Search

Objectives: To report the incidence of locoregional recurrence in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based remote assessment., Design: A 16-week multicentre prospective cohort study., Setting: UK ENT departments., Participants: HNC patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based telephone assessment., Main Outcome Measures: Incidence of locoregional recurrent HNC after minimum 6-month follow-up., Results: Data for 1078 cases were submitted by 16 centres, with follow-up data completed in 98.9% (n = 1066). Following telephone consultation, 83.7% of referrals had their face-to-face appointments deferred (n = 897/1072). New symptoms were reported by 11.6% (n = 124/1072) at telephone assessment; 72.6% (n = 90/124) of this group were called for urgent assessments, of whom 48.9% (n = 44/90) came directly for imaging without preceding clinical review. The sensitivity and specificity for new symptoms as an indicator of cancer recurrence were 35.3% and 89.4%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 99.7% (p = .002). Locoregional cancer identification rates after a minimum of 6 months of further monitoring, when correlated with time since treatment, were 6.0% (n = 14/233) <1 year; 2.1% (n = 16/747) between 1 and 5 years; and 4.3% (n = 4/92) for those >5 years since treatment., Conclusions: Telephone assessment, using patient-reported symptoms, to identify recurrent locoregional HNC was widely adopted during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients had no face-to-face reviews or investigations. New symptoms were significantly associated with the identification of locoregional recurrent cancers with a high specificity, but a low sensitivity may limit symptom assessment being used as the sole surveillance method., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Remote triage for suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referrals was adopted by many institutions during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Its safety in this population has not been established., Methods: A 16-week, prospective, multicenter national service evaluation was started on March 23, 2020. Suspected HNC referrals undergoing remote triage in UK secondary care centers were identified and followed up for a minimum of 6 months to record the cancer status. Triage was supported by risk stratification using a validated calculator., Results: Data for 4568 cases were submitted by 41 centers serving a population of approximately 26 million. These represented 14.1% of the predicted maximum referrals for this population outside of pandemic times, and this gave the study a margin of error of 1.34% at 95% confidence. Completed 6-month follow-up data were available for 99.8% with an overall cancer rate of 5.6% (254 of 4557). The rates of triage were as follows: urgent imaging investigation, 25.4% (n = 1156); urgent face-to-face review, 27.8%; (n = 1268); assessment deferral, 30.3% (n = 1382); and discharge, 16.4% (n = 749). The corresponding missed cancers rates were 0.5% (5 of 1048), 0.3% (3 of 1149), 0.9% (12 of 1382), and 0.9% (7 of 747; P = .15). The negative predictive value for a nonurgent triage outcome and no cancer diagnosis was 99.1%. Overall harm was reported in 0.24% (11 of 4557) and was highest for deferred assessments (0.58%; 8 of 1382)., Conclusions: Remote triage, incorporating risk stratification, may facilitate targeted investigations for higher risk patients and prevent unnecessary hospital attendance for lower risk patients. The risk of harm is low and may be reduced further with appropriate safety netting of deferred appointments., Lay Summary: This large national study observed the widespread adoption of telephone assessment (supported by a risk calculator) of patients referred to hospital specialists with suspected head and neck cancer during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The authors identified 4568 patients from 41 UK centers (serving a population of more than 26 million people) who were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Late cancers were identified, whether reviewed or investigated urgently (0.4%) or nonurgently (0.9%), but the overall rate of harm was low (0.2%), with the highest rate being seen with deferred appointments (0.6%)., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: During the Covid-19 pandemic, otolaryngologists are at risk due to aerosol-generating procedures such as mastoidectomy and need enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE). Eye protection can interfere with the use of a microscope due to a reduction in the field of vision. We aimed to study the effect of PPE on the microsurgical field., Methods: Five surgeons measured the visual field using digital calipers at different power settings. They were done with no PPE, a surgical mask, FFP3 mask (N99), and with the addition of small goggles, large vistamax goggles, vistamax plus a face shield, and only a face shield. The measurements were repeated with rings of 5 mm increments. We also measured the "eye relief" of the microscope which is the ideal distance for maximum field of view., Results: There was no major reduction of the field with the surgical or FFP3 mask. But even simple goggles reduced the field up to 31.6% and there were progressive reductions of up to 75.7% with large goggles, 76.8% when a face shield was added, and 61.9% when only face shield was used. The distance rings more than 5 mm also affected the field of view.The eye relief of our eyepiece was found to be 15 mm., Conclusion: The current PPE eye protection is not compatible with the use of a microscope. There is scope for research into better eye protection. Mitigation strategies including barrier drapes and alternative techniques such as endoscopic surgery or use of exoscopes should also be considered., Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the use of the head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 in a primary care setting and to evaluate the impact of the risk calculator on the number of referrals stratified by urgency and cancer yield. Method: Referrals between April 2019 and August 2019, April 2020 and July 2020 (pre-risk calculator) and August 2020 and July 2021 (post-risk calculator) were analysed. Referral urgency, head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 score, cancer diagnosis, cancer type and further investigations were recorded. Results: The 2023 patient encounters were analysed; there were 1110 (55 per cent) referrals before head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 use and 913 (45 per cent) after head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 use. A higher proportion of older (p < 0.001) and male (p < 0.013) patients were seen post-head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 use. All cancer cases were seen on the urgent suspicion of cancer pathway post-head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 use; however, a higher proportion of patients were seen as urgent suspicion of cancer (51.1 vs 83.5 per cent; p < 0.001). Overall, the cancer diagnosis rate increased from 2.7 to 4.1 per cent. Conclusion: The head and neck cancer risk calculator version 2 had high sensitivity in cancer diagnosis. More studies are required to optimise the predicted versus actual cancer probability gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 was declared a pandemic on 11th March 2020. All non-urgent surgical procedures have been postponed indefinitely. The British Association of Head and Neck Oncology state that only those with treatable head and neck cancer unsuitable for alternative treatment should undergo surgery. This paper details our management of a patient who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 days before curative surgery for laryngeal cancer. Case report: By following British Association of Head and Neck Oncology guidance, a 49-year-old male scheduled for total laryngectomy and bilateral neck dissection for a T3 transglottic squamous cell cancer was pre-operatively identified as an asymptomatic carrier of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. Following 14-day isolation and laboratory proven viral clearance, he underwent successful major surgery. He was managed throughout the peri- and post-operative phases without complications or adverse effects on staff. Conclusion: With careful planning, previous coronavirus disease 2019 positive status should not prevent an individual from undergoing successful total laryngectomy and bilateral neck dissection in a safe and timely manner during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]