Patient management with Head and Neck tumors-A nationwide data collection in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

INTRODUCTION: This study analyzed oncologic patient management from initial tumor diagnosis to tumor follow-up in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A dynamic online questionnaire with a total of 44 questions was used to generate general and specific data regarding oncologic patient management with head and neck malignancies, supportive care, and (pre-) rehabilitation from initial tumor diagnosis to tumor follow-up and head and neck cancer center (HNCC) structures in OMFS in Germany. The questionnaire was sent to 81 OMFS departments affiliated with the German-Austrian-Swiss Working Group for Tumors of the Jaw and Facial Region (DÖSAK) and the German Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DGMKG). Data analysis was conducted descriptively. RESULTS: Forty-eight OMFS departments participated (response rate 59.26%), of which 36/48 (75%) were certified HNCC. 28/34 (82.4%) reported subjective improvements in oncologic care, most often interdisciplinary collaboration (21/33, 63.64%) and clinic structure changes (21/34, 61.76%). Nearly all OMFS departments present patients in multidisciplinary tumor boards (45/46, 97.83%) and aim for osseous reconstruction post-tumor resection (43/44, 97.73%). Significant discrepancies regarding the frequency of masticatory-functional dental rehabilitation following osseous reconstruction were observed. Before oncologic therapy, patients are offered various supportive services, mostly psychotherapy and psycho-oncological support (24/26, 92.31%). Post-therapy, speech therapy (43/43, 100%), physiotherapy (40/43, 93.02%), lymphatic drainage, and follow-up rehabilitation (39/43, 90.7%, respectively) are most often offered. 17/43 (39.53%) have oncological nursing staff. 36/40 (90%) manage patients and side effects during adjuvant therapy, while 5/41 (12.2%) provide proprietary palliative care. 36/41 (87.8%) offer counseling to patients and families. CONCLUSION: Oncologic patient care in OMFS is highly standardized and potentially attributable to many certified HNCCs in Germany. Certain treatment aspects are handled differently, possibly due to institution-specific reasons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The high homogeneity in treatment protocols reflects the widespread high and comparable treatment quality of head and neck malignancies in OMFS in Germany.

Covering skin defects with a xenogeneic collagen matrix in comparison with a skin graft - A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

The objective of this study was to analyze, in a randomized controlled multicenter trial, whether a xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) could be used to cover skin defects. Patients with the need for skin excisions were recruited and randomized to treatment with a skin graft after a period of granulation or to treatment with an XCM. The results were evaluated by two independent observers on the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. On this scale, scars are ranked from 1 to 10 in six different categories. Results range from 6 to 60, with lower scores representing scars closer to normal skin. The results 6 months after reconstruction were used as primary endpoint and compared in a non-inferiority approach. A total of 39 wounds in the head and neck region were analyzed. The mean results were 16.55 (standard deviation 6.8) for XCM and 16.83 (standard deviation 8.21) in the control group. The result of the XCM was not significantly inferior to the result of the skin graft (p = 0.91). Within the limitations of the study, it seems that the use of xenogeneic collagen matrices is a viable alternative to other approaches in small skin defects, and therefore should be taken into account whenever the reduction of patient morbidity to a minimum is the priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under registration identification number DRKS00010930 and can be found under the following URLs: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00010930. https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00010930.

A potential new biomarker in HNSCC: metastasis suppressor protein 1 (MTSS1).

OBJECTIVE: Metastasis suppressor protein 1 (MTSS1) is a prognostic tumour marker in different malignant epithelial tumour entities and previously mainly the MTSS1 expression was analysed. This study evaluated the best analysis method as a prognosis and aggressiveness tumour marker in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). STUDY DESIGN: MTSS1 expression, MTSS1 intensity, interpretation MTSS1 score and MTSS1 edging score were analysed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue slices of 60 patients with proven HNSCC and correlated with clinical and pathological outcome parameters. RESULTS: A lack of MTSS1 expression showed tumour aggressiveness, but surprisingly, mainly MTSS1 intensity was correlated with a worse patient outcome. There was a significant correlation between higher MTSS1 intensity and an increased risk for lymph node metastasis (P = .027) and a significant increased risk for extracapsular growth (P = .016). Furthermore, disease-specific survival was worse in cases with higher MTSS1 intensity (P = .001). CONCLUSION: MTSS1 intensity has a high scientific potential for further studies and could potentially be used as a prognostic marker in diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making.

New Tumor Budding Evaluation in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Tumor budding (TB) is a histomorphological characteristic of the tumor invasion front and it has an impact on the tumor outcome prediction for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) aetiopathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The average TB score (TB rel) of all tumor-positive marginal sections (n = 443) in the primary tumor was analyzed in the FFPE-fixed tumor slices of 66 patients with HNSCC, and they were compared with cryo-fixed sections. RESULTS: TB rel correlates with tumor aggressiveness (i.e., lymph node metastasis quantity, lymph node ratio, extra capsular growth, Pn1, pV1, grading). The TB scores often vary between the different tumor margins of FFPE sections in the same patient, and in many cases, they differ depending on the fixation method. CONCLUSION: Our data show that a randomly selected marginal cut cannot reliably mirror the TB score, and thus, they cannot predict the prognostic outcome. However, TB rel could be a tool that compensates for differences in TB score analysis. TB score determination in cryo sections seems to be inaccurate compared with TB determination in FFPE.