National Improvement of Waiting Times:First Results From the Dutch Head and Neck Audit

ObjectiveTimely treatment initiation in head and neck cancer (HNC) care is of great importance regarding survival, oncological, functional, and psychological outcomes. Therefore, waiting times are assessed in the Dutch Head and Neck Audit (DHNA). This audit aims to assess and improve the quality of care through feedback and benchmarking. For this study, we examined how waiting times evolved since the start of the DHNA.Study DesignProspective cohort study.SettingNational multicentre study.MethodsThe DHNA was established in 2014 and reached national coverage of all patients treated for primary HNC in 2019. DHNA data on curative patients from 2015 to 2021 was extracted on national (benchmark) and hospital level. We determined 3 measures for waiting time: (1) the care pathway interval (CPI, first visit to start treatment), (2) the time to treatment interval (TTI, biopsy to start treatment), and (3) CPI-/TTI-indicators (percentage of patients starting treatment ≤30 days). The Dutch national quality norm for the CPI-indicator is 80%.ResultsThe benchmark median CPI and TTI improved between 2015 and 2021 from 37 to 26 days and 37 to 33 days, respectively. Correspondingly, the CPI- and TTI-indicators, respectively, increased from 39% to 64% and 35% to 40% in 2015 to 2021. Outcomes for all hospitals improved and dispersion between hospitals declined. Four hospitals exceeded the 80% quality norm in 2021.ConclusionWaiting times improved gradually over time, with 4 hospitals exceeding the quality standard in 2021. On the hospital-level, process improvement plans have been initiated. Systematic registration, auditing, and feedback of data support the improvement of quality of care

Surgical margins and survival after head and neck cancer surgery

BACKGROUND: Mixed results exist as to whether positive surgical margins impact survival. The aim of this study was to determine whether positive surgical margins are indeed associated with decreased survival in patients with primary head and neck cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 261 cases diagnosed with cancer of the larynx or tongue between 1995 and 1999. Cases were followed through December 31, 2002. Survival curves by margin status were generated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Categorical data were evaluated with odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: All-cause mortality was markedly higher in cases with positive margins as compared with those with negative margins (54% versus 29%, P = 0.005). This pattern also appeared after adjusting for age and sex (OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.29 – 6.84). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that positive surgical margin status is associated with increased mortality. This association also generally persists after adjustment for tumor size, stage, and adjuvant therapy

Facial deformation following treatment for pediatric head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma; the difference between treatment modalities. Results of a trans-Atlantic, multicenter cross-sectional cohort study

BACKGROUND: The four different local therapy strategies used for head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma (HNRMS) include proton therapy (PT), photon therapy (RT), surgery with radiotherapy (Paris-method), and surgery with brachytherapy (AMORE). Local control and survival is comparable; however, the impact of these different treatments on facial deformation is still poorly understood. This study aims to quantify facial deformation and investigates the differences in facial deformation between treatment modalities. METHODS: Across four European and North American institutions, HNRMS survivors treated between 1990 and 2017, more than 2 years post treatment, had a 3D photograph taken. Using dense surface modeling, we computed facial signatures for each survivor to show facial deformation relative to 35 age–sex–ethnicity-matched controls. Additionally, we computed individual facial asymmetry. FINDINGS: A total of 173 HNRMS survivors were included, survivors showed significantly reduced facial growth (p < .001) compared to healthy controls. Partitioned by tumor site, there was reduced facial growth in survivors with nonparameningeal primaries (p = .002), and parameningeal primaries (p ≤.001), but not for orbital primaries (p = .080) All patients were significantly more asymmetric than healthy controls, independent of treatment modality (p ≤ .001). There was significantly more facial deformation in orbital patients when comparing RT to AMORE (p = .046). In survivors with a parameningeal tumor, there was significantly less facial deformation in PT when compared to RT (p = .009) and Paris-method (p = .007). INTERPRETATION: When selecting optimal treatment, musculoskeletal facial outcomes are an expected difference between treatment options. These anticipated differences are currently based on clinicians’ bias, expertise, and experience. These data supplement clinician judgment with an objective analysis highlighting the impact of patient age and tumor site between existing treatment options

