Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4559 on July 10 2006

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Unabridged Version Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pfister, D. G. Articles by Wolf, G. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pfister, D. G. Articles by Wolf, G. T. Related Articles Related Correspondence

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Larynx-Preservation Strategies in the Treatment of Laryngeal Cancer

David G. Pfister, Scott A. Laurie, Gregory S. Weinstein, William M. Mendenhall, David J. Adelstein, K. Kian Ang, Gary L. Clayman, Susan G. Fisher, Arlene A. Forastiere, Louis B. Harrison, Jean-Louis Lefebvre, Nancy Leupold, Marcy A. List, Bernard O. O'Malley, Snehal Patel, Marshall R. Posner, Michael A. Schwartz, Gregory T. Wolf

From the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA

Address reprint requests to American Society of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Policy and Clinical Affairs, 1900 Duke Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; e-mail: guidelines{at}asco.org

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
PURPOSE: To develop a clinical practice guideline for treatment of laryngeal cancer with the intent of preserving the larynx (either the organ itself or its function). This guideline is intended for use by oncologists in the care of patients outside of clinical trials.

METHODS: A multidisciplinary Expert Panel determined the clinical management questions to be addressed and reviewed the literature available through November 2005, with emphasis given to randomized controlled trials of site-specific disease. Survival, rate of larynx preservation, and toxicities were the principal outcomes assessed. The guideline underwent internal review and approval by the Panel, as well as external review by additional experts, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors.

RESULTS: Evidence supports the use of larynx-preservation approaches for appropriately selected patients without a compromise in survival; however, no larynx-preservation approach offers a survival advantage compared with total laryngectomy and adjuvant therapy with rehabilitation as indicated.

RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients with T1 or T2 laryngeal cancer, with rare exception, should be treated initially with intent to preserve the larynx. For most patients with T3 or T4 disease without tumor invasion through cartilage into soft tissues, a larynx-preservation approach is an appropriate, standard treatment option, and concurrent chemoradiotherapy therapy is the most widely applicable approach. To ensure an optimum outcome, special expertise and a multidisciplinary team are necessary, and the team should fully discuss with the patient the advantages and disadvantages of larynx-preservation options compared with treatments that include total laryngectomy.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
In 2005, an estimated 9,880 new cases of laryngeal cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, accounting for 3,770 deaths.¹ Squamous cell carcinoma is the predominant histologic type, and approximately 40% of patients will have stage III or IV disease when first evaluated.² Most cases of laryngeal cancer are associated with a history of tobacco and/or alcohol use, so the treatment of patients is complicated by medical comorbidity and the development of second primary cancers.^3-5 Given the fundamental role the larynx plays in human speech and communication, determining the optimal management of laryngeal cancers must involve consideration of both survival and the functional consequences of a given treatment approach. The potential morbidity of curative treatment is a special consideration when total laryngectomy, either for primary therapy or as salvage treatment, is the recommendation. Total laryngectomy is widely recognized as one of the surgical procedures most feared by patients. Social isolation, job loss, and depression are common sequelae.^6,7 Pioneering work on patient preferences showed that approximately 25% of healthy individuals interviewed were willing to trade a 20% absolute difference in survival for the opportunity to save their voice.⁸ Different voice rehabilitations exist,⁹ but many patients are dissatisfied with the results and report associated restrictions in their daily lives. Although the impact of the procedure on voice often receives the greatest attention, the presence of the stoma may adversely affect quality of life as much, if not more.¹⁰ Accordingly, there has been keen interest in the development and refinement of organ-preservation therapies, such as radiation therapy alone, the combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy (chemoradiotherapy therapy), and function-preserving partial laryngectomy procedures. With all three of these approaches, total laryngectomy is reserved for tumor recurrence.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) fully appreciates the controversy about how to best achieve the dual goals of cure and preservation of function for patients with laryngeal cancer. As a service to patients, to its members, and to practicing physicians generally, ASCO convened an Expert Panel under the auspices of the Health Services Committee to develop recommendations regarding the appropriate application of larynx-preservation therapies.

Accordingly, ASCO considers adherence to this guideline to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. In addition, the guideline describes administration of therapies in clinical practice; it cannot be assumed to apply to interventions performed in the context of clinical trials, given that clinical studies are designed to test innovative and novel therapies in a disease and setting for which better therapy is needed. Because guideline development involves a review and synthesis of the latest literature, a practice guideline also serves to identify important questions for further research and those settings in which investigational therapy should be considered.

	QUESTIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
The following questions about squamous cell laryngeal cancer were addressed by the Panel:

(1) What are the larynx-preservation treatment options for limited stage (T1, T2) primary site disease that do not compromise survival? What are the considerations in selecting among them?

(2) What are the larynx-preservation treatment options for advanced stage (T3, T4) primary site disease that do not compromise survival? What are the considerations in selecting among them?

(3) What is the appropriate treatment of the regional cervical nodes for patients with laryngeal cancer who are treated with an organ-preservation approach?

(4) Are there methods for prospectively selecting patients with laryngeal cancer to increase the likelihood of success of larynx preservation?

	METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
The members of the Expert Panel were selected for their expertise in clinical medicine; medical, radiation, and surgical oncology; diagnostic imaging; clinical research; outcomes/health services research; and related disciplines (biostatistics, quality of life) with a focus on expertise in head and neck and laryngeal cancer (Appendix A). To enhance the focus of the published guideline on the implications for clinical practice, the methodology of the guideline development is available online, at both www.jco.org and www.asco.org.

	GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX-PRESERVATION TREATMENT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
We have summarized the recommended treatment strategies by T stage, along with the basis for the recommendations and the quality of the supporting evidence (Table 1). A complete review of the literature and discussion of study results are available online.

The recommendations to address these questions are based on evidence from prospective and retrospective cohort studies.^11-75 The recommendations for T2 N+ disease are based on data from randomized controlled trials of chemoradiotherapy therapy (with either induction or concurrent chemotherapy compared with radiation therapy alone or surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy).^77,78 The outcomes assessed included overall survival, disease-free survival, rates of laryngeal preservation, local-regional control, toxicity of therapy, and cost.

Limited-stage disease represents a spectrum. Treatment selection can be challenging, as the evidence base for most decisions is derived from nonrandomized studies and various factors need to be considered when choosing therapy. Selected examples for glottic cancer are illustrative. If voice outcome is predicted to be good after endoscopic laser resection for a T1 glottic cancer (eg, a superficial tumor located in the middle third of the cord, especially on its free edge), then use of this modality is more efficient and thus preferred. However, lesions that are indistinct, especially those arising in the context of widespread, abnormal-appearing mucosa, are more suitable for radiation therapy than for surgery. Radiation therapy is preferred by many clinicians for treatment of T2 glottic carcinoma characterized as superficial on radiographic imaging, with preserved cord mobility, as local control rates are high and anticipated functional outcomes are good. But some investigators have noted compromised survival after the failure of radiation therapy in T2 glottic carcinoma indicating the importance of obtaining initial local control.^56,59 As such, supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepliglottopexy remains a reasonable alternative for patients with a T2 glottic carcinoma who after pretreatment counseling would be willing to sacrifice voice quality in an effort to improve local control. Induction chemotherapy has been investigated as treatment for patients with limited-stage laryngeal cancer. However, insufficient data are currently available to recommend such an approach outside the context of a clinical trial.

Recommendations

• All patients with T1-T2 laryngeal cancer should be treated, at least initially, with intent to preserve the larynx.
  
• T1-T2 laryngeal cancer can be treated with radiation or larynx-preservation surgery with similar survival outcomes. Selection of treatment depends on patient factors, local expertise, and the availability of appropriate support and rehabilitative services. Every effort should be made to avoid combining surgery with radiation therapy because functional outcomes may be compromised by combined-modality therapy; single-modality treatment is effective for limited-stage, invasive cancer of the larynx.
  
• Surgical excision of the primary tumor with intent to preserve the larynx should be undertaken with the aim of achieving tumor-free margins; so-called narrow-margin excision followed by postoperative radiation therapy is not an acceptable treatment approach.
  
• Local tumor recurrence after radiation therapy may be amenable to salvage by organ-preservation surgery, but total laryngectomy will be necessary for a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with index T2 tumors.
  
• Concurrent chemoradiotherapy therapy may be used for larynx preservation for selected patients with stage III, T2 N+ cancers when total laryngectomy is the only surgical option, when the functional outcome after larynx-preservation surgery is expected to be unsatisfactory, or when surgical expertise in such procedures is not available.
  
• Limited-stage laryngeal cancer constitutes a wide spectrum of disease. The clinician must exercise judgment when recommending treatment in this category. For a given patient, factors that may influence the selection of treatment modality include extent and volume of tumor; involvement of the anterior commissure; lymph node metastasis; the patient's age, occupation, preference, and compliance; availability of expertise in radiation therapy or surgery; and history of a malignant lesion in the head and neck.
  

