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.

Audiometric Profile of Cochlear Implant Recipients Demonstrates Need for Revising Insurance Coverage.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To describe the pre-implant audiometric profile of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients to investigate whether current binaural candidacy requirements prevent access to patients who could benefit from CI. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Retrospective review from 2016 to 2018 evaluating preoperative pure-tone thresholds and speech perception scores in the ipsilateral and contralateral ear. RESULTS: A total of 252 adult CI recipients undergoing 270 implants were identified. Median age at time of implantation was 70.5 years (IQR 61.3-78.3) for those undergoing unilateral implantation and 59.0 (IQR 48.0-72.3) for those undergoing bilateral implantation (P < .01). For unilateral implantation, median pre-implantation speech perception performance in the ear to be implanted was 8.0% (IQR 0%-26.0%) for CNC word scores, and 9.0% (IQR 0%-34.0%) for AzBio sentence scores in quiet. Median speech perception performance in the contralateral ear was 36.0% (IQR 14.0%-60.0%) on CNC word scores, and 48.5% (IQR 17.5%-76.0%) on AzBio sentence tests. Speech perception scores were significantly different between ears for word and sentence tests (P < .01). Patients older than age 65 were significantly less likely to undergo bilateral implantation (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Adult CI recipients exhibit substantially poorer pre-implant speech perception scores than the commonly utilized ipsilateral qualifying threshold of 50% on sentence testing. Yet, existing insurance paradigms limit patients by excessively stringent binaural best-aided requirements. This limitation likely leads to worse device performance as patients often wait years for their binaural hearing to qualify while their ear to be implanted potentially experiences an unnecessarily extended duration of deafness. Older patients also experience a unique delay in referral for cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3- Retrospective review Laryngoscope, 131:E2007-E2012, 2021.

Health Care Costs and Cost-effectiveness in Laryngotracheal Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is resource-intensive disease. The cost-effectiveness of LTS treatments has not been adequately explored. We aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing open reconstruction (cricotracheal/tracheal resection [CTR/TR]) with endoscopic dilation in the treatment of LTS. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary referral center (2013-2017). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four LTS patients were recruited. Annual costs were derived from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. Cost-effectiveness analysis compared CTR/TR versus endoscopic dilation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5- and 10-year time horizons. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with deterministic analysis and tested for sensitivity with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Mean LTS costs were $4080.09 (SE, $569.29) annually for related health care visits. The major risk factor for increased cost was etiology of stenosis. As compared with idiopathic patients, patients with intubation-related stenosis had significantly higher annual costs ($5286.56 vs $2873.62, P = .03). The cost of CTR/TR was $8583.91 (SE, $2263.22). Over a 5-year time horizon, CTR/TR gained $896 per QALY over serial dilations and was cost-effective. Over a 10-year time horizon, CTR/TR dominated dilations with a lower cost and higher QALY. CONCLUSION: The cost of treatment for LTS is significant. Patients with intubation-related stenosis have significantly higher annual costs than do idiopathic patients. CTR/TR contributes significantly to cost in LTS but is cost-effective versus endoscopic dilations for appropriately selected patients over a 5- and 10-year horizon.