Elective Neck Dissection in cT1-4 N0M0 Head and Neck Basaloid Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival benefit of elective neck dissection (END) over neck observation in surgically resected cT1-4 N0M0 head and neck basaloid carcinoma (HNBC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The 2006 to 2017 hospital-based National Cancer Database. METHODS: Patients with surgically resected cT1-4 N0M0 HNBC were selected. Linear, binary logistic, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were implemented. RESULTS: Of 857 patients satisfying inclusion criteria, the majority were male (77.0%) and white (88.1%) with disease of the oral cavity (21.5%) or oropharynx (42.9%) classified as high grade (76.9%) and cT1-2 (72.9%). 389 (45.4%) patients underwent END. END utilization between 2006 and 2017 increased for cT1-2 disease (33.3% vs 56.9%, R2 = .699) but remained relatively constant for cT3-4 disease (66.7% vs 57.9%, R2 = .062). One-hundred and fifteen (29.6%) ENDs detected occult nodal metastases (ONMs). The 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing neck observation and END was 65.6% and 66.8%, respectively (P = .652). END was not associated with improved OS in survival analyses stratified by patient demographics, clinicopathologic features, and adjuvant therapy. Compared with surgery alone, adjuvant radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.97, P = .031) was associated with improved OS. END (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.71-1.28, P = .770) and ONM (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61, P = .551) were not associated with OS. CONCLUSION: END is performed in nearly half of patients with HNBC but is not associated with improved OS, even after stratifying survival analyses by patient demographics, clinicopathologic features, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of ONM approaching 30%, however, justifies inclusion of END in the surgical management of HNBC.

The Comparative Diagnostic Capability of Large Language Models in Otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate and compare the ability of large language models (LLMs) to diagnose various ailments in otolaryngology. METHODS: We collected all 100 clinical vignettes from the second edition of Otolaryngology Cases-The University of Cincinnati Clinical Portfolio by Pensak et al. With the addition of the prompt "Provide a diagnosis given the following history," we prompted ChatGPT-3.5, Google Bard, and Bing-GPT4 to provide a diagnosis for each vignette. These diagnoses were compared to the portfolio for accuracy and recorded. All queries were run in June 2023. RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 was the most accurate model (89% success rate), followed by Google Bard (82%) and Bing GPT (74%). A chi-squared test revealed a significant difference between the three LLMs in providing correct diagnoses (p = 0.023). Of the 100 vignettes, seven require additional testing results (i.e., biopsy, non-contrast CT) for accurate clinical diagnosis. When omitting these vignettes, the revised success rates were 95.7% for ChatGPT-3.5, 88.17% for Google Bard, and 78.72% for Bing-GPT4 (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT-3.5 offers the most accurate diagnoses when given established clinical vignettes as compared to Google Bard and Bing-GPT4. LLMs may accurately offer assessments for common otolaryngology conditions but currently require detailed prompt information and critical supervision from clinicians. There is vast potential in the clinical applicability of LLMs; however, practitioners should be wary of possible "hallucinations" and misinformation in responses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

Patterns and Trends in Adjuvant Therapy for Major Salivary Gland Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate adjuvant therapy indications, utilization, and associated survival disparities in major salivary gland cancer (MSGC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The 2006 to 2017 National Cancer Database. METHODS: Patients with surgically resected MSGC were included (N = 11,398). pT3-4 classification, pN2-3 classification, lymphovascular invasion, pathologic extranodal extension (pENE), and positive surgical margin (PSM) were considered indications for adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT). pENE and PSM were considered possible indications for adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models were implemented. RESULTS: Among 6694 patients with ≥ $\ge $ 1 indication for aRT, 1906 (28.5%) received no further treatment and missed aRT. Age, race, comorbidity status, facility type, and distance to reporting facility were associated with missed aRT (P < .025). Among 4003 patients with ≥1 possible indication for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (aCRT), 914 (22.8%) received aCRT. Patients with pENE only (38.5%) and both pENE and PSM (44.0%) received aCRT more frequently than those with PSM only (17.0%) (P < .001). Academic facility was associated with aCRT utilization (P < .05). aCRT utilization increased between 2006 and 2017 in both academic (14.8% vs 23.9%) and nonacademic (8.8% vs 13.5%) facilities (P < .05). Among 2691 patients with ≥1 indication for aRT alone, missed aRT portended poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-2.03, P < .001). Among 4003 patients with ≥1 possible indication for aCRT, aRT alone (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.89-1.18, P = .780) and aCRT were associated with similar OS. CONCLUSION: Missed aRT in MSGC occurs frequently and portends poorer OS. Further studies clarifying indications for aCRT are required.

