Nomenclature of the symptoms of head and neck cancer: a systematic scoping review.

Introduction: Evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) will use a broad and open approach to the nomenclature and symptomatology. It aims to capture and utilise the patient reported symptoms in a modern way to identify patients' clinical problems more effectively and risk stratify the patient. Method: The review followed the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. A search strategy was carried out using Medline, Embase and Web of Science between January 1st 2012 and October 31st 2023. All titles, abstracts and full paper were screened for eligibility, papers were assessed for inclusion using predetermined criteria. Data was extracted pertaining to the aims, type of study, cancer type, numbers of patients included and symptoms, presenting complaints or signs and symptoms. Results: There were 9,331 publications identified in the searches, following title screening 350 abstracts were reviewed for inclusion and 120 were considered for eligibility for the review. 48 publications met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Data from almost 11,000 HNC patients was included. Twenty-one of the publications were from the UK, most were retrospective examination of patient records. Data was extracted and charted according to the anatomical area of the head and neck where the symptoms are subjectively and objectively found, and presented according to lay terms for symptoms, clinical terms for symptoms and the language of objective clinical findings. Discussion: Symptoms of HNC are common presenting complaints, interpreting these along with clinical history, examination and risk factors will inform a clinician's decision to refer as suspected cancer. UK Head and Neck specialists believe a different way of triaging the referrals is needed to assess the clinical risk of an undiagnosed HNC. EVEREST-HN aims to achieve this using the patient history of their symptoms. This review has highlighted issues in terms of what is considered a symptom, a presenting complaint and a clinical finding or sign.

Survival outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary: A national cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate factors influencing survival in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNSCCUP). METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted, over 5 years from January 2015, in UK Head and Neck centres, of consecutive adults undergoing 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT within 3 months of diagnosis with metastatic cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Patients treated as HNSCCUP underwent survival analysis, stratified by neck dissection and/or radiotherapy to the ipsilateral neck, and by HPV status. RESULTS: Data were received from 57 centres for 965 patients, of whom 482 started treatment for HNSCCUP (65.7% HPV-positive, n = 282/429). Five-year overall survival (OS) for HPV-positive patients was 85.0% (95% CI 78.4-92.3) and 43.5% (95% CI 32.9-57.5) for HPV-negative. HPV-negative status was associated with worse OS, disease-free (DFS), and disease-specific (DSS) survival (all p < .0001 on log-rank test) but not local control (LC) (p = .16). Unilateral HPV-positive disease treated with surgery alone was associated with significantly worse DFS (p < .0001) and LC (p < .0001) compared to radiotherapy alone or combined modalities (5-year DFS: 24.9%, 82.3% and 94.3%; 5-year LC: 41.8%, 98.8% and 98.6%). OS was not significantly different (p = .16). Unilateral HPV-negative disease treated with surgery alone was associated with significantly worse LC (p = .017) (5-year LC: estimate unavailable, 93.3% and 96.6%, respectively). Small numbers with bilateral disease precluded meaningful sub-group analysis. CONCLUSIONS: HPV status is associated with variable management and outcomes in HNSCCUP. Unilateral neck disease is treated variably and associated with poorer outcomes when managed with surgery alone. The impact of diagnostic oropharyngeal surgery on primary site emergence, survival and functional outcomes is unestablished.

Qualitative study exploring the design of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: protocol for work packages 1 and 2 within the EVEREST-HN programme.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2009/2010 and 2019/2020, England witnessed an increase in suspected head and neck cancer (sHNC) referrals from 140 to 404 patients per 100 000 population. 1 in 10 patients are not seen within the 2-week target, contributing to patient anxiety. We will develop a pathway for sHNC referrals, based on the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator. The evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the sHNC referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) Programme comprises six work packages (WPs). This protocol describes WP1 and WP2. WP1 will obtain an understanding of language to optimise the SYmptom iNput Clinical (SYNC) system patient-reported symptom questionnaire for sHNC referrals and outline requirements for the SYNC system. WP2 will codesign key elements of the SYNC system, including the SYNC Questionnaire, and accompanying behaviour change materials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WP1 will be conducted at three acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts with variation in service delivery models and ensuring a broad mixture of social, economic and cultural backgrounds of participants. Up to 150 patients with sHNC (n=50 per site) and 15 clinicians (n=5 per site) will be recruited. WP1 will use qualitative methods including interviews, observation and recordings of consultations. Rapid qualitative analysis and inductive thematic analysis will be used to analyse the data. WP2 will recruit lay patient representatives to participate in online focus groups (n=8 per focus group), think-aloud technique and experience-based codesign and will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The committee for clinical research at The Royal Marsden, a research ethics committee and the Health Research Authority approved this protocol. All participants will give informed consent. Ethical issues of working with patients on an urgent cancer diagnostic pathway have been considered. Findings will be disseminated via journal publications, conference presentations and public engagement activities.