What are the larynx-preservation treatment options for advanced stage (T3, T4) primary site disease that do not compromise survival? What are the considerations in selecting among them?
Evidence base. The recommendations to address these questions are based on evidence from randomized controlled trials of different radiation fractionation schedules,⁷⁶ chemoradiotherapy therapy (either induction or concurrent) compared with radiation therapy alone or surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy,^77-85 on meta-analysis or other secondary analysis of data from randomized clinical trials,^{86-88,102,105,108} and on prospective and retrospective cohort studies.^{22,58,89-101,103,104,106,107} The outcomes evaluated included overall survival, disease-free survival, rates of laryngeal preservation, local-regional control, toxicity of therapy, and cost.

Recommendations

• Organ-preservation surgery, concurrent chemoradiotherapy therapy, and radiation therapy alone, all with further surgery reserved for salvage, offer potential for larynx preservation without compromising survival. Anticipated success rates for larynx preservation, associated toxicities, and suitability for a given patient will vary among these approaches. Selection of a treatment option will depend on patient factors, local expertise, and the availability of appropriate support and rehabilitation services.
  
• All patients should be evaluated regarding their suitability for a larynx-preservation approach, and they should be apprised of these treatment options. No larynx-preservation approach offers a survival advantage compared with total laryngectomy and appropriate adjuvant treatment (Table 2).
  
• A minority of patients with T3-T4 primary site disease will be suitable for specialized organ-preservation procedures, such as a supracricoid partial laryngectomy. The addition of postoperative radiation therapy will compromise anticipated functional outcomes. Induction chemotherapy before organ-preservation surgery is not recommended outside of a clinical trial.
  
• Concurrent chemoradiotherapy therapy offers a significantly higher chance of larynx preservation than does radiation therapy alone or induction chemotherapy followed by radiation, albeit at the cost of higher acute in-field toxicities (Table 3).
  
• The best available evidence supports the use of cisplatin as the drug of choice in this setting.
  
• There is insufficient evidence to indicate that survival or larynx-preservation outcomes are improved by the addition of induction chemotherapy before concurrent treatment or the use of concurrent chemotherapy with altered fractionated radiation therapy in this setting.
  
• For patients who desire larynx-preservation therapy but are not candidates for organ-preservation surgery or chemoradiotherapy therapy, radiation therapy alone is an appropriate treatment. With this last approach, survival is similar to that associated with chemoradiotherapy therapy when salvage surgery is incorporated, but the likelihood of larynx preservation is lower.
  

The recommendations to address this question are based on evidence from derivative analyses of randomized controlled trials of chemoradiotherapy (either induction or concurrent) compared with radiation therapy alone or surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy,^125,140 a randomized trial comparing the different types of neck dissection,¹¹³ and on prospective and retrospective cohort studies.^{25,35,66,109,124,126-139,141,142} With respect to adjuvant therapy, evidence was drawn from randomized controlled trials of radiation therapy compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy.^143-145 The outcomes assessed included overall survival, disease-free survival, local-regional control, and toxicity of therapy.

Recommendations

• Most patients with T1-T2 lesions of the glottis and clinically negative cervical nodes (N0) do not require routine elective treatment of the neck.
  
• Patients with advanced lesions of the glottis and all patients with supraglottic lesions should have elective treatment of the neck, even if clinically N0.
  
• Patients with clinically involved regional cervical nodes (N1) who are treated with definitive radiation therapy or chemoradiotherapy therapy and who have a complete clinical response do not require elective neck dissection. Neck dissection should be performed for patients who do not have a complete clinical response to radiation therapy.
  
• Surgical treatment of the neck is recommended for patients with N2 or N3 disease who are treated with definitive radiation therapy or chemoradiotherapy therapy, regardless of response. Some surgeons and patients are reluctant to risk the morbidity of neck dissection, given the prospect of a negative pathologic diagnosis in most cases, but there is no standard imaging approach in this setting that has been validated to significantly improve on this decision-making process. Salvage surgery for recurrent disease in the neck is rarely successful if subsequently required in this setting. These two points should be discussed with all patients who have an apparent complete clinical response to radiation therapy or chemoradiotherapy therapy and choose to be followed up with expectant observation.
  
• Patients with clinically involved cervical nodes who are treated with surgery for the primary lesion should have neck dissection. If there are poor-risk features, adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy therapy is indicated.
  

Are there methods for prospectively selecting patients with laryngeal cancer to increase the likelihood of successful larynx preservation?
Evidence base. The recommendations addressing this question are based on evidence from prospective and retrospective cohort studies of clinical, radiographic, and/or pathologic parameters associated with clinical outcomes^{44,47,62,73,89,91,146,147,149,151-168} and on derivative analyses of a randomized controlled trial.^{148,150,169-171} The outcomes assessed included overall survival, disease-free survival, local-regional control, and rates of laryngeal preservation.