Surgical Resection Improves Overall Survival in cT4b Major Salivary Gland Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical and nonsurgical definitive treatment in cT4b major salivary gland cancer (MSGC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The 2004 to 2019 National Cancer Database. METHODS: The NCDB was queried for patients with cT4b MSGC (N = 976). Patients undergoing definitive treatment with (1) surgical resection + adjuvant therapy, (2) radiotherapy (RT) alone, or (3) chemoradiotherapy (CRT) were included in Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival analyses. RESULTS: Of 219 patients undergoing definitive treatment, 148 (67.6%) underwent surgical resection + adjuvant therapy and 71 (32.4%) underwent RT or CRT. There were no documented mortalities within 90 days of surgical resection. Tumor diameter and nodal metastasis were associated with decreased odds of undergoing definitive treatment (P < 0.025). Patients with positive surgical margins (PSM) had higher 5-year overall survival (OS) than those undergoing definitive RT or CRT (48.5% vs 30.1%, P = 0.018) and similar 5-year OS as those with negative margins (48.5% vs 54.0%, P = 0.205). Surgical resection + adjuvant therapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.84) was associated with higher OS than definitive RT or CRT (P < 0.025). A separate cohort of 961 patients with cT4a tumors undergoing surgical resection + adjuvant therapy was created; cT4a and cT4b (hazard ratio: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29, P = 0.896) tumors had similar OS. CONCLUSION: A minority of patients with cT4b MSGC undergo definitive treatment. Surgical resection + adjuvant therapy was safe and associated with higher OS than definitive RT or CRT, despite high rate of PSM. In the absence of clinical trial data, appropriately selected patients with cT4b MSGC may benefit from surgical resection.

Association Between Modified Frailty Index and Postoperative Outcomes of Tracheostomies.

OBJECTIVE: The 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5) has been used to stratify patients based on the risk of postoperative complications in several surgical procedures but has not yet been done in tracheostomies. This study investigates the association between the mFI-5 score and tracheostomy complications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database review. SETTING: United States hospitals. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for tracheostomy patients between 2005 and 2018. The mFI-5 was calculated for each patient by assigning 1 point for each of the following comorbidities: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and functionally dependent health status. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine associations between the mFI-5 score and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 4438 patients undergoing tracheostomies were queried and stratified into the following groups: mFI = 0 (N = 1741 [39.2%], mFI = 1 (N = 1720 [38.8%]), mFI = 2 (N = 726 [16.4%]), and mFI of 3 or higher (N = 251 [5.7%]). Univariate analysis showed that patients with higher mFI-5 scores had a greater proportion of smoking, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, emergency cases, complications, reoperations, and mortality (P < .001). Multivariable analyses found associations between mFI-5 score and any complication (odds ratio [OR]: 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.16, P = .035), mortality (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.15-4.68, P = .019), and any medical complication (OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.88-4.02, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests an association between the mFI-5 score and postoperative complications in tracheostomies. mFI-5 score can be used to stratify tracheostomy patients by operative risk.

Choice of Adjuvant Radiotherapy Facility in Major Salivary Gland Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Undergoing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) at the same facility has been associated with higher overall survival (OS) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Our study investigates whether undergoing surgery and aRT at the same academic facility is associated with higher OS in major salivary gland cancer (MSGC). METHODS: The 2006-2018 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with MSGC undergoing surgery at an academic facility and then aRT. Multivariable binary logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models were implemented. RESULTS: Of 2801 patients satisfying inclusion criteria, 2130 (76.0%) underwent surgery and aRT at the same academic facility. Residence in a less populated area (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-2.45), treatment without adjuvant chemotherapy (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.41-2.76), and aRT duration (aOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04) were associated with undergoing surgery and aRT at different facilities on multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient demographics, clinicopathologic features, and adjuvant therapy (p < 0.01). Five-year OS was higher in patients undergoing surgery and aRT at the same academic facility (68.8% vs. 61.9%, p < 0.001). Undergoing surgery and aRT at different facilities remained associated with worse OS on multivariable Cox regression (aHR 1.41, 95% CI 1.10-1.81, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Undergoing surgery and aRT at the same academic facility is associated with higher OS in MSGC. Although undergoing surgery and aRT at the same academic facility is impractical for all patients, academic physicians should consider same-facility treatment for complex patients who would most benefit from clear multidisciplinary communication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 2024.

Access to Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Care at Private Equity-Owned Otolaryngology Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Characterizing access to sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) care at private practice otolaryngology clinics of varying ownership models. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional prospective review. SETTING: Private practice otolaryngology clinics. METHODS: We employed a Secret Shopper study design with private equity (PE) owned and non-PE-owned clinics within 15 miles of one another. Using a standardized script, researchers randomly called 50% of each clinic type between October 2021 and January 2022 requesting an appointment on behalf of a family member enrolled in either Medicaid or private insurance (PI) experiencing SSNHL. Access to timely care was assessed between clinic ownership and insurance type. RESULTS: Seventy-eight total PE-owned otolaryngology clinics were identified across the United States. Only 40 non-PE clinics could be matched to the PE clinics; 39 PE and 28 non-PE clinics were called as Medicaid patients; 39 PE and 25 non-PE clinics were called as PI patients; 48.7% of PE and 28.6% of non-PE clinics accepted Medicaid. The mean wait time to new appointment ranged between 9.55 and 13.21 days for all insurance and ownership types but did not vary significantly (P > .480). Telehealth was significantly more likely to be offered for new Medicaid patients at non-PE clinics compared to PE clinics (31.8% vs 0.0%, P = .001). The mean cost for an appointment was significantly greater at PE clinics than at non-PE clinics ($291.18 vs $203.75, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking SSNHL care at PE-owned otolaryngology clinics are likely to face long wait times prior to obtaining an initial appointment and reduced telehealth options.

