Biomarkers in Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: The Literature Review

Laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) is the second most common cancer among head and neck cancers. Despite a lower incidence of laryngeal carcinoma, new diagnostic techniques, and more targeted therapies, the overall survival has not changed significantly in the last decades, leading to a negative prognosis in advanced stages. Recently, several studies have focused on the identification of biomarkers that may play a critical role in the pathogenesis of LSCC. Reviewing the literature on the main databases, this study aims to investigate the role of some biomarkers in LSCC that are correlated with oxidative stress and inflammation: heat shock proteins; metallothioneins; nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2; heme oxygenase; cyclooxygenase-2; and micro ribonucleic acids. This review shows that biomarker expression depends on the type, grade of differentiation, stage, and site of carcinoma. In addition, the role of these biomarkers in LSCC is still little-known and little-studied. However, the study of biomarker expression and the detection of a possible correlation with patients’ epidemiological, clinicopathological, and therapeutics data may lead to better awareness and knowledge of the tumor, to the identification of the best therapeutic strategy, and the most proper follow-up protocol tailored for each patient. In conclusion, the achievement of these goals may improve the prognosis of LSCC patients

Analysis of the correlations between the severity of lung involvement and olfactory psychophysical scores in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients

Interstitial pneumonia is an important complication of COVID-19 and a reliable negative prognostic factor. This study aimed to analyze the correlation between olfactory psychophysical scores and severity of lung involvement detected by chest computed tomography in COVID-19 patients suspected of having interstitial pneumonia. We also evaluated whether severity of respiratory disease predicted recovery of olfactory dysfunction

Psychophysical assessment of olfactory and gustatory function in post-mild COVID-19 patients: A matched case-control study with two-year follow-up

Background: The aim of this study was to psychophysically evaluate the prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction two years after mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to that observed at one-year follow-up and while considering the background of chemosensory dysfunction in the no-COVID-19 population. Method: This is a prospective case-control study 93 patients with PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection and 93 matched controls. Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was assessed by Sino-nasal-Outcome-Test-22, item "Sense of smell or taste". Psychophysical ortho- and retronasal olfactory function and gustatory performance were estimated using the extended Sniffin' Sticks test battery, 20 powdered tasteless aromas, and taste strips test, respectively. Nasal trigeminal sensitivity was assessed by sniffing a 70% solution of acetic acid. Results: The two psychophysical assessments of chemosensory function took place after a median of 409 days (range: 366-461) and 765 days (range: 739-800) from the first SARS-CoV-2 positive swab, respectively. At two-year follow-up, cases exhibited a decrease in the prevalence of olfactory (27.9%% vs 42.0%; absolute difference, -14.0%; 95% CI, -21.8% to -2.6%; p = 0.016) and gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs 25.8%; absolute difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -24.2% to 0.6%; p = 0.098). Subjects with prior COVID-19 were more likely than controls to have an olfactory (27.9% vs 10.8 %; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 5.2% to 28.8%) but not gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs 9.7%; absolute difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 14.4% p = 0.496) still two years after the infection. Overall, 3.2% of cases were still anosmic two-year after the infection. Conclusions: While a proportion of subjects recovered from long-lasting smell/taste dysfunction more than one year after COVID-19, cases still exhibited a significant excess of olfactory dysfunction two years after SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared to matched controls

Accuracy of ChatGPT-Generated Information on Head and Neck and Oromaxillofacial Surgery: A Multicenter Collaborative Analysis

Objective: To investigate the accuracy of Chat-Based Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in answering questions and solving clinical scenarios of head and neck surgery. Study design: Observational and valuative study. Setting: Eighteen surgeons from 14 Italian head and neck surgery units. Methods: A total of 144 clinical questions encompassing different subspecialities of head and neck surgery and 15 comprehensive clinical scenarios were developed. Questions and scenarios were inputted into ChatGPT4, and the resulting answers were evaluated by the researchers using accuracy (range 1-6), completeness (range 1-3), and references' quality Likert scales. Results: The overall median score of open-ended questions was 6 (interquartile range[IQR]: 5-6) for accuracy and 3 (IQR: 2-3) for completeness. Overall, the reviewers rated the answer as entirely or nearly entirely correct in 87.2% of cases and as comprehensive and covering all aspects of the question in 73% of cases. The artificial intelligence (AI) model achieved a correct response in 84.7% of the closed-ended questions (11 wrong answers). As for the clinical scenarios, ChatGPT provided a fully or nearly fully correct diagnosis in 81.7% of cases. The proposed diagnostic or therapeutic procedure was judged to be complete in 56.7% of cases. The overall quality of the bibliographic references was poor, and sources were nonexistent in 46.4% of the cases. Conclusion: The results generally demonstrate a good level of accuracy in the AI's answers. The AI's ability to resolve complex clinical scenarios is promising, but it still falls short of being considered a reliable support for the decision-making process of specialists in head-neck surgery

Appropriateness for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeons in case of pregnancy, breastfeeding, or childbearing potential: Yo-IFOS and CEORL-HNS joint clinical consensus statement

