The interobserver and test-retest variability of the dysphonia severity index

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the interobserver variability and the test-retest variability of the Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI), a multiparametric instrument to assess voice quality. Methods: The DSI was measured in 30 nonsmoking volunteers without voice complaints or voice disorders by two speech pathologists. The subjects were measured on 3 different days, with an interval of 1 week. Results: The difference in DSI between two observers (interobserver difference) was not significant. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the DSI was 0.79. The standard deviation of the difference between two duplicate measurements by different observers was 1.27. Conclusion: Differences in measurements between different observers were not significant. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the DSI was 0.79, which is to be considered good. Differences in DSI within one patient need to be larger than 2.49 to be significant. Copyrigh

Noncompliance to guidelines in head and neck cancer treatment; associated factors for both patient and physician

Background: Decisions on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatment are widely recognized as being difficult, due to high morbidity, often involving vital functions. Some patients may therefore decline standard, curative treatment. In addition doctors may propose alternative, nonstandard treatments. Little attention is devoted, both in literature and in daily practice, to understanding why and when HNSCC patients or their physicians decline standard, curative treatment modalities. Our objective is to determine factors associated with noncompliance in head and neck cancer treatment for both patients and physicians and to assess the influence of patient compliance on prognosis. Methods: We did a retrospective study based on the medical records of 829 patients with primary HNSCC, who were eligible for curative treatment and referred to our hospital between 2010 and 2012. We analyzed treatment choice and reasons for nonstandard treatment decisions, survival, age, gender, social network, tumor site, cTNM classification, and comorbidity (ACE27). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression methods was performed to determine predictive factors associated with non-standard treatment following physician or patient decision. To gain insight in survival of the different groups of patients, we applied a Cox regression analysis. After checking the proportional hazards assumption for each variable, we adjusted the survival analysis for gender, age, tumor site, tumor stage, comorbidity and a history of having a prior tumor. Results: 17 % of all patients with a primary HNSCC did not receive standard curative treatment, either due to nonstandard treatment advice (10 %) or due to the patient choosing an alternative (7 %). A further 3 % of all patients refused any type of therapy, even though they were considered eligible for curative treatment. Elderliness, single marital status, female gender, high tumor stage and severe comorbidity are predictive factors. Patients declining standard treatment have a lower overall 3-year survival (34 % vs. 70 %). Conclusions: Predictive factors for nonstandard treatment decisions in head and neck cancer treatment differed between the treating physician and the patient. Patients who received nonstandard treatment had a lower overall 3-year survival. These findings should be taken into account when counselling patients in whom nonstandard treatment is considered

Contributing Determinants to Hearing Loss in Elderly Men and Women: Results from the Population-Based Rotterdam Study

To contribute to a better understanding of the etiology in age-related hearing loss, we carried out a cross-sectional study of 3,315 participants (aged 52-99 years) in the Rotterdam Study, to analyze both low- and high-frequency hearing loss in men and women. Hearing thresholds with pure-tone audiometry were obtained, and other detailed information on a large number of possible determinants was collected. Hearing loss was associated with age, education, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, smoking and alcohol consumption (inverse correlation). Remarkably, different associations were found for low- and high-frequency loss, as well as between men and women, suggesting that different mechanisms are involved in the etiology of age-related hearing loss

Physicians’ clinical prediction of survival in head and neck cancer patients in the palliative phase

Background: The prognosis of patients with incurable head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relevant topic. The mean survival of these patients is 5 months but may vary from weeks to more than 3 years. Discussing the prognosis early in the disease trajectory enables patients to make well-considered end-of-life choices, and contributes to a better quality of life and death. However, physicians often are reluctant to discuss prognosis, partly because of the concern to be inaccurate. This study investigated the accuracy of physicians’ clinical prediction of survival of palliative HNC patients. Methods: This study was part of a prospective cohort study in a tertiary cancer center. Patients with incurable HNC diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 (n = 191), and their treating physician were included. Analyses were conducted between July 2018 and February 2019. Patients’ survival was clinically predicted by their physician ≤3 weeks after disclosure of the palliative diagnosis. The clinical prediction of survival in weeks (CPS) was based on physicians’ clinical assessment of the patient during the outpatient visits. More than 25% difference between the actual survival (AS) and the CPS was regarded as a prediction error. In addition, when the difference between the AS and CPS was 2 weeks or less, this was always considered as correct. Results: In 59% (n = 112) of cases survival was overestimated. These patients lived shorter than predicted by their physician (median AS 6 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). In 18% (n = 35) of the cases survival was correctly predicted. The remaining 23% was underestimated (median AS 35 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). Besides the differences in AS and CPS, no other significant differences were found between the three groups. There was worse accuracy when predicting survival closer to death: out of the 66 patients who survived 6 weeks or shorter, survival was correctly predicted in only eight (12%). Conclusion: Physicians tend to overestimate the survival of pal

Zenker’s diverticulum: Rotterdam experience

Different surgical techniques exist for the treatment of Zenker’s diverticulum (ZD), of which minimally invasive techniques have become the standard. We reviewed our experience with management and treatment of ZD and sought to determine what type of treatment is most effective and efficient. We selected patients who underwent treatment for ZD between January 2004 and January 2014 at our tertiary referral center. All procedures were performed by ENT surgeons. The medical records were reviewed for pre- and intraoperative characteristics and follow-up. Of our 94 patients (58 male, 36 female), 75 underwent endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy (42 stapler, 33 laser) and 6 received treatment via transcervical approach. 13 interventions were aborted. Mean operating time was 49.0 min for stapler, 68.3 for laser and 124.0 for the transcervical approach. Its respective median post-operative admission durations were 2.0, 3.0 and 3.0 days. After the first treatment, of the 75 endoscopic procedures, 45 patients (23 stapler, 22 laser) had complete symptom resolution. In the transcervical group 4 (67 %) patients were symptom free and one patient died of complications. In the endoscopically treated patients, ten complications occurred, of which 8 G1 and 2 G2 (Clavien Dindo classification). In the transcervical group 2 complications occurred, 1 G3b and 1 G5. Both endoscopic techniques provide efficient management of Zenker’s diverticulum with the stapler-assisted modality providing a shorter surgery duration and hospital admission. Although there is no significant difference in terms of complications or recurrence rates for both endoscopic techniques, it seems that stapler patients are at higher risk of having a re-intervention and of having more severe complications