Socioeconomic and ethnic disparities associated with access to cochlear implantation for severe-to-profound hearing loss: A multicentre observational study of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants). Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity. Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p < 0·001), were male (females 1·52; [1·27, 1·81]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·97; [0·96, 0·97]; p < 0·001). They were less likely to be informed of their potential eligibility if they lived in more deprived areas (4th (1·99; [1·49, 2·66]; p < 0·001), 5th (1·75; [1·31, 2·33], p < 0·001), 6th (1·85; [1·39, 2·45]; p < 0·001), 7th (1·66; [1·25, 2·21]; p < 0·001), and 8th (1·74; [1·31, 2·31]; p < 0·001) deciles), the North of England or London (North 0·74; [0·62, 0·89]; p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p < 0·001), were of Asian or black ethnic backgrounds compared to white patients (Asian 0·58; [0·43, 0·79]; p < 0·001; black 0·56; [0·34, 0·92]; p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·98; [0·98, 0·98]; p < 0·001). The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.

Step Serial Sectioning in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary.

Importance: Patients with suspected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNSCCUP) may undergo tonsillectomy and tongue base mucosectomy (TBM) to help identify clinicoradiologically occult primary disease. It is hypothesized that when these diagnostic specimens are analyzed, conventional histopathological (CH) techniques risk missing small primary tumors that may be hidden in the tissue blocks. Objective: To establish the outcomes of a step serial sectioning (SSS) histopathological technique vs CH when analyzing diagnostic tissue specimens from TBM and tonsillectomy performed for HNSCCUP. Design, Setting, and Participants: The MOSES prospective multicenter noninterventional cohort study was conducted over a 25-month period from November 2019 at secondary and tertiary care ear, nose, and throat departments in the United Kingdom and included adults with clinicoradiologically occult HNSCCUP who were undergoing TBM. Intervention: Conventional histopathological techniques performed on TBM and tonsillectomy specimens at participating centers, followed by SSS performed at the central laboratory. Main Outcome: Identification of cancer on central histopathological review of TBM and tonsillectomy specimens. Results: Tissue from 58 eligible patients was analyzed (median [range] age, 58 [47-82] years; 10 women [17%]), with 20 480 sections cut in the laboratory and 4096 sections directly examined by a pathologist (median [range], 64 [28-135] per patient). The overall identification rate for TBM following SSS according to study protocol was 50.0% (95% CI, 37.5%-62.5%) and by subgroups was 42.9% (95% CI, 21.4%-67.4%) when performed following a negative bilateral tonsillectomy, 46.7% (95% CI, 24.8%-69.9%) at the same time as bilateral tonsillectomy, and 57.1% (95% CI, 36.5%-75.5%) following historic tonsillectomy. Conventional histopathological techniques at central review identified 2 undiagnosed primary tumors and revised the diagnosis of 2 other cases (1 nonmalignant and another down staged). Step serial sectioning identified a single additional tumor: an ipsilateral synchronous tongue base tumor for which a contralateral tumor had been identified on CH. Multifocal disease was seen in 5 (8.6%); all were human papillomavirus-related and in the tongue base. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing TBM for HNSCCUP, SSS was associated with added considerable histopathological workload with minimal additional diagnostic benefit. A second opinion for conventional histological techniques may be more beneficial. Synchronous primary disease should be considered when planning diagnostic oropharyngeal surgery for these patients.