Quality of life outcomes comparing primary Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) with primary radiotherapy for early-stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) and radiotherapy are considered oncologically equivalent primary treatment options for early-stage HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are therefore imperative in supporting clinical decision-making and optimising patient-centred care. The aim of this article is to evaluate how these primary treatment modalities compare in terms of QoL. Materials and methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing primary TORS and primary radiotherapy for OPSCC using validated QoL tools. Swallowing and global QoL were the primary endpoints with secondary endpoints including all other QoL domains. An inverse variance random-effects model was employed to calculate the weighted estimate of the treatment effects across trials. Results: A total of six studies collectively reporting on 555 patients were included (n = 236 TORS and n = 319 radiotherapy). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference for swallowing (mean difference = −0.24, p = 0.89) and global QoL (mean difference = 4.55, p = 0.14). For the remaining QoL domains (neck/shoulder impairment, neurotoxicity, voice, xerostomia, speech, and distress), the scarcity of data did not permit meta-analysis. However, the existing data showed no significant difference for any except for xerostomia where TORS appears favourable in the sole study reporting on this. Conclusions: TORS and radiotherapy appear to be comparable primary treatment options for early stage OPSCC when it comes to QoL. However, a substantial proportion of patients in the TORS group received adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy rendering it difficult to establish the ‘true’ QoL outcomes following surgery alone. There are also minimal studies reporting QoL outcomes beyond swallowing and global QoL. Further research is therefore needed, including more randomised trials adequately powered to detect differences in QoL outcomes.