Recommendations

• There are no validated markers that consistently predict outcomes of larynx-preservation therapy. However, patients with tumor penetration through cartilage into soft tissues are considered poor candidates for a larynx-preservation approach. Primary surgery, usually total laryngectomy, is commonly recommended in this setting.
  
• Selection of therapy for an individual patient requires assessment by a multidisciplinary team, as well as consideration of patient comorbidity, psychosocial situation and preferences, and local therapeutic expertise.
  
• Continued cigarette smoking appears to be associated with a worse outcome after radiation therapy. Patients should be encouraged to abstain from smoking after diagnosis and throughout treatment.
  

	FINAL COMMENTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
Larynx-preservation therapy is intended to offer improved function and quality of life for patients with laryngeal cancer, without compromising survival. Our review of the data indicated that there is commonly more than one treatment option to consider. A thorough discussion of the risks and benefits of larynx-preservation therapy is crucial. Organ-preservation treatments can be difficult to administer, given that many patients have underlying medical comorbidity. Optimal patient selection increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. Effective application of larynx-preservation treatment requires special expertise and a specialized support team. A typical treatment team will include expertise in head and neck surgery, radiation therapy, medical oncology, pathology, nursing, speech and swallowing physiology/rehabilitation, audiology, social services, nutrition, tobacco cessation, and management of relevant medical comorbidities.

Many important management decisions have not been addressed by randomized trials or require further clarification. Reliable biologic markers and imaging techniques to facilitate assessment of patient prognosis and response to therapy are needed to guide therapy and select the patients most appropriate for organ-preserving approaches. Defining optimal treatment combinations, including the role of neoadjuvant/induction, concurrent, and adjuvant therapy, as well as newer targeted therapies, is a priority. The role of more targeted radiation approaches and newer fractionation schedules, the timing of surgery for persistent disease, and optimal surveillance for recurrence and prevention of second primary cancers are key research areas. Practical assessments and interventions for nutrition, speech, swallowing, risk-factor modification, and rehabilitation/reconstruction are needed. The Expert Panel believes that commitment to and support of relevant and important randomized studies will be fundamental to addressing these issues. The thoughtful incorporation of relevant correlative studies, such as tissue-specific investigations, into the design of randomized studies will maximize the value of the latter.

When treatments yield similar survival end points, other outcomes, such as function, quality of life, and cost, become increasingly relevant. For example, speech and swallowing are highly complex, finely coordinated neuromuscular processes, and may be disrupted by both the disease itself and its therapy. Preservation of the laryngeal structure is not considered a functional success if persistent dysphagia, aspiration, or chronic tracheostomy results from organ-preserving therapy. All organ-sparing therapies are not the same with regard to their anticipated functional and quality of life outcomes. Yet, as is the case with more traditional biomedical end points, randomized, primary site-specific data comparing patient-reported outcomes are limited.

Available information highlights some issues to consider. Differences in outcome between surgical and radiation-based approaches are not necessarily found on all quality-of-life domains,^26,102 and some that do may be primary site dependent.¹⁷² How each patient perceives an adverse sequela of treatment is variable. Permanent gastrostomy or stoma is often a greater concern to patients than loss of speech^10,173; other quality-of-life domains (eg, emotional, social, financial) besides the functional one may be affected by the disease and its treatment and deserve attention. Underestimation of substantial functional morbidity and treatment-related toxicities such as dysphagia is a risk if patients are not followed up for longer time periods.^30,174-176 Careful assessment of such outcomes is crucial to guide subsequent protocol development in hopes of minimizing the morbidity of treatment without compromising efficacy.^177,178

The thoughtful incorporation of valid pretreatment and longitudinal post-treatment functional and quality-of-life assessments will enhance the value of future larynx-preservation studies. Validated technologies are already available to quantitate such end points.^9,179 Considering patient-reported outcomes in a broader sense than has historically been the case, particularly in organ-preservation studies where treatment is randomly assigned, will provide useful information and facilitate clinical decision-making and subsequent improvement in treatment protocols.

	Appendix

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 

	Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

Dollar Amount Codes (A) $10,000 (B) $10,000-99,999 (C) $100,000 (N/R) Not Required

^* No significant financial relationships to disclose.