Auditory Brainstem Implant Outcomes in Tumor and Nontumor Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the differences in auditory performance between auditory brainstem implant (ABI) patients with tumor or nontumor etiologies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from 1990 to 2021. REVIEW METHODS: We included published studies with 5 or more pediatric or adult ABI users. Auditory outcomes and side effects were analyzed with weighted means for closed-set, open-set speech, and categories of auditory performance (CAP) scores. Overall performance was compared using an Adult Pediatric Ranked Order Speech Perception (APROSPER) scale created for this study. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included and underwent full-text review. Data were extracted for 662 tumor and 267 nontumor patients. 83% were postlingually deafened and 17% were prelingually deafened. Studies that included tumor ABI patients had a weighted mean speech recognition of 39.2% (range: 19.6%-83.3%) for closed-set words, 23.4% (range: 17.2%-37.5%) for open-set words, 21.5% (range: 2.7%-48.4%) for open-set sentences, and 3.1 (range: 1.0-3.2) for CAP scores. Studies including nontumor ABI patients had a weighted mean speech recognition of 79.8% (range: 31.7%-84.4%) for closed-set words, 53.0% (range: 14.6%-72.5%) for open-set sentences, and 2.30 (range: 2.0-4.7) for CAP scores. Mean APROSPER results indicate better auditory performance among nontumor versus tumor patients (3.5 vs 3.0, P = .04). Differences in most common side effects were also observed between tumor and nontumor ABI patients. CONCLUSION: Auditory performance is similar for tumor and nontumor patients for standardized auditory test scores. However, the APROSPER scale demonstrates better ABI performance for nontumor compared to tumor patients.

Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Elective Neck Dissection for cT1-4 N0M0 Head and Neck Verrucous Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival benefit of elective neck dissection (END) over neck observation in cT1-4 N0M0 head and neck verrucous carcinoma (HNVC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The 2006 to 2017 National Cancer Database. METHODS: Patients with surgically resected cT1-4 N0M0 HNVC were selected. Linear, binary logistic, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were utilized. RESULTS: Of 1015 patients satisfying inclusion criteria, 223 (22.0%) underwent END. The majority of patients were male (55.4%) and white (91.0%) with disease of the oral cavity (67.6%) classified as low grade (90.0%) and cT1-2 (81.8%). The minority of ENDs (4.0%) detected occult nodal metastases. The rate of END increased from 2006 to 2017 for both cT1-2 (16.3% vs 22.0%, p = .126, R2 = 0.405) and cT3-4 (41.7% vs 70.0%, p = .424, R2 = 0.232) disease but these trends were not statistically significant. Independent predictors of undergoing END included treatment at an academic facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-2.55), cT3-4 disease (aOR: 3.31, 95% CI: 2.16-5.07), and tumor diameter (aOR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.19) (p < 0.05). The 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients treated with and without END was 71.3% and 70.6%, respectively (p = .661). END did not significantly reduce the 5-year hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.91-1.71, p = .172). END did not significantly improve 5-year OS in univariate and multivariate analyses stratified by several patient, facility, tumor, and treatment characteristics. CONCLUSION: END does not confer an appreciable survival benefit in HNVC, even after stratifying univariate and multivariate analyses by several patient, facility, tumor, and treatment characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Access to urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured patients.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of state Medicaid programs associated with the Affordable Care Act has led to significant increases in insurance coverage for economically vulnerable patients, however barriers to accessing cancer care still exist. To develop strategies to improve healthcare access, we characterized access to new urologic cancer care for patients with Medicaid insurance in the United States. METHODS: Using a secret shopper approach, we contacted a representative sample of facilities designated for cancer care in United States. Trained volunteers posed as a family member seeking urologic cancer care using a simulated scenario of a parent with a new diagnosis of a localized kidney tumor. The primary study outcome was acceptance of Medicaid. In addition, we assessed facility characteristics associated with Medicaid acceptance relating to state Medicaid expansion status, Medicare reimbursement rates, and teaching hospital status using data from the Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital General Information data file, the American Hospital Directory, and the American Medical Association of Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 389 facilities, of which 14.4% did not accept new Medicaid patients. Medicaid acceptance was higher in facilities located in states that elected to expand Medicaid through the ACA vs. non-expansion states (90.1% vs. 77.4% respectively, P < 0.001). Facilities accepting patients with Medicaid were located in states with higher mean Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes (0.70 for Medicaid-accepting vs. 0.65 for non-accepting facilities, P < 0.001). In addition, Medicaid acceptance was higher in teaching hospitals vs. non-teaching facilities (93.8% vs. 83.4% P = 0.02), and medical school affiliated facilities (89.2% vs. 79.7% P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance seeking urologic cancer care at centers. These findings highlight opportunities to improve the quality and timeliness of cancer care.

Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.