Disease Profile and Oncologic Outcomes After Delayed Diagnosis of Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic delay in human papillomavirus-associated oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(+)OPSCC) is common due to nonspecific symptoms. We aim to describe the disease burden and oncologic outcomes of patients with HPV(+)OPSCC diagnosed >12 months after symptom onset. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of HPV(+)OPSCC patients receiving intent-to-cure treatment (including surgery ± adjuvant therapy or primary chemoradiation). SETTING: 2006-2016, tertiary care center. METHODS: Tumor stage was compared between patients with and without delayed diagnosis using χ2 tests. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with univariate and multivariable Cox regressions were used to determine the effect of diagnostic delay on oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 664 patients were included. Compared to patients diagnosed <12 months from symptom onset (n = 601), those diagnosed at >12 months (n = 63) were more likely to have T4 disease and higher overall American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) clinical stage at presentation (P < .01 for both). At 5 years, rates of overall survival, cancer-specific survival, progression-free survival, and distant metastases-free survival in the delayed diagnosis cohort were 80%, 90%, 80%, and 89%, respectively. A >12-month delay in diagnosis did not significantly impact overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.31), cancer-specific survival (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.29-2.39), progression-free survival (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.56-2.37), or distant metastases-free survival (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.42-2.40) after adjusting for age, sex, and clinical AJCC stage (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed diagnosis of HPV(+)OPSCC is associated with greater burden of disease at presentation, but oncologic outcomes remain favorable across treatment modalities. When appropriate, intent-to-cure therapy should be pursued despite diagnostic delay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Primary vs Secondary Endosseous Implantation After Fibular Free Tissue Reconstruction of the Mandible for Osteoradionecrosis.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical and financial implications of the timing of dental rehabilitation after a fibula free tissue transfer (FFTT) for osteoradionecrosis (ORN) and osteonecrosis (ON) of the mandible have yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of primary implantation vs secondary implantation after FFTT for ORN and ON of the mandible. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review was conducted of 23 patients at a single tertiary academic referral center undergoing primary implantation or secondary implantation after FFTT for ORN and ON from January 1, 2006, to November 10, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent FFTT with primary implantation (n = 12) or secondary implantation (n = 11). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes of FFTT, dental implantation, implant use, diet, speech, and disease-free survival were reviewed. Fixed unit costs were estimated based on the mean cost analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (7 women and 16 men; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [8.2] years [range, 24-81 years]) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 18 had ORN and 5 had ON. Dental implantation was performed at the time of FFTT for 12 patients and was performed secondarily for 11 patients. There were a mean of 5.2 implants per patient performed, for a total of 121 implants. There was 1 complete flap failure in the primary implantation group. Neither flap nor implant complications were affected by the timing of the implantation. Overall, the implant survival rate was 95% (55 of 58) in the primary implantation group and 98% (62 of 63) in the secondary implantation group. Time from FFTT to abutment placement (primary implantation, 19.6 weeks; secondary implantation, 61.0 weeks) was significantly shorter after primary implantation (P < .001). There was no clinical difference in postoperative complications and implant outcomes for ORN vs ON. Improvement in speech and oral competence in the primary implantation group vs the secondary implantation group was not statistically significant, given an experiment-adjusted P = .001 set as significant (normal speech, 9 vs 3; P = .02; and normal oral competence, 9 vs 3; P = .02). Disease-free survival was 91% (20 of 22 patients) overall. Fixed unit (U) costs were 1.0 U for primary implantation and 1.24 U for secondary implantation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing primary implantation after FFTT for ORN and ON had a similar rate of complications compared with those undergoing secondary implantation. However, primary implantation allowed a faster return than secondary implantation to oral nutrition and prosthesis use. The fixed unit cost was reduced for those undergoing primary implantation. Although dental implantation was safe and effective in both groups, the decreased time to use and the decreased overall cost should prompt surgeons to consider primary implantation after FFTT for ORN and ON. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.