Incidence and documentation of ear lobe numbness after parotidectomy: our 20 years' experience

Introduction: Parotidectomy carries a risk of postoperative complications including facial nerve palsy and Frey’s syndrome. Less attention, however, has been given to the management of the greater auricular nerve (GAN) during parotidectomy. Providing sensory supply to the auricle, the greater auricular nerve is often sacrificed for access to the parotid gland during surgery. This results in anaesthesia and paraesthesia of the ear lobe and significant patient morbidity. Aim: To review the electronically available documentation of post-parotidectomy ear lobe numbness in our follow-up clinic letters of the past 20 years. Methods: For this retrospective case series our departmental database of over 850 patients undergoing parotidectomy was used as the primary data source. The information collected from electronic records included documentation of intraoperative details, post-operative recovery and incidence of ear lobe numbness post-operatively. The current study was completed between October and November 2020. SPSS and Excel were used for data collection and analysis. Results: The incidence of ear lobe numbness was found to be higher in the patient cohort whose posterior branch of the GAN had been sacrificed during surgery (58% compared to 46%). This agrees with the published literature that preservation of the posterior branch of the GAN decreases the post-operative sensory deficit to the auricle. However, this audit was limited by the incomplete recording of GAN sacrifice intra-operatively and post-operative GAN dysfunction. Discussion: As any tissue removed, added or altered in surgery requires accurate record-keeping, the outcome of the greater auricular nerve during parotidectomy should always be included in the operation notes. A proforma made available within the department may allow for a standardised recording of recognised complications

Use of PerClot® in head and neck surgery : A Scottish Centre experience

The audit was registered with the institutional clinical effectiveness department.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Cataract surgery redesign : meeting increasing demand, training, audit and patient-centered care

Objective: The demand for cataract surgery in Fife (a well-defined region in southeast Scotland) was steadily increasing over 15 years. Cataract surgery was therefore being outsourced to meet demand with consequences on list mix, training needs, patient experience and staff morale. We aimed to redesign our services to meet local demand, retain a patient-centered service and continue to fulfil training needs. Methods: We quantified cataract surgery delivery over an 18-month period: before, during and after redesign of services. We studied numbers of operations, trainee cases and number of outsourced cases. We also considered the economic implications of the redesign. Results: We studied three periods (each of six months duration): before redesign (BR), redesign period (RP) and post-redesign (PR). Data were collected on total operation numbers, number of cases performed by trainees, and numbers performed out with normal working hours (weekend lists) and external providers. An economic analysis examined the cost of outsourcing cataracts during BR and RP and the costs of the redesign, including building, equipment and additional nursing staff. Conclusion: Regional fulfilment of cataract surgery provision remains a continuous challenge within the NHS. We show that with minimal investment, smart redesign process and collaborative working, increased local provision is possible while fulfilling trainee needs and achieving the necessary clinical audits and national standards.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Olaparib plus Durvalumab, with or without Bevacizumab, as Treatment in PARP Inhibitor-Na\uefve Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase II Multi-Cohort Study

\ua92023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research. PURPOSE: Early results from the phase II MEDIOLA study (NCT02734004) in germline BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) showed promising efficacy and safety with olaparib plus durvalumab. We report efficacy and safety of olaparib plus durvalumab in an expansion cohort of women with gBRCAm PSROC (gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort) and two cohorts with non-gBRCAm PSROC, one of which also received bevacizumab (non-gBRCAm doublet and triplet cohorts). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, PARP inhibitor-na\uefve patients received olaparib plus durvalumab treatment until disease progression; the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort also received bevacizumab. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort), disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks (non-gBRCAm cohorts), and safety (all cohorts). RESULTS: The full analysis and safety analysis sets comprised 51, 32, and 31 patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively. ORR was 92.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-97.8] in the gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort (primary endpoint); DCR at 24 weeks was 28.1% (90% CI, 15.5-43.9) in the non-gBRCAm doublet cohort (primary endpoint) and 74.2% (90% CI, 58.2-86.5) in the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort (primary endpoint). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 47.1%, 65.6%, and 61.3% of patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively, most commonly anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus durvalumab continued to show notable clinical activity in women with gBRCAm PSROC. Olaparib plus durvalumab with bevacizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in women with non-gBRCAm PSROC. No new safety signals were identified