Non-parameningeal head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma in children, adolescents, and young adults: Experience of the European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) – RMS2005 study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to analyse and evaluate the impact of different local treatments on the pattern of relapse in children with primary head and neck non-parameningeal (HNnPM) rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), treated in the European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) RMS2005 study. The secondary aim was to assess whether current risk stratification is valid for this specific site. DESIGN/METHODS: This study includes all patients with localised HNnPM RMS enrolled in the RMS2005 study between 2005 and 2016. Treatment comprised chemotherapy adapted to risk group, with local surgery and/or radiation therapy. The main outcome measures were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were identified; the median age was 6.4 years (range, 0.1–25). The most common tumour sites were cheek/chin (22%) and nasal ala/nasolabial fold (20%). Histology was unfavourable for 40%, and regional nodal involvement present in 26%. Local therapy included surgery (58%) and/or radiotherapy (72%) to primary tumour and/or regional lymph nodes. After a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 6–158), 42 patients experienced an event, and 17 are still alive. Tumour events were frequent in oral primary (36%), parotid site (26%), cheek/chin (24%), and nasal ala/nasolabial fold (24%) and included locoregional failure in 84% of cases. The 5-year EFS and OS were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.3–81.2) and 84.9% (95% CI: 77.5–89.7), respectively. Favourable histology was associated with a better EFS (82.3% versus 64.6%; p = 0.02) and nodal spread with a worse OS (88.6% versus 76.1%; p = 0.04). Different sublocations within the HNnPM primary did not have significant impact on outcome. CONCLUSION: Locoregional relapse/progression is the main tumour failure event in this site. Despite frequent unfavourable risk factors, HNnPM RMS remains a favourable location in the context of a risk-adapted strategy

Complex reconstructions in head and neck cancer surgery: decision making

Defects in head and neck after tumor resection often provide significant functional and cosmetic deformity. The challenge for reconstruction is not only the aesthetic result, but the functional repair. Cancer may involve composite elements and the in sano resection may lead to an extensive tissue defect. No prospective randomized controlled studies for comparison of different free flaps are available. There are many options to cover defects and restore function in the head and neck area, however we conclude from experience that nearly all defects in head and neck can be closed by 5 different free flaps: radial forearm flap, free fibula flap, anterior lateral thigh flap, lateral arm flap and parascapular flap

Rare predicted loss-of-function variants of type I IFN immunity genes are associated with life-threatening COVID-19

Background: We previously reported that impaired type I IFN activity, due to inborn errors of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I interferon (IFN) immunity or to autoantibodies against type I IFN, account for 15–20% of cases of life-threatening COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients. Therefore, the determinants of life-threatening COVID-19 remain to be identified in ~ 80% of cases. Methods: We report here a genome-wide rare variant burden association analysis in 3269 unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19, and 1373 unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals without pneumonia. Among the 928 patients tested for autoantibodies against type I IFN, a quarter (234) were positive and were excluded. Results: No gene reached genome-wide significance. Under a recessive model, the most significant gene with at-risk variants was TLR7, with an OR of 27.68 (95%CI 1.5–528.7, P = 1.1 × 10−4) for biochemically loss-of-function (bLOF) variants. We replicated the enrichment in rare predicted LOF (pLOF) variants at 13 influenza susceptibility loci involved in TLR3-dependent type I IFN immunity (OR = 3.70[95%CI 1.3–8.2], P = 2.1 × 10−4). This enrichment was further strengthened by (1) adding the recently reported TYK2 and TLR7 COVID-19 loci, particularly under a recessive model (OR = 19.65[95%CI 2.1–2635.4], P = 3.4 × 10−3), and (2) considering as pLOF branchpoint variants with potentially strong impacts on splicing among the 15 loci (OR = 4.40[9%CI 2.3–8.4], P = 7.7 × 10−8). Finally, the patients with pLOF/bLOF variants at these 15 loci were significantly younger (mean age [SD] = 43.3 [20.3] years) than the other patients (56.0 [17.3] years; P = 1.68 × 10−5). Conclusions: Rare variants of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I IFN immunity genes can underlie life-threatening COVID-19, particularly with recessive inheritance, in patients under 60&nbsp;years old

Guideline for Care of Patients with the Diagnoses of Craniosynostosis: Working Group on Craniosynostosis

This guideline for care of children with craniosynostosis was developed by a national working group with representatives of 11 matrix societies of specialties and the national patients' society. All medical aspects of care for nonsyndromic and syndromic craniosynostosis are included, as well as the social and psychologic impact for the patient and their parents. Managerial aspects are incorporated as well, such as organizing a timely referral to the craniofacial center, requirements for a dedicated craniofacial center, and centralization of this specialized care. The conclusions and recommendations within this document are founded on the available literature, with a grading of the level of evidence, thereby highlighting the areas of care that are in need of high-quality research. The development of this guideline was made possible by an educational grant of the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists. The development of this guideline was supported by an educational grant of the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists