The role of surgery and deescalation for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer.

Recently published and ongoing trials are helping to define the role of transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer. Evidence to date supports the use of surgery as a valuable tool in the multidisciplinary deescalation of low-risk human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

Association of prealbumin with complications after total laryngectomy with free flap reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: Malnutrition is an important risk factor for patient surgical outcomes. This is especially true for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving a total laryngectomy with free flap reconstruction (TLwFFR). Preoperative prealbumin and albumin values have both been used to indicate poor nutrition. This study aims to identify the prognostic value of preoperative prealbumin and albumin levels with wound healing complications in HNC patients after TLwFFR. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted in all HNC patients who underwent TLwFFR from 2016 to 2022 at a tertiary-care institution. Patients with either preoperative (within 1 month of surgery) prealbumin or albumin lab values were included. Low preoperative prealbumin (low prealbumin) levels and low preoperative albumin (low albumin) levels were defined as ≤20 mg/dL and <3.4 g/dL, respectively. Outcomes collected included all wound healing complications (infection, wound dehiscence, pharyngocutaneous fistula). The association between prealbumin and albumin with outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at surgery was 61.6 ± 9.3. The overall wound healing complication rate was 33.7 %. There was an association between low prealbumin levels and any wound healing complication. On multivariate analysis, low prealbumin levels were associated with postoperative wound healing complications (OR, 4.7; CI 1.3-17.0. P = 0.02) after controlling for low albumin level, age, smoking, and preoperative radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Low prealbumin levels were associated with wound healing complications in TLwFFR patients. Consideration of consistent prealbumin testing with nutritional intervention may reduce wound healing complications.

Quality of Life Outcomes for Parotid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: This study describes patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and associated factors in patients who underwent surgery for malignant parotid tumors (MPT). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all surgically treated MPT patients in a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer (HNC) survivorship clinic (2017-2023). PROMs included University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL), Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Insomnia Severity Index. Multivariable regression analysis was used to investigate clinical predictors associated with PROMs. RESULTS: In 62 MPT patients, the prevalence of clinically relevant dysphagia symptoms (EAT-10), elevated symptoms of depression (PHQ-8), moderate/severe symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7), moderate/severe neck pain with activities of daily living (NDI), and moderate/severe symptoms of insomnia at last follow-up was 32.3%, 15.5%, 7.1%, 17.7%, and 7.2%, respectively. Nonparametric one-sided test revealed that patients treated with adjuvant CRT had significantly worse physical QOL, social-emotional QOL, and swallowing scores than patients treated with surgery alone (p = 0.01, p = 0.02, p = 0.03, respectively); that patients treated with surgery and adjuvant RT had significantly worse physical QOL and social-emotional QOL than patients treated with surgery alone (p < 0.01, p = 0.01, respectively) and that patients treated with surgery and adjuvant CRT had significantly worse swallowing and neck pain than patients treated with surgery and adjuvant RT (p = 0.03, p = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with surgically treated MPT, adjuvant CRT and RT were associated with worse PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 2024.

Use of the spider limb positioner for fibular free flap reconstruction of head and neck bony defects.

BACKGROUND: Osseous and osteocutaneous fibular free flaps are the workhorse of maxillomandibular reconstruction over 30 years after the initial description. Since 2019, we have routinely used the Spider Limb Positioner, adapted from its use in shoulder orthopedic procedures, for fibular free flap harvest. Herein, we describe this novel technique in our cohort. METHODS: We describe our intraoperative setup and endorse the versatility and utility of this technique in comparison to other reported fibular free flap harvest techniques. RESULTS: The Spider Limb Positioner was used 61 times in 60 different patients to harvest osseous or osteocutaneous fibular free flaps. Median (range) tourniquet time for flap harvest was 90 (40-124) minutes. No iatrogenic nerve compression injuries or complications related to lower extremity positioning occurred. CONCLUSION: We describe a novel approach to fibular free flap harvest utilizing the Spider Limb Positioner, which affords optimal ergonomics, visibility, and patient repositioning. There were no nerve injuries or complications related to positioning in our series.

