Search

Objective: As the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is diagnosed in males, outcomes among females are not well-characterized. We identify sex-specific factors in OPSCC to refine female prognostication., Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Setting: National Cancer Database (NCDB)., Methods: OPSCC cases from the 2004 to 2019 NCDB were identified. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics (including timing between diagnosis and treatment administration) were compared between sexes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were constructed to characterize survival in overall and female-only cohorts. Similar multivariable binomial logistic regression and survival models were constructed to assess odds of treatment delays and their effects on survival, respectively., Results: A total of 192,973 OPSCC patients were identified; 36,695 (19%) were female. Females had more human papillomavirus (HPV) negative, lower clinical T and N stage, and higher comorbidity disease. Females experienced lower survival in HPV negative (hazard ratio, HR = 1.11, P < .001) but not HPV-positive disease. Females were more likely to have any treatment initiated over the median of 28 days (odds ratio, OR = 1.04, P = .014) or delays in adjuvant radiotherapy initiation over 6 weeks (OR = 1.11, P = .032). Treatment delay over 60 days (HR = 1.17, P = .016) and delay in adjuvant therapy initiation (HR = 1.24, P = .02) were associated with worse survival among females., Conclusion: In one of the largest analyses of OPSCC, females had poorer survival than males, specifically in HPV-negative disease, despite presentation with less advanced disease. Notably, delays in any treatment initiation and adjuvant radiotherapy initiation were more likely in HPV-negative women and associated with worse survival, highlighting potential systemic weaknesses contributing to poor prognosis among females., (© 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Background: Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations., Objectives: We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool., Methods: As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability., Results: Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95)., Conclusions: We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts to disclose. All authors had full access to all the study data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)