current Position of Postoperative Radiotherapy for Salivary Gland Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 16, no. 13: 2375. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132375

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop