Oncologic Safety of Close Margins in Patients With Low- to Intermediate-Grade Major Salivary Gland Carcinoma.

Importance: Postoperative radiation therapy for close surgical margins in low- to intermediate-grade salivary carcinomas lacks multi-institutional supportive evidence. Objective: To evaluate the oncologic outcomes for low- and intermediate-grade salivary carcinomas with close and positive margins. Design, Setting, and Participants: The American Head and Neck Society Salivary Gland Section conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2019 at 41 centers. Margins were classified as R0 (negative), R1 (microscopically positive), or R2 (macroscopically positive). R0 margins were subclassified into clear (>1 mm) or close (≤1 mm). Data analysis was performed from June to October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were risk factors for local recurrence. Results: A total of 865 patients (median [IQR] age at surgery, 56 [43-66] years; 553 female individuals [64%] and 312 male individuals [36%]) were included. Of these, 801 (93%) had parotid carcinoma and 64 (7%) had submandibular gland carcinoma, and 748 (86%) had low-grade tumors and 117 (14%) had intermediate-grade tumors, with the following surgical margins: R0 in 673 (78%), R1 in 168 (19%), and R2 in 24 (3%). Close margins were found in 395 of 499 patients with R0 margins (79%), for whom margin distances were measured. A total of 305 patients (35%) underwent postoperative radiation therapy. Of all 865 patients, 35 (4%) had local recurrence with a median (IQR) follow-up of 35.3 (13.9-59.1) months. In patients with close margins as the sole risk factor for recurrence, the local recurrence rates were similar between those who underwent postoperative radiation therapy (0 of 46) or observation (4 of 165 [2%]). Patients with clear margins (n = 104) had no recurrences. The local recurrence rate in patients with R1 or R2 margins was better in those irradiated (2 of 128 [2%]) compared to observed (13 of 64 [20%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.24). Multivariable analysis for local recurrence found the following independent factors: age at diagnosis (HR for a 10-year increase in age, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.67), R1 vs R0 (HR, 5.21; 95% CI, 2.58-10.54), lymphovascular invasion (HR, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.43-13.99), and postoperative radiation therapy (HR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29). The 3-year local recurrence-free survivals for the study population were 96% vs 97% in the close margin group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with low- and intermediate-grade major salivary gland carcinoma, postoperative radiation therapy for positive margins was associated with decreased risk of local recurrence. In isolation from other risk factors for local recurrence, select patients with close surgical margins (≤1 mm) may safely be considered for observation.

The protective role of postoperative radiation therapy in low and intermediate grade major salivary gland malignancies: A study of the Canadian Head and Neck Collaborative Research Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the utility of postoperative radiation for low and intermediate grade cancers of the parotid and submandibular glands. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective, Canadian-led, international, multi-institutional analysis of a patient cohort with low or intermediate grade salivary gland cancer of the parotid or submandibular gland who were treated from 2010 until 2020 with or without postoperative radiation therapy. A multivariable, marginal Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to quantify the association between locoregional recurrence (LRR) and receipt of postoperative radiation therapy while accounting for patient-level factors and the clustering of patients by institution. RESULTS: In total, 621 patients across 14 tertiary care centers were included in the study; of these, 309 patients (49.8%) received postoperative radiation therapy. Tumor histologies included 182 (29.3%) acinic cell carcinomas, 312 (50.2%) mucoepidermoid carcinomas, and 137 (20.5%) other low or intermediate grade primary salivary gland carcinomas. Kaplan-Meier LRR-free survival at 10 years was 89.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.9%-93.3%). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, postoperative radiation therapy was independently associated with a lower hazard of LRR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97). The multivariable model estimated that the marginal probability of LRR within 10 years was 15.4% without radiation and 8.8% with radiation. The number needed to treat was 16 patients (95% CI, 14-18 patients). Radiation therapy had no benefit in patients who had early stage, low-grade salivary gland cancer without evidence of nodal disease and negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative radiation therapy may reduce LLR in some low and intermediate grade salivary gland cancers with adverse features, but it had no benefit in patients who had early stage, low-grade salivary gland cancer with negative margins.

Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is crucial to control the COVID-19 pandemic; saliva testing has been proposed as a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. We sought to compare the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva versus nasopharyngeal swab in the pediatric population, and to determine the optimum time of testing for SARS-CoV-2 using saliva. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal diagnostic study in Ottawa, Canada, from Jan. 19 to Mar. 26, 2021. Children aged 3-17 years were eligible if they exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, had been identified as a high-risk or close contact to someone confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had travelled outside Canada in the previous 14 days. Participants provided both nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples. Saliva was collected using a self-collection kit (DNA Genotek, OM-505) or a sponge-based kit (DNA Genotek, ORE-100) if they could not provide a saliva sample into a tube. RESULTS: Among 1580 paired nasopharyngeal and saliva tests, 60 paired samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Forty-four (73.3%) were concordant-positive results and 16 (26.6%) were discordant, among which 8 were positive only on nasopharyngeal swab and 8 were positive only on saliva testing. The sensitivity of saliva was 84.6% (95% confidence interval 71.9%-93.1%). INTERPRETATION: Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is less invasive and shows similar detection of SARS-CoV-2 to nasopharyngeal swabs. It may therefore provide a feasible alternative for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.

Salivary testing of COVID-19: evaluation of serological testing following positive salivary results.

BACKGROUND: Salivary detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been proposed as an alternative to nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. Our group previously published a study demonstrating that both testing methods identified SARS-CoV-2 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection methodology. We therefore conducted a follow-up study using antibody testing to evaluate the accuracy of saliva versus swabs for COVID-19 detection and the durability of antibody response. METHODS: Venous blood samples were collected from consenting participants and the presence of serum antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated on a large, automated immunoassay platform by the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 qualitative assay (Roche Diagnostics, Laval Quebec). Individuals with a serum antibody cut-off index (COI) ≥ 1.0 were considered positive. RESULTS: In asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients with a previously positive standard swab and/or saliva SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test, 42 demonstrated antibodies with 13 patients positive by swab alone, and 8 patients positive by saliva alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their status as 'current standard' for COVID-19 testing, these findings highlight limitations of PCR-based tests.

Comparing Hematoma Incidence between Hemostatic Devices in Total Thyroidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Alternative energy devices have become a popular alternative to conventional hemostasis in thyroid surgery. These devices have been shown to reduce operative time and thermal nerve injury. As hemostasis is paramount in thyroid surgery, we sought to examine the relative efficacy of 2 alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostasis in preventing postoperative hematoma following total thyroidectomy. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English-language studies published between 1946 and July 2018. Two authors independently extracted data and analyzed articles for quality using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Scale. Our primary outcome of interest was hematoma requiring reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 348 studies were screened, with 23 meeting the inclusion criteria. We found no significant difference in postoperative hematoma rates using alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostasis (P = .370, .317). Network meta-analysis echoed the results of conventional meta-analysis, demonstrating no significant difference in hematoma rates. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in postoperative hematoma rates following total thyroidectomy for any indication with the use of alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostatic techniques. This suggests that hematoma occurrence does not necessarily need to be considered when choosing between these hemostatic devices. This information may help guide surgeons' decisions regarding choice of hemostatic technique during thyroid surgery.

Adherence to Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Medicine Research.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tests are used frequently in the emergency department (ED) to guide clinical decision making and, hence, influence clinical outcomes. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria were developed to ensure that diagnostic test studies are performed and reported to best inform clinical decision making in the ED. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the extent to which diagnostic studies published in emergency medicine journals adhered to STARD 2003 criteria. METHODS: Diagnostic studies published in eight MEDLINE-listed, peer-reviewed, emergency medicine journals over a 5-year period were reviewed for compliance to STARD criteria. RESULTS: A total of 12,649 articles were screened and 114 studies were included in our study. Twenty percent of these were randomly selected for assessment using STARD 2003 criteria. Adherence to STARD 2003 reporting standards for each criteria ranged from 8.7% adherence (criteria-reporting adverse events from performing index test or reference standard) to 100% (multiple criteria). CONCLUSION: Just over half of STARD criteria are reported in more than 80% studies. As poorly reported studies may negatively impact their clinical usefulness, it is essential that studies of diagnostic test accuracy be performed and reported adequately. Future studies should assess whether studies have improved compliance with the STARD 2015 criteria amendment.