The role of cross-sectional imaging in suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a rare neoplasm in the UK. The current gold standard for detection is endoscopic examination under anaesthesia of the nasopharynx with biopsy. Many clinicians are now advocating cross-sectional imaging as the primary investigation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of cross-sectional imaging in detecting nasopharyngeal carcinoma and ultimately to avoid unnecessary biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective uncontrolled case series review of patients who were investigated for suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma between 2009 and 2017 at York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. At present, any suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma requires biopsy. Search terms used were 'endoscopic biopsy of nasopharynx', 'endoscopic examination + biopsy nasopharynx'. The main outcome measures are reported histological and radiological features of malignancy. Only patients who had imaging prior to the biopsy were included. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients had endoscopic examination under anaesthesia of the nasopharynx with biopsy. Approximately one-third of these patients had cross-sectional imaging before the biopsy. The study revealed that magnetic resonance imaging had 100% sensitivity and 84% specificity; however, the endoscopic examination under anaesthesia and biopsy had only 88% sensitivity. This is due to a negative histological finding despite radiological characteristics of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in some patients. However, the specificity was 100%. CONCLUSION: The study supports magnetic resonance imaging as the primary investigation in patients with suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma followed by endoscopic examination under anaesthesia and biopsy in cases with suspicious findings on imaging only.

Risk of asphyxiation from Vernagel ingestion.

Vernagel (sodium polyacrylate) is a powder commonly used in hospitals worldwide for the management and disposal of body fluids. It reacts with fluids to form a semisolid gel. Its main use is to reduce spillages. If ingested, this substance presents significant risk of asphyxiation. There have been 15 reported cases of Vernagel ingestion in 6 years and 1 death from asphyxiation. We present the case of an elderly patient who was admitted following a fall. He accidentally ingested a sachet of Vernagel during the early hours of the morning. An urgent rigid panendoscopy was performed and the material was evacuated using suction aspiration. Patients should be supervised when using Vernagel on the ward, to avoid ingestion. Ear, nose and throat doctors should be aware of Vernagel and its properties. Owing to the risk of airway obstruction, excellent coordination between the anaesthetist and surgeon is crucial, and prompt management is required.