Palliative treatment standards for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma : Survey of clinical routine in German-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: The EXTREME (Erbitux in First-Line Treatment of Recurrent and Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma) protocol is generally considered the gold standard in palliative first-line treatment. However, there is some disagreement about its effectivity, toxicity, and applicability in daily clinical routine. The purpose of this cross-sectional survey was to describe the palliative treatment offered in German-speaking countries.

METHODS: From November 2013 to July 2014, 204 departments of otorhinolaryngology (ORL) in Germany, Austria, and the German-speaking parts of Switzerland were contacted and invited to take part in a web-based survey on the treatment of HNSCC.

RESULTS: In all, 62 of 204 treatment centers (30.4 %) participated in the survey. Of these, 58 departments offered palliative systemic therapy to their patients; 19 of 58 (32.8 %) treated patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy in their own ORL departments, while 40 of 58 (69 %) upheld a cooperation with medical oncologists in the same hospital and 24 of 58 (41.4 %) with medical oncologic practices. Many of these treatment centers offered multiple locations for treatment. Of the 58 departments, 56 provided an institutional standard for first-line palliative treatment, 13 for second-line, and two for third-line treatment. In 42 of 58 departments the EXTREME protocol was the institutional standard of care for first-line treatment. Moreover, 12 of 58 departments mentioned an individual protocol and two of 58 the inclusion in clinical trials as their local standard. The assessment of patients who could be treated with the first-line standard ranged from 0 to 95 % with a mean of 44.5 %.

CONCLUSION: Palliative systemic therapy seems to be well standardized for first-line treatment, whereas there is little standardization in second- and third-line treatments. A large variation was found regarding the estimate of the applicability of the institutional standard. Reasons for this could be the physicians' individual experience as well as the varying assessment regarding the toxicity of palliative systemic therapy.