Loss of Heterozygosity on Chromosomes 3p, 8p, 9p and 17p in the Progression of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Larynx

Previous molecular genetic studies of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)have shown certain chromosomal regions with recurring alterations. But studies of sequential molecular alterations and genetic progression model of laryngeal SCC have not been clearly defined. To identify the chromosomal alterations associated with the carcinogenesis of laryngeal SCC, we analyzed genomic DNA from microdissected squamous metaplasia, squamous dysplasia, invasive SCC, and metastatic carcinoma samples from 22 laryngeal SCC patients for loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at microsatellite loci. Ten microsatellite markers on chromosome 3p, 8p, 9p, and 17p were used. LOH at 9p21 was observed in the all stages including squamous metaplasia, squamous dysplasia, invasive SCC and metastatic carcinoma. LOH at 17p13.1, 3p25 and 3p14.2 was observed from the squamous dysplasia, invasive SCC and metastatic carcinoma. LOH at 8p21.3-p22 was observed mainly from the invasive SCC and metastatic carcinoma. The results suggest that 9p21 in the early event, 17p13.1, 3p25 and 3p14.2 in the intermediate event and 8p21.3-p22 in the late event may be involved in the laryngeal carcinogenesis

Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial

In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up

Overall Survival With Maintenance Olaparib at a 7-Year Follow-Up in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA Mutation: The SOLO1/GOG 3004 Trial.

PURPOSE: In SOLO1/GOG 3004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844986), maintenance therapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib provided a sustained progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation. We report overall survival (OS) after a 7-year follow-up, a clinically relevant time point and the longest follow-up for any poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the first-line setting. METHODS: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance olaparib (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) for up to 2 years. A prespecified descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary end point, was conducted after a 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 24.6 months with olaparib and 13.9 months with placebo, and the median follow-up was 88.9 and 87.4 months, respectively. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.76; P = .0004 [P < .0001 required to declare statistical significance]). At 7 years, 67.0% of olaparib patients versus 46.5% of placebo patients were alive, and 45.3% versus 20.6%, respectively, were alive and had not received a first subsequent treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimates). The incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia remained low, and new primary malignancies remained balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a clinically meaningful, albeit not statistically significant according to prespecified criteria, improvement in OS with maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation and support the use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission in this setting; the potential for cure may also be enhanced. No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up

Conservative management versus tonsillectomy in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis in the UK (NATTINA) : a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (12/146/06).Background Tonsillectomy is regularly performed in adults with acute tonsillitis, but with scarce evidence. A reduction in tonsillectomies has coincided with an increase in acute adult hospitalisation for tonsillitis complications. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative management versus tonsillectomy in patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Methods This pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted in 27 hospitals in the UK. Participants were adults aged 16 years or older who were newly referred to secondary care otolaryngology clinics with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tonsillectomy or conservative management using random permuted blocks of variable length. Stratification by recruiting centre and baseline symptom severity was assessed using the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score (categories defined as mild 0–35, moderate 36–48, or severe 49–70). Participants in the tonsillectomy group received elective surgery to dissect the palatine tonsils within 8 weeks after random assignment and those in the conservative management group received standard non-surgical care during 24 months. The primary outcome was the number of sore throat days collected during 24 months after random assignment, reported once per week with a text message. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 55284102. Findings Between May 11, 2015, and April 30, 2018, 4165 participants with recurrent acute tonsillitis were assessed for eligibility and 3712 were excluded. 453 eligible participants were randomly assigned (233 in the immediate tonsillectomy group vs 220 in the conservative management group). 429 (95%) patients were included in the primary ITT analysis (224 vs 205). The median age of participants was 23 years (IQR 19–30), with 355 (78%) females and 97 (21%) males. Most participants were White (407 [90%]). Participants in the immediate tonsillectomy group had fewer days of sore throat during 24 months than those in the conservative management group (median 23 days [IQR 11–46] vs 30 days [14–65]). After adjustment for site and baseline severity, the incident rate ratio of total sore throat days in the immediate tonsillectomy group (n=224) compared with the conservative management group (n=205) was 0·53 (95% CI 0·43 to 0·65;Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat:the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain.OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways.DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation.SETTING: The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain.PARTICIPANTS: A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms.RESULTS: There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12-52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11-46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14-65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it.LIMITATIONS: The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial.CONCLUSIONS: The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective.TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102.FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. </p