Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations.

BACKGROUND: Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner's individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations. METHODS: Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss' kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI). RESULTS: By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs' completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.

Long-term Outcome for Open and Endoscopically Resected Sinonasal Tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancer has become an alternative to open craniofacial surgery and leads to safe and satisfying results in emerging numbers. Randomized study data comparing outcomes between approaches are missing. Hence, it remains unclear which subgroups of patients might profit most from each technique. We aimed to identify such patient and tumor characteristics and gather information for future prospective study design. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study is based on a retrospective chart review of 225 patients undergoing open craniofacial or endoscopic resection for sinonasal malignancy between 1993 and 2015 at Munich University Hospital. Statistical analyses include t test, chi-square, Kaplan-Meier charts, and univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The sample size was similar between the endoscopic and open surgery groups. Tumors were significantly larger in patients who underwent open craniofacial resection. The risk of notable bleeding ( P = .041) was lower and hospital stay shorter ( P = .001) for endoscopic interventions of all tumor stages. Rates of overall ( P = .024) and disease-specific ( P = .036) survival were significantly improved for endoscopic cases; improved recurrence-free survival rates did not achieve statistical significance ( P = .357). For cases matched for tumor size, this improvement was confirmed for T3 tumors ( P = .038). Regional and distant metastatic tumor spread generally worsened survival in both surgical subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed independent prognosticators for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic tumor resection remains a suitable option for distinct indications and showed improved outcome in intermediate-stage tumors in our collective. Further randomized studies acknowledging the here-identified factors are needed to improve future therapy guidelines and patient care.

The "Comprehensive ICF Core Set for Head and Neck Cancer": a Delphi consensus survey among German speaking speech and language therapists.

The "Comprehensive ICF Core Set for Head and Neck Cancer" (ICF-HNC) is an application of the "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health" (ICF), representing the characteristic spectrum of issues in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Our primary aim was to evaluate which categories of the ICF-HNC are dealt with by speech and language therapists (SLTs) in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The secondary aim was to identify outcome measures used by SLTs to measure the categories of the ICF-HNC in clinical practice. SLTs experienced in the treatment of HNC patients evaluated the categories of the ICF-HNC in a three-round Delphi survey. They were asked whether the listed categories represented issues treated by SLTs in HNC patients, and what outcome measures were used to assess them. Altogether, 31 SLTs completed the survey. 47 of 108 previously selected categories of the ICF-HNC achieved the cut-off value. Out of these, 40.4% were derived from the component "Body Functions", 36.2% from "Body Structures", 12.8% from "Environmental Factors", and 10.6% from "Activities and Participation". Altogether, 82 of the mentioned outcome measures were considered as reasonable from the perspective of SLTs. Of these, only 37 achieved more than 50% approval. This study emphasises the importance of "Body Structures" and "Body Functions" for SLTs in Germany and Switzerland in treating patients with HNC. Moreover, the results highlighted the need to agree on evidence-based outcome measures in speech and language therapy.