	Author Contributions

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 

Conception and design: David G. Pfister, Gregory S. Weinstein, William M. Mendenhall, David J. Adelstein, K. Kian Ang, Gary L. Clayman, Susan G. Fisher, Arlene A. Forastiere, Louis B. Harrison, Jean-Louis Lefebvre, Nancy Leupoid, Marcy A. List, Bernard O. O’Malley, Marshall R. Posner, Michael A. Schwartz, Gregory T. Wolf Collection and assembly of data: David G. Pfister, Scott A. Laurie, Gregory S. Weinstein, William M. Mendenhall, David J. Adelstein, K. Kian Ang, Gary L. Clayman, Susan G. Fisher, Arlene A. Forastiere, Louis B. Harrison, Jean-Louis Lefebvre, Nancy Leupold, Marcy A. List, Bernard O. O'Malley, Snehal Patel, Marshall R. Posner, Michael A. Schwartz, Gregory T. Wolf Data analysis and interpretation: David G. Pfister, Scott A. Laurie, Gregory S. Weinstein, William M. Mendenhall, David J. Adelstein, K. Kian Ang, Gary L. Clayman, Susan G. Fisher, Arlene A. Forastiere, Louis B. Harrison, Jean-Louis Lefebvre, Nancy Leupold, Marcy A. List, Bernard O. O'Malley, Snehal Patel, Marshall R. Posner, Michael A. Schwartz, Gregory T. Wolf Manuscript writing: David G. Pfister, Scott A. Laurie, Gregory S. Weinstein, William M. Mendenhall, David J. Adelstein, K. Kian Ang, Gary L. Clayman, Susan G. Fisher, Arlene A. Forastiere, Louis B. Harrison, Jean-Louis Lefebvre, Nancy Leupold, Marcy A. List, Bernard O. O'Malley, Snehal Patel, Marshall R. Posner, Michael A. Schwartz, Gregory T. Wolf Final approval of manuscript: David G. Pfister, Scott A. Laurie, Gregory S. Weinstein, William M. Mendenhall, David J. Adelstein, K. Kian Ang, Gary L. Clayman, Susan G. Fisher, Arlene A. Forastiere, Louis B. Harrison, Jean-Louis Lefebvre, Nancy Leupold, Marcy A. List, Bernard O. O'Malley, Snehal Patel, Marshall R. Posner, Michael A. Schwartz, Gregory T. Wolf

 

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The Expert Panel members wish to thank Dr David M. Brizel, Dr George P. Browman, Dr Brian Burkey, Dr Avraham Eisbruch, Dr Jan S. Lewin, Dr Bruce D. Minsky, Dr James Netterville, Dr Michael N. Neuss, Dr Jay Piccirillo, Dr Andy Trotti, Dr Jan B. Vermorken, Dr Jamie H. Von Roenn, Dr Randal S. Weber, and Dr Ernest Weymuller for their thoughtful reviews of earlier drafts.

The Expert Panel members also wish to express their gratitude to Dr Karen Fu and Dr Yungpo Bernard Su for their constructive input and assistance in preparation of the guideline.

	NOTES

 
The unabridged version of this article can be found at www.asco.org/guidelines/larynx/unabridged

Adopted on February 28, 2006, by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION QUESTIONS METHODS GUIDELINE FOR LARYNX... FINAL COMMENTS Appendix Authors' Disclosures of... Author Contributions REFERENCES

 
1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al: Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10-30, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Myers EN, Suen JY, Myers JN, et al: Cancer of the Head and Neck (ed 4). Philadelphia, PA, Saunders, 2003

3. Piccirillo JF: Importance of comorbidity in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 110:593-602, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

4. Hong WK, Lippman SM, Itri LM, et al: Prevention of second primary tumors with isotretinoin in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 323:795-801, 1990[Abstract]

5. Lippman SM, Hong WK: Second malignant tumors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: The overshadowing threat for patients with early-stage disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:691-694, 1989[Medline]

6. Breitbart W, Holland J: Psychosocial aspects of head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol 15:61-69, 1988[Medline]

7. Dropkin MJ: Body image and quality of life after head and neck cancer surgery. Cancer Pract 7:309-313, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

8. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG: Speech and survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 305:982-987, 1981[Abstract]

9. Miller SD, Sulica L: General principles of rehabilitation of speech, voice, and swallowing after treatment of head and neck cancer, in Harrison LB, Sessions RB, Hong WK (eds): Head and Neck Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed 2). Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven, 2004

10. DeSanto LW, Olsen KD, Perry WC, et al: Quality of life after surgical treatment of cancer of the larynx. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 104:763-769, 1995[Medline]

11. Carl J, Andersen LJ, Pedersen M, et al: Prognostic factors of local control after radiotherapy in T1 glottic and supraglottic carcinoma of the larynx. Radiother Oncol 39:229-233, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