3D modeling of anterior 2/3rds glossectomy reconstruction: A volume based donor site evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Anterior 2/3rds glossectomy results in significant patient morbidity due to speech and swallowing impairment. Microvascular free flap reconstruction compensates for large volume defects. Flap volume is based on the adipose content of the donor site and varies by patient body mass index (BMI) and donor site location. We sought to correlate flap thickness at different donor sites with patient BMI to determine optimal donor site selection. METHODS: Patients with CT scans of the oral cavity, thorax and lower extremity were identified and included. The volumes of the anterior 2/3rds of the tongue were measured and recorded using computed tomography-generated modeling. Pre-muscular tissue thicknesses at anterolateral thigh (ALT), deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP), latissimus dorsi, and parascapular donor sites were measured. The donor site adequency was defined as reconstructing the tongue volume within 10% of the ideal volume required and stratified based on patient BMI. RESULTS: In 144 patients, the average anterior 2/3rds glossectomy defect was 100.3 cm3. Glossectomy defect size was highly correlated with BMI (p < 0.001). The DIEP flap had the largest volume (155.4 cm3), followed by latissimus (105.6 cm3), parascapula (97.8 cm3), and ALT (60.5 cm3). For patients with BMI ≤ 30, the DIEP flap best reconstructed native tongue volume (up to 113 % of native tongue volume). In patients with BMI > 30.1, native tongue volumes were approximated by the latissimus flap (89-92 % of native tongue) and parascapular flap (85-95 % of native tongue volume). In BMI > 30.1 the DIEP flap provided excess tissue bulk (129-135 % of native tongue volume). CONCLUSION: The DIEP flap more closely approximates the volume needed to reconstruct anterior two-thirds tongue defects for BMIs ≤ 30. The subscapular system flaps provided the best volume match for BMIs > 30 and the DIEP flap provided excess tissue bulk which could be adjusted in the reconstruction process.

Patterns of failure after salvage head and neck surgery.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in immunotherapy for recurrent head and neck cancer have necessitated a better understanding of salvage surgical outcomes. This study aimed to determine patterns of failure following salvage head and neck surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 280 patients who underwent salvage surgery for recurrent mucosal squamous cell carcinoma from 1997 to 2018. Cumulative incidence was calculated using the nonparametric Aalen-Johansen estimator. Time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate associated factors. RESULTS: The 2 and 5-year cumulative incidence rates of second recurrence were 48.3 % (95 % CI 42.4-54.3) and 54.9 % (95 % CI 48.9-60.8), respectively. At 5 years, second locoregional recurrence was twice as common as distant recurrence (41.5 % [95 % CI 35.6-47.4] vs. 21.7 % [95 % CI 16.8-26.6]). The median TTR was 21.1 months (95 % CI 4.4-34.8), which varied by site (38.2 larynx/hypopharynx, 13.9 oral cavity, 8.3 sinonasal, and 7.8 oropharynx, P=.0001). The median OS was 32.1 months (95 % CI 24.1-47.6) and was worse for patients who were Black (hazard ratio [HR] 2.15, 95 % CI 1.19-3.9), current smokers (HR 2.73, 95 % CI 1.53-4.88), former smokers (HR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.19-3.35), ≥ 60 years of age (HR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.01-1.97), or received multimodal primary therapy (HR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.26-3.13). CONCLUSION: Rates of recurrence and mortality after salvage surgery were poor but worse for patients who were Black, older, smoked, had initial multimodal therapy, or had sinonasal or oropharyngeal cancers.

Sinonasal NUT carcinoma: A consecutive case series and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sinonasal NUT carcinoma is an extremely rare, lethal malignancy with limited literature. METHODS: A case series was conduction of all patients with sinonasal NUT carcinoma at a single institution between 2010 and 2022. Survival and associated were evaluated. A systematic review of the literature was performed. RESULTS: In 12 patients, followed for a median of 1.5 years, the median overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were both 14.6 months. Patients with maxillary sinus tumors were 91% more likely to survive (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.094, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.011-0.78, p = 0.011). Patients with higher-stage disease stage had worse OS (stage IVb-c vs. III-IVa, p = 0.05). All three patients who were alive with no evidence of disease received induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: For patients with sinonasal NUT carcinoma, the median survival was 15 months but better with lower-stage and maxillary tumors. Induction chemotherapy may be beneficial.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.