Diagnosis, Prognosticators, and Management of Acute Invasive Fungal Rhinosinusitis: Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement and Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Acute invasive fungal sinusitis (AIFS) is an aggressive disease that requires prompt diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment given its rapid progression. However, there is currently no consensus on diagnosis, prognosis, and management strategies for AIFS, with multiple modalities routinely employed. The purpose of this multi-institutional and multidisciplinary evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) is to thoroughly review the literature on AIFS, summarize the existing evidence, and provide recommendations on the management of AIFS. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception through January 2022. Studies evaluating management for orbital, non-sinonasal head and neck, and intracranial manifestations of AIFS were included. An iterative review process was utilized in accordance with EBRR guidelines. Levels of evidence and recommendations on management principles for AIFS were generated. RESULTS: A review and evaluation of published literature was performed on 12 topics surrounding AIFS (signs and symptoms, laboratory and microbiology diagnostics, endoscopy, imaging, pathology, surgery, medical therapy, management of extrasinus extension, reversing immunosuppression, and outcomes and survival). The aggregate quality of evidence was varied across reviewed domains. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available evidence, judicious utilization of a combination of history and physical examination, laboratory and histopathologic techniques, and endoscopy provide the cornerstone for accurate diagnosis of AIFS. In addition, AIFS is optimally managed by a multidisciplinary team via a combination of surgery (including resection whenever possible), antifungal therapy, and correcting sources of immunosuppression. Higher quality (i.e., prospective) studies are needed to better define the roles of each modality and determine diagnosis and treatment algorithms.

Factors affecting the uptake of cervical cancer screening among nurses in Singapore.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors other than socioeconomic status that influence participation in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A prospective, questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study was conducted among all female nurses working at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, between November 1 and December 15, 2013. Characteristics assessed included age, knowledge score (0-10, on the basis of 10 true-or-false statements), perceived risk of cervical cancer, and health facility use. RESULTS: Among 2000 nurses, 1622 (81.1%) responded. The mean knowledge score was 4.70±1.76. Among 1593 nurses who reported on self-perception of risk, 97 (6.1%) reported high risk, 675 (42.4%) reported low risk, and 821 (51.5%) reported uncertainty. Of the 815 nurses reporting on their history of screening, 344 (42.2%) were screened regularly, 103 (12.6%) underwent opportunistic screening, and 368 (45.2%) had never undergone screening. The likelihood of screening was increased among women aged 35-4years, those who had recent experience of medical screening, those who had recently had a specialist consultation, or those who had recently had a consultation with a gynecologist (P<0.001 for all). Nurses undergoing regular screening reported positive effects of a doctor's recommendation, husband's encouragement, people talking about screening, and people close to the respondent undergoing screening. CONCLUSION: Advocacy and herd signaling positively influenced the cervical cancer screening rate.

Outcomes and prognostic factors of post-irradiation and de novo sarcomas of the head and neck: a histologically matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare post-irradiation sarcomas (PIS) and de novo sarcomas (DN) of the head and neck in terms of tumor characteristics, prognostic factors, and survival outcomes. METHODS: All (N=83) head and neck sarcoma patients treated at National Cancer Centre, Singapore (Feb 2002-May 2011) were included: DN (N=60; 72%); PIS (N=23; 28%). Clinicopathologic features and outcomes of all patients and histologically matched pairs were compared. Prognostic factors were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Median age, gender, smoking status, and tumor size were not significantly different. Significant differences were seen in histology (most prevalent: PIS-sarcoma-NOS; DN-angiosarcoma) and tumor subsite (most prevalent: PIS-nasal cavity and sinuses; DN-skin). Median latency of PIS development was 16.7 years. PIS patients had shorter overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) compared with DN patients, most clearly seen on histologically matched pair analysis: 2-year OS (PIS: 54%; DN: 83%; P=0.028). Multivariate analyses showed that age>50 years (hazard ratio (HR)=3.68; P=0.007), ever-smokers (HR=2.79; P=0.017), and larger tumor-size (cm) (HR=1.12; P=0.045) were associated with worse OS, and age at >50 years (HR=2.77; P=0.04) and ever-smokers (HR=2.94; P=0.021) were associated with worse DSS. When treated with curative intent, no significant survival difference was noted between DN and PIS patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, PIS constituted 28% of head and neck sarcomas. Poorer prognosis traditionally associated with PIS compared with DN was not seen amongst patients treated with curative intent.

The impact of cytology screening and HPV vaccination on the burden of cervical cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of different strategies of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on the burden of cervical cancer in Singapore. METHODS: The incidence of cervical cancer was calculated using a Markov model with inputs based on Singapore data for the prevalence of HPV infection, socioeconomic characteristics and screening prevalence. The evaluation was performed for 10 scenarios: no screening, current opportunistic cytology screening, ideal optimal screening, universal adolescent HPV vaccination at 12-years old alone and with catch-up cohorts and combinations of screening and vaccination. RESULTS: (1) The model prediction showed that cervical cancer cases were reduced by 6.5% using opportunistic screening, by 34.3% using optimized screening and by 63.9% with a universal HPV vaccination at 12 years of age. (2) Adding optimized screening, but not opportunistic screening, to a universal adolescent HPV vaccination program caused a moderate further reduction in cervical cancer cases. (3) No difference was discernable in the impact of vaccination introduction between the age groups <20, 20-24 and 25-29 years old. (4) The time required to halve the incidence of cervical cancer was 42 years for universal vaccination at the age of 12 but could be shortened by including catch-up cohorts of women up to 40-years old. CONCLUSION: A universal HPV vaccination program introduced between the ages of 12-29 is superior to cytology screening in reducing the burden of cervical cancer. However, in the next four decades of post-vaccination era, optimizing the screening program remains the most important measure for cervical cancer prevention.