Evidence Hub

Prognostic Subgroups for Disease-Free Survival With Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Sandro Porceddu, E. Connolly, M. Bressel, Christopher Wratten, Howard Liu, D. Rischin

JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025

321 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Importance

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is a common cancer, and approximately 5% of cases present with high-risk features, such as regional nodal metastases. Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) improves outcomes in this group, but the TROG 05.01 trial found no added benefit of concurrent chemotherapy. Identification of patients with poor disease-free survival (DFS) is critical to optimize future adjuvant treatment strategies.

Objective

To identify a subgroup of patients with poor DFS following PORT with or without concurrent chemotherapy who may be appropriate candidates for future adjuvant trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a secondary analysis of the prospective, randomized phase 3 TROG 05.01 trial, which enrolled 321 patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck between April 2005 and July 2014 at multiple centers in Australia. Data were analyzed in January 2025. A recursive partitioning analysis using classification and regression trees was applied to identify prognostic subgroups. Disease-free and overall survival (OS) were measured from randomization until relapse or death, with appropriate censoring.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was DFS; secondary outcomes included OS and identification of prognostic subgroups.

Results

Of 321 patients randomized, 310 (23 female individuals [7%] and 287 male individuals [93%]; median [range] age, 64 [32-85] years) initiated the allocated treatment. The recursive…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 321 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free