12. Cragle SP, Brandenburg JH: Laser cordectomy or radiotherapy: Cure rates, communication, and cost. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 108:648-654, 1993[Medline]

13. Davis RK, Kelly SM, Parkin JL, et al: Selective management of early glottic cancer. Laryngoscope 100:1306-1309, 1990[Medline]

14. de Graeff A, de Leeuw RJ, Ros WJ, et al: A prospective study on quality of life of laryngeal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Head Neck 21:291-296, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

15. Delsupehe KG, Zink I, Lejaegere M, et al: Voice quality after narrow-margin laser cordectomy compared with laryngeal irradiation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:528-533, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

16. Dinshaw KA, Sharma V: Radiation therapy in early glottic carcinoma: Significance of prognostic factors and dose fractionation. Indian J Cancer 27:143-153, 1990[Medline]

17. Eckel HE, Thumfart WF: Laser surgery for the treatment of larynx carcinomas: Indications, techniques, and preliminary results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:113-118, 1992[Medline]

18. Fein DA, Lee WR, Hanlon AL, et al: Do overall treatment time, field size, and treatment energy influence local control of T1-T2 squamous cell carcinomas of the glottic larynx? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34:823-831, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

19. Fujita M, Rudoltz MS, Canady DJ, et al: Second malignant neoplasia in patients with T1 glottic cancer treated with radiation. Laryngoscope 108:1853-1855, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]

20. Gowda RV, Henk JM, Mais KL, et al: Three weeks radiotherapy for T1 glottic cancer: The Christie and Royal Marsden Hospital experience. Radiother Oncol 68:105-111, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]

21. Hayakawa K, Mitsuhashi N, Akimoto T, et al: The effect of overall treatment time of radiation therapy on local control of T1-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the glottis. Laryngoscope 106:1545-1547, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

22. Laccourreye O, Veivers D, Hans S, et al: Chemotherapy alone with curative intent in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the pharyngolarynx classified as T1-T4N0M0 complete clinical responders. Cancer 92:1504-1511, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]

23. Marshak G, Brenner B, Shvero J, et al: Prognostic factors for local control of early glottic cancer: The Rabin Medical Center retrospective study on 207 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 43:1009-1013, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

24. McGuirt WF, Blalock D, Koufman JA, et al: Comparative voice results after laser resection or irradiation of T1 vocal cord carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120:951-955, 1994[CrossRef][Medline]

25. Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, et al: T1–T2N0 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 19:4029-4036, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26. Morton RP: Laryngeal cancer: Quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness. Head Neck 19:243-250, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

27. Myers EN, Wagner RL, Johnson JT: Microlaryngoscopic surgery for T1 glottic lesions: A cost-effective option. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 103:28-30, 1994[Medline]

28. Nguyen C, Naghibzadeh B, Black MJ, et al: Carcinoma in situ of the glottic larynx: Excision or irradiation? Head Neck 18:225-228, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

29. Nishimura Y, Nagata Y, Okajima K, et al: Radiation therapy for T1,2 glottic carcinoma: Impact of overall treatment time on local control. Radiother Oncol 40:225-232, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

30. Nordgren M, Abendstein H, Jannert M, et al: Health-related quality of life five years after diagnosis of laryngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1333-1343, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]

31. Pearson BW, Salassa JR: Transoral laser microresection for cancer of the larynx involving the anterior commissure. Laryngoscope 113:1104-1112, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]

32. Peretti G, Piazza C, Bolzoni A, et al: Analysis of recurrences in 322 Tis, T1, or T2 glottic carcinomas treated by carbon dioxide laser. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 113:853-858, 2004[Medline]

33. Rosier JF, Gregoire V, Counoy H, et al: Comparison of external radiotherapy, laser microsurgery and partial laryngectomy for the treatment of T1N0M0 glottic carcinomas: A retrospective evaluation. Radiother Oncol 48:175-183, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]

34. Rothfield RE, Myers EN, Johnson JT: Carcinoma in situ and microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma of the vocal cords. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 100:793-796, 1991[Medline]

35. Sagar SM, McKenna G, Nolan MC: A clinical audit of glottic cancer in Nova Scotia: A paradigm for effectiveness research. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 6:14-23, 1994[Medline]

36. Schuller DE, Trudeau M, Bistline J, et al: Evaluation of voice by patients and close relatives following different laryngeal cancer treatments. J Surg Oncol 44:10-14, 1990[Medline]