Purpose SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a key step in fighting the pandemic. Nevertheless, their rapid development did not allow for testing among specific population subgroups such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, or elaborating specific guidelines for healthcare personnel working in high infection risk specialties, such as otolaryngology (ORL). This clinical consensus statement (CCS) aims to offer guidance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to this high-risk population based on the best evidence available. Methods A multidisciplinary international panel of 33 specialists judged statements through a two-round modified Delphi method survey. Statements were designed to encompass the following topics: risk of SARS-Cov-2 infection and use of protective equipment in ORL; SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines and respective risks for the mother/child dyad; and counseling for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnant, breastfeeding, or fertile healthcare workers (PBFHW). All ORL PBFHW were considered as the target audience. Results Of the 13 statements, 7 reached consensus or strong consensus, 2 reached no consensus, and 2 reached near-consensus. According to the statements with strong consensus otorhinolaryngologists-head and neck surgeons who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or with childbearing potential should have the opportunity to receive SARS-Cov-2 vaccination. Moreover, personal protective equipment (PPE) should still be used even after the vaccination. Conclusion Until prospective evaluations on these topics are available, ORL-HNS must be considered a high infection risk specialty. While the use of PPE remains pivotal, ORL PBFHW should be allowed access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination provided they receive up-to-date information

Objective Olfactory Findings in Hospitalized Severe COVID-19 Patients

Objective: We investigate the prevalence of the self-reported and objective sudden loss of smell (SLS) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Severe COVID-19 patients with self-reported SLS were recruited at hospitalization discharge. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected. The Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) was used to evaluate rhinological complaints. Subjective olfactory and gustatory functions were assessed with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNES). Objective SLS was evaluated using psychophysical tests. Potential associations between olfactory evaluation and the clinical outcomes (duration of hospitalization; admission biology; one month serology (IgG), and chest computed tomography findings) were studied. Results: Forty-seven patients completed the study (25 females). Subjectively, eighteen (38.3%) individuals self-reported subjective partial or total SLS. Among them, only three and four were anosmic and hyposmic, respectively (38.9%). Considering the objective evaluation in the entire cohort, the prevalence of SLS was 21.3%. Elderly patients and those with diabetes had lower objective olfactory evaluation results than young and non-diabetic individuals. Conclusions: The prevalence of SLS in severe COVID-19 patients appears to be lower than previously estimated in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 forms. Future comparative studies are needed to explore the predictive value of SLS for COVID-19 severity

Personalized Treatments Based on Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patient Profiles: A Narrative Review

Objective: To review the current findings of the literature on the existence of several profiles of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients and to propose personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Methods: A state-of-the art review of the literature was conducted using the PubMED, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The information related to epidemiology, demographics, clinical presentations, diagnostic approaches, and therapeutic responses were extracted to identify outcomes that may influence the clinical and therapeutic courses of LPR. Results: The clinical presentation and therapeutic courses of LPR may be influenced by gender, age, weight, comorbidities, dietary habits and culture, anxiety, stress, and saliva enzyme profile. The clinical expression of reflux, including laryngopharyngeal, respiratory, nasal, and eye symptoms, and the hypopharyngeal–esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring profile of patients are important issues to improve in patient management. The use of more personalized therapeutic strategies appears to be associated with better symptom relief and cures over the long-term. The role of pepsin in LPR physiology is well-established but the lack of information about the role of other gastrointestinal enzymes in the development of LPR-related mucosa inflammation limits the development of future enzyme-based personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Conclusion: Laryngopharyngeal reflux is a challenging ear, nose, and throat condition associated with poor therapeutic responses and a long-term burden in Western countries. Artificial intelligence should be used for developing personalized therapeutic strategies based on patient features

Clinical Update Findings about pH-Impedance Monitoring Features in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients

Purpose: The diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is commonly based on non-specific symptoms and findings and a positive response to an empirical therapeutic trial. The therapeutic response is, however, unpredictable, and many patients need pH-impedance monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. Methods: A review of the recent literature was conducted in PubMED, Scopus, and Embase about the pH-study features of LPR patients. A summary of last evidence was proposed. Results: The awareness of otolaryngologists about indications and interpretation of pH-impedance monitoring is low. The hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) is the most reliable examination determining the type and composition of hypopharyngeal reflux events (HRE) and the LPR features. The use of HEMII-pH is important to confirm the diagnosis in selected patients because non-specificity of symptoms and findings. There are no international consensus guidelines for the LPR diagnosis at the HEMII-pH. However, most studies supported the occurrence of >1 acid/weakly acid/nonacid HRE as diagnostic threshold. HREs are more frequently gaseous, weakly/nonacid compared with reflux events of gastroesophageal reflux. HREs occurred as daytime and upright, which does not support the value of double proton pump inhibitors or bedtime alginate. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is another approach reporting different sensitivity and specificity outcomes from HEMII-pH. The use of Ryan score for the LPR diagnosis at the oropharyngeal pH monitoring may be controversial regarding the low consideration of alkaline HREs. Conclusions: The awareness of otolaryngologists about HEMII-pH indication, features, and interpretation is an important issue regarding the high prevalence of LPR in outpatients consulting in otolaryngology. The HEMII-pH findings may indicate a more personalized treatment considering type and occurrence time of HREs