Letter to the editor in reference to : "A web-based prediction score for head and neck cancer referrals"

Sir, We read with interest the article by Lau et al (2018) on the design of a web‐based prediction score for head and neck cancer (HNC) referrals. The authors state that there are no similar scoring systems available in the literature that are web‐based and applicable to the two‐week‐wait referrals. Over the last years, risk calculators for common cancer have been extensively explored and are available online, aiming to improve cancer referral pathways and detection.1, 2 A HNC risk calculator (HNC‐RC) based on symptoms and demographics has also been developed and is available online (Sensitivity: 74.8%; specificity: 65.9%; and overall predictive power (AUC): 0.77).3 It has also been externally validated maintaining its discriminatory ability (sensitivity: 79.3%; specificity: 68.6%; and AUC: 0.81). In their abstract, Lau et al have stated that logistic regression and artificial network machine approached have been used. Despite this, only the former was employed, as mentioned in their methodology section, due to time‐related restrictions and effort required to ensure an error‐free algorithm

A comparison of attitudes to laryngeal cancer treatment outcomes: a time trade-off study

Design: Time trade-off choice experiment. Setting: Two large head and neck cancer centres. Participants: Patients who have received treatment for head and neck cancer and members of the head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team. Main outcome measures: Participants were asked to rank the outcome scenarios, assign utility values using time trade-off and rate the importance of survival on treatment choice. Results: 49 head and neck cancer patients and 73 staff members were recruited. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) optimal outcome was the most preferred health state (34/49, 69% patients and 50/73, 68% staff) and CRT with complications was least preferred (27/49 55% patients and 51/73 70% staff). Using time trade-off, mean utility values were calculated for CRT optimal outcome (0.73 for patients, 0.77 for staff), total laryngectomy (TL) optimal outcome (0.67 for patients, 0.69 for staff), TL outcome with complications (0.46 for patients, 0.51 for staff) and CRT with complications (0.36 for patients, 0.49 for staff). The average survival advantage required for a participant to change their preferred choice was 2.6 years. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that a significant proportion of head and neck cancer patients and staff members would not choose CRT to manage locally advanced laryngeal cancer. Staff members rated the health states associated with laryngeal cancer treatment higher than patients who have experienced them, and this is particularly evident when considering the poorer outcomes. The head and neck cancer community should develop methods of practice and decision making which incorporate elicitation and reporting of patient values as a central principle

What is the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of oral cancer in 2010?

Item does not contain fulltext1 juni 201

Salvage carbon dioxide transoral laser microsurgery for laryngeal cancer after (chemo)radiotherapy : a European Laryngological Society consensus statement

Purpose To provide expert opinion and consensus on salvage carbon dioxide transoral laser microsurgery (CO2 TOLMS) for recurrent laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) after (chemo)radiotherapy [(C)RT]. Methods Expert members of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) Cancer and Dysplasia Committee were selected to create a dedicated panel on salvage CO2 TOLMS for LSCC. A series of statements regarding the critical aspects of decision-making were drafted, circulated, and modified or excluded in accordance with the Delphi process. Results The expert panel reached full consensus on 19 statements through a total of three sequential evaluation rounds. These statements were focused on different aspects of salvage CO2 TOLMS, with particular attention on preoperative diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, postoperative management, complications, functional outcomes, and follow-up. Conclusion Management of recurrent LSCC after (C)RT is challenging and is based on the need to find a balance between oncologic and functional outcomes. Salvage CO2 TOLMS is a minimally invasive approach that can be applied to selected patients with strict and careful indications. Herein, a series of statements based on an ELS expert consensus aimed at guiding the main aspects of CO2 TOLMS for LSCC in the salvage setting is presented.Peer reviewe

CompARE: study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled platform trial comparing alternative regimens for escalating treatment of intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer

BACKGROUND: Patients with intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) have poorer response to standard treatment and poorer overall survival compared to low-risk OPC. CompARE is designed to test alternative approaches to intensified treatment for these patients to improve survival. METHODS: CompARE is a pragmatic phase III, open-label, multicenter randomised controlled trial with an adaptive multi-arm, multi-stage design and an integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention. Eligible OPC patients include those with human papillomavirus (HPV) negative, T1-T4, N1-N3 or T3-4, N0, or HPV positive N3, T4, or current smokers (or ≥ 10 pack years previous smoking history) with T1-T4, N2b-N3. CompARE was originally designed with four arms (one control [arm 1] and three experimental: arm 2-induction chemotherapy followed by arm 1; arm 3-dose-escalated radiotherapy plus concomitant cisplatin; and arm 4-resection of primary followed by arm 1). The three original experimental arms have been closed to recruitment and a further experimental arm opened (arm 5-induction durvalumab followed by arm 1 and then adjuvant durvalumab). Currently recruiting are arm 1 (control): standard treatment of 3-weekly cisplatin 100 mg/m2 or weekly 40 mg/m2 with intensity-modulated radiotherapy using 70 Gy in 35 fractions ± neck dissection determined by clinical and radiological assessment 3 months post-treatment, and arm 5 (intervention): one cycle of induction durvalumab 1500 mg followed by standard treatment then durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for a total of 6 months. The definitive and interim primary outcome measures are overall survival time and event-free survival (EFS) time, respectively. Secondary outcome measures include quality of life, toxicity, swallowing outcomes, feeding tube incidence, surgical complication rates, and cost-effectiveness. The design anticipates that after approximately 7 years, 84 required events will have occurred to enable analysis of the definitive primary outcome measure for this comparison. Planned interim futility analyses using EFS will also be performed. DISCUSSION: CompARE is designed to be efficient and cost-effective in response to new data, emerging new treatments or difficulties, with the aim of bringing new treatment options for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN41478539 . Registered on 29 April 2015

Transoral tongue base mucosectomy for the identification of the primary site in the work-up of cancers of unknown origin:systematic review and metaanalysis

The use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and laser microsurgery (TLM) in the diagnosis and identification of the site of the unknown primary has become increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the use and efficacy of TORS and TLM for this indication. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies employing TORS or TLM in diagnosis of the unknown primary tumor site in patients with cervical nodal metastases of squamous cell origin. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL were searched from inception to July 2018 for all studies that used TORS and or TLM in identifying the unknown primary. 251 studies were identified, of which 21 were eligible for inclusion. The primary tumour was identified by TORS/TLM in 78% of patients (433 out of 556). Tongue base mucosectomy (TBM) identified the primary in 222 of 427 cases (53%). In patients with negative physical examination, diagnostic imaging and PETCT, TBM identified the primary in 64% (95% CI 50, 79) cases. In patients who had negative CT/MRI imaging, negative PETCT and negative EUA and tonsillectomy, TBM identified a tongue base primary in 78% (95% CI 41, 92) cases. Haemorrhage, the commonest complication, was reported in 4.9% cases. Mean length of stay varied between 1.4 and 6.3 days. Tongue base mucosectomy, performed by TORS or TLM, is highly efficacious in identifying the unknown primary in the head and neck region

Development and validation of a Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN) in a scarce resource setting: Response to the COVID‐19 pandemic

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163412/2/cncr33114_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163412/1/cncr33114.pd

Ser ou não ser Mãe/Pai? Eis a questão –Motivações para a parentalidade

Background Local and/or regional recurrence and metachronous primary tumor arising in a previously irradiated area are rather frequent events in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Re‐treatment is associated with an increased risk of serious toxicity and impaired quality of life (QOL) with an uncertain survival advantage. Methods We analyzed the literature on the efficacy and toxicity of photon/electron‐based external beam reirradiation for previously irradiated patients with HNSCC of non‐nasopharyngeal origin. Studies were grouped according to the radiotherapy technique used for reirradiation. Patient selection criteria, target volume identification method, tumor dose, fractionation schedule, systemic therapy administration, and toxicities were reviewed. Results In addition to disease‐related factors, current comorbidities and preexisting organ dysfunction must be considered when selecting patients for reirradiation. As morbidity from re‐treatment may be considerable and differ depending on which mode of re‐treatment is used, it is important to give patients information on potential morbidity outcomes so that an informed choice can be made within a shared decision‐making context. With improved dose distribution and adequate imaging support, including positron emission tomography‐CT, modern radiotherapy techniques may improve local control and reduce toxicity of reirradiation. A reirradiation dose of ≥60 Gy and a volume encompassing the gross tumor with up to a 5‐mm margin are recommended. Concomitant administration of systemic therapeutics and reirradiation is likely to be of similar benefit as observed in large randomized studies of upfront therapy. Conclusion Reirradiation, administered either with or without concurrent systemic therapy, is feasible and tolerable in properly selected patients with recurrent or a new primary tumor in a previously irradiated area of the head and neck, offering a meaningful survival (in the range of 10% to 30% at 2 years). Whenever feasible, salvage surgery is the method of choice for curative intent; patients at high‐risk for local recurrence should be advised that postoperative reirradiation is expected to increase locoregional control at the expense of higher toxicity and without survival advantage compared to salvage surgery without reirradiation. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 37 : 134–150, 2015Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110100/1/hed23542.pd