37. Slevin NJ, Vasanthan S, Dougal M: Relative clinical influence of tumor dose versus dose per fraction on the occurrence of late normal tissue morbidity following larynx radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:23-28, 1993[Medline]

38. Steiner W: Results of curative laser microsurgery of laryngeal carcinomas. Am J Otolaryngol 14:116-121, 1993[CrossRef][Medline]

39. Steiner W, Ambrosch P, Rodel RM, et al: Impact of anterior commissure involvement on local control of early glottic carcinoma treated by laser microresection. Laryngoscope 114:1485-1491, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

40. Stevens G, Castle G, O'Brien CJ: Treatment of early carcinoma of the vocal cords by radiotherapy. Australas Radiol 38:119-122, 1994[Medline]

41. Stoeckli SJ, Guidicelli M, Schneider A, et al: Quality of life after treatment for early laryngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:96-99, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]

42. Wang CC, Efird JT: Does prolonged treatment course adversely affect local control of carcinoma of the larynx? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:657-660, 1994[Medline]

43. Zeitels SM: Phonomicrosurgical treatment of early glottic cancer and carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg 172:704-709, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

44. Chevalier D, Watelet JB, Darras JA, et al: Supraglottic hemilaryngopharyngectomy plus radiation for the treatment of early lateral margin and pyriform sinus carcinoma. Head Neck 19:1-5, 1997[Medline]

45. Fein DA, Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, et al: T1–T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with radiotherapy: A multivariate analysis of variables potentially influencing local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:605-611, 1993[Medline]

46. Howell-Burke D, Peters LJ, Goepfert H, et al: T2 glottic cancer: Recurrence, salvage, and survival after definitive radiotherapy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 116:830-835, 1990[CrossRef][Medline]

47. Laccourreye H, Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, et al: Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy: A partial laryngeal procedure for selected supraglottic and transglottic carcinomas. Laryngoscope 100:735-741, 1990[Medline]

48. Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, Brasnu D, et al: Vertical partial laryngectomy: A critical analysis of local recurrence. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 100:68-71, 1991[Medline]

49. McLaughlin MP, Parsons JT, Fein DA, et al: Salvage surgery after radiotherapy failure in T1-T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx. Head Neck 18:229-235, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

50. Motta G, Esposito E, Cassiano B, et al: T1-T2-T3 glottic tumors: Fifteen years experience with CO2 laser. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 527:155-159, 1997[Medline]

51. Piquet JJ, Chevalier D: Subtotal laryngectomy with crico-hyoido-epiglotto-pexy for the treatment of extended glottic carcinomas. Am J Surg 162:357-361, 1991[CrossRef][Medline]

52. Rudert HH, Werner JA: Endoscopic resections of glottic and supraglottic carcinomas with the CO2 laser. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 252:146-148, 1995[Medline]

53. Slevin NJ, Hendry JH, Roberts SA, et al: The effect of increasing the treatment time beyond three weeks on the control of T2 and T3 laryngeal cancer using radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 24:215-220, 1992[CrossRef][Medline]

54. Spector JG, Sessions DG, Chao KS, et al: Management of stage II (T2N0M0) glottic carcinoma by radiotherapy and conservation surgery. Head Neck 21:116-123, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

55. Turesson I, Sandberg N, Mercke C, et al: Primary radiotherapy for glottic laryngeal carcinoma stage I and II: A retrospective study with special regard to failure patterns. Acta Oncol 30:357-362, 1991[Medline]

56. Viani L, Stell PM, Dalby JE: Recurrence after radiotherapy for glottic carcinoma. Cancer 67:577-584, 1991[CrossRef][Medline]

57. Ambrosch P, Kron M, Steiner W: Carbon dioxide laser microsurgery for early supraglottic carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107:680-688, 1998[Medline]

58. de Vincentiis M, Minni A, Gallo A, et al: Supracricoid partial laryngectomies: Oncologic and functional results. Head Neck 20:504-509, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]

59. Eckel HE: Endoscopic laser resection of supraglottic carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:681-687, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

60. Garden AS, Morrison WH, Ang KK, et al: Hyperfractionated radiation in the treatment of squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: A comparison of two fractionation schedules. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:493-502, 1995[CrossRef][Medline]

61. Hinerman RW, Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, et al: Carcinoma of the supraglottic larynx: Treatment results with radiotherapy alone or with planned neck dissection. Head Neck 24:456-467, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]

62. Iro H, Waldfahrer F, Altendorf-Hofmann A, et al: Transoral laser surgery of supraglottic cancer: Follow-up of 141 patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124:1245-1250, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

63. Kim RY, Marks ME, Salter MM: Early-stage glottic cancer: Importance of dose fractionation in radiation therapy. Radiology 182:273-275, 1992[Abstract/Free Full Text]

