Search

Objective: To determine how otolaryngologists and pediatric oncologists differ in their initial approach to diagnosing head and neck masses in children and adolescents., Methods: We designed an electronic 28-question survey consisting of 4 clinical cases and one referral case varying by patient age, history, and physical exam findings. The survey was sent anonymously to pediatric oncologists and otolaryngologists at institutions in the United States and Canada., Results: Two hundred and thirty one pediatric oncologists (29.4%) and 87 otolaryngologists (39.5%) completed the survey. Otolaryngologists were significantly more likely to recommend performing an FNA than oncologists in all four cases; less than 7% of pediatric oncologists recommended FNA for head and neck mass evaluation. Of providers who recommended FNA, otolaryngologists were more likely to do so because of diagnostic yield when compared to pediatric oncologists. However, when referred a patient with an FNA demonstrating non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the majority of pediatric oncologists (73.6%) and otolaryngologists (78.7%) would complete the staging work-up and begin treatment. If the same patient was referred with an FNA that demonstrated non-specific inflammation, most oncologists (91.0%) and otolaryngologists (94.4%) would biopsy the mass., Conclusion: Otolaryngologists and pediatric oncologists differ in their initial approach to diagnosing head and neck masses in children, yet they both would recommend treating a patient with a positive FNA. This highlights important differences in the diagnostic process depending on which provider sees the patient first. Further studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity are needed to determine the true diagnostic yield of FNAs in the assessment of head and neck masses in children and adolescents, especially with increasing need for molecular and genomic profiling., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Targeted cancer treatments are almost always first studied in adults, even when there is a biologically plausible potential for efficacy in children. Through compassionate use programs, children who are not eligible for a clinical trial and for whom there are no known effective therapies may obtain access to investigational agents, including drugs under development for adults. However, little is known about pediatric oncologists' experiences with applying for and obtaining compassionate use agents., Methods: This study surveyed 132 pediatric oncologists to assess awareness and utilization of compassionate use programs, to identify barriers to their use, and to evaluate available institutional support and resources., Results: We found that the process of applying for access to drugs in development is poorly understood, which presents a barrier to obtaining investigational drugs. Fifty-seven percent of the pediatric oncologists applied for compassionate use. Providers from larger institutions or with more than 15 years of clinical experience were more likely to complete an application and obtain investigational agents for their patients., Conclusion: Identified perceived and actual barriers to compassionate use application submission suggest pediatric oncologists may benefit from educational resources and support to ensure children with cancer equal access to investigational agents and care., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)