64. Le QT, Fu KK, Kroll S, et al: Influence of fraction size, total dose, and overall time on local control of T1–T2 glottic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:115-126, 1997[Medline]

65. Lee NK, Goepfert H, Wendt CD: Supraglottic laryngectomy for intermediate-stage cancer: UT MD Anderson Cancer Center experience with combined therapy. Laryngoscope 100:831-836, 1990[Medline]

66. Lutz CK, Johnson JT, Wagner RL, et al: Supraglottic carcinoma: Patterns of recurrence. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 99:12-17, 1990[Medline]

67. Mancuso AA, Mukherji SK, Schmalfuss I, et al: Preradiotherapy computed tomography as a predictor of local control in supraglottic carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 17:631-637, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]

68. Motta G, Esposito E, Testa D, et al: CO2 laser treatment of supraglottic cancer. Head Neck 26:442-446, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

69. Parsons JT, Mendenhall WM, Stringer SP, et al: Radiotherapy alone for moderately advanced laryngeal cancer (T2-T3). Semin Radiat Oncol 2:158-162, 1992[CrossRef][Medline]

70. Parsons JT, Mendenhall WM, Stringer SP, et al: Salvage surgery following radiation failure in squamous cell carcinoma of the supraglottic larynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:605-609, 1995[CrossRef][Medline]

71. Rudert HH, Werner JA, Hoft S: Transoral carbon dioxide laser resection of supraglottic carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 108:819-827, 1999[Medline]

72. Spriano G, Antognoni P, Piantanida R, et al: Conservative management of T1-T2N0 supraglottic cancer: A retrospective study. Am J Otolaryngol 18:299-305, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

73. van der Voet JC, Keus RB, Hart AA, et al: The impact of treatment time and smoking on local control and complications in T1 glottic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:247-255, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]

74. Wendt CD, Peters LJ, Ang KK, et al: Hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of squamous cell carcinomas of the supraglottic larynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:1057-1062, 1989[Medline]

75. Yu E, Shenouda G, Beaudet MP, et al: Impact of radiation therapy fraction size on local control of early glottic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:587-591, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

76. Fu KK, Pajak TF, Trotti A, et al: A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare hyperfractionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: First report of RTOG 9003. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:7-16, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

77. Forastiere AA, Goepfert H, Maor M, et al: Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for organ preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 349:2091-2098, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]

78. Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer: The Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group. N Engl J Med 324:1685-1690, 1991[Abstract]

79. Adelstein DJ, Lavertu P, Saxton JP, et al: Mature results of a phase III randomized trial comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiation therapy alone in patients with stage III and IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer 88:876-883, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

80. Adelstein DJ, Saxton JP, Lavertu P, et al: A phase III randomized trial comparing concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone in resectable stage III and IV squamous cell head and neck cancer: Preliminary results. Head Neck 19:567-575, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

81. Lefebvre JL, Chevalier D, Luboinski B, et al: 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 88:890-899, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]

82. Richard JM, Sancho-Garnier H, Pessey JJ, et al: Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy in larynx carcinoma. Oral Oncol 34:224-228, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]

83. Bhalavat RL, Fakih AR, Mistry RC, et al: Radical radiation vs surgery plus post-operative radiation in advanced (resectable) supraglottic larynx and pyriform sinus cancer: A prospective randomized study. Eur J Surg Oncol 29:750-756, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]

84. Brizel DM, Albers ME, Fisher SR, et al: Hyperfractionated irradiation with or without concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 338:1798-1804, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

85. Jeremic B, Shibamoto Y, Milicic B, et al: Hyperfractionated radiation therapy with or without concurrent low-dose daily cisplatin in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 18:1458-1464, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

86. Bourhis J, Etessami A, Wilbault P, et al: Altered fractionated radiotherapy in the management of head and neck carcinomas: Advantages and limitations. Curr Opin Oncol 16:215-219, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

87. Browman GP, Hodson DI, Mackenzie RJ, et al: Choosing a concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimen for squamous cell head and neck cancer: A systematic review of the published literature with subgroup analysis. Head Neck 23:579-589, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]

88. Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Domenge C, et al: Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: Three meta-analyses of updated individual data—MACH-NC Collaborative Group: Meta-analysis of chemotherapy on head and neck cancer. Lancet 355:949-955, 2000[Medline]

89. Bron L, Brossard E, Monnier P, et al: Supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy and cricohyoidopexy for glottic and supraglottic carcinomas. Laryngoscope 110:627-634, 2000[Cro