An update on oral cavity cancer: epidemiological trends, prevention strategies and novel approaches in diagnosis and prognosis.

In the UK, the incidence of oral cavity cancer continues to rise, with an increase of around 60% over the past 10 years. Many patients still present with advanced disease, often resulting in locoregional recurrence and poor outcomes, which has not changed significantly for over four decades. Changes in aetiology may also be emerging, given the decline of smoking in developed countries. Therefore, new methods to better target prevention, improve screening and detect recurrence are needed. High-throughput 'omics' technologies appear promising for future individual-level diagnosis and prognosis. However, given this is a relatively rare cancer with significant intra-tumour heterogeneity and variation in patient response, reliable biomarkers have been difficult to elucidate. From a public health perspective, implementing these novel technologies into current services would require substantial practical, financial and ethical considerations. This may be difficult to justify and implement at present, therefore focus remains on early detection using new patient-led follow-up strategies. This paper reviews the latest evidence on epidemiological trends in oral cavity cancer to help identify at risk groups, population-based approaches for prevention, in addition to potential cutting-edge approaches in the diagnosis and prognosis of this disease.

Quality of life, cognitive, physical and emotional function at diagnosis predicts head and neck cancer survival: analysis of cases from the Head and Neck 5000 study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to determine whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at diagnosis of head and neck cancer (HNC) is associated with overall survival following treatment with curative intent after adjusting for other factors. METHODS: Data were collected from 5511 participants of the Head and Neck 5000 study (HN5000). HRQOL was measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Questionnaire and covariate data were available from 2171 participants diagnosed as follows: oral cavity (655), oropharynx HPV+ (723) and HPV- (277), and larynx (516). On average, participants were followed up 3.2 years (SD 1.2) after diagnosis. Data were adjusted for age, gender, co-morbidity, intended treatment, education level, income from benefits, smoking status and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: There was a clinically meaningful difference between Global HRQOL scores at diagnosis and survival in an unadjusted and adjusted model: [HR = 0.86, CI 0.82-0.89, p < 0.001 (unadjusted) and HR = 0.90, CI 0.86-0.94, p < 0.001 (adjusted)]. In analyses stratified by tumour site and HPV status, this association was similarly noted before adjustment and persisted after. There were some tumour sub-site variations: improved survival for people with laryngeal cancer reporting higher levels of physical role or social functioning and people with oral cancer reporting higher levels of role or social functioning. CONCLUSION: As survival is the main priority for most people diagnosed with cancer, pre-treatment HRQOL is an additional factor to be included in risk stratification and case-mix adjustments. There is merit in incorporating HRQOL into routine clinical care as this is a useful facet in patient-clinician decision making, prognostication and recovery.

Centre-level variation in speech outcome and interventions, and factors associated with poor speech outcomes in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: The Cleft Care UK study. Part 4.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate centre-level variation in speech intervention and outcome and factors associated with a speech disorder in children in Cleft Care UK (CCUK). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight 5-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate recruited to CCUK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centre-based therapists undertook audio-video recordings. Perceptual analysis was undertaken using the CAPS-A tool. Speech outcomes were based on structural and articulation scores, and intelligibility/distinctiveness. Between-centre variation in treatment and outcomes were examined using multilevel models. These models were extended to estimate the association between a range of factors (hearing loss, speech intervention, fistula, secondary speech surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, socio-economic status, gender, and parental happiness with speech) and speech outcomes. RESULTS: There was centre-level variation in secondary speech surgery, speech intervention, structure and intelligibility outcomes. Children with a history of speech intervention had a lower odds of poor intelligibility/distinctiveness, 0.1 (95% CI: 0.0-0.4). Parental concern was associated with a higher odds of poor intelligibility/distinctiveness, 13.2 (95% CI: 4.9-35.1). Poor speech outcomes were associated with a fistula, secondary speech surgery and history of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Within the centralized service there is centre-level variation in secondary speech surgery, intervention and speech outcomes. These findings support the importance of early management of fistulae, effective management of velopharyngeal insufficiency and hearing impairment, and most importantly speech intervention in the preschool years. Parental concern about speech is a good indicator of speech status.

Centre-level variation in dental treatment and oral health and individual- and area-level predictors of oral health in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: the Cleft Care UK study. Part 3.

OBJECTIVES: To explore centre-level variation in fluoride treatment and oral health outcomes and to examine the association of individual- and area-level risk factors with dental decay in Cleft Care UK (CCUK). SETTING: Two hundred and sixty-eight 5-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on caries and developmental defects of enamel (DDE) were collected. The child's history of fluoride ingestion and postcode was used to assess exposure to fluoridated water. Centre-level variation in fluoride exposure and caries was examined using hierarchical regression. Poisson regression was used to estimate the association between individual- and area-level fluoride exposures and outcome. RESULTS: Children had high levels of caries, rampant caries and DDE. There was no evidence of variation between centres in the number of children with caries or rampant decay. There was evidence of variation in prescription of fluoride tablets and varnish and the type of toothpaste used. Area level of deprivation was associated with a higher risk of dental caries-risk ratio (RR) in the lowest quartile versus the rest was 1.43 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.81). Use of fluoride tablets and varnish was associated with higher risk of caries-RR 1.73 (95% CI 1.29 to 2.32) and RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.70), respectively, adjusted for age, sex and deprivation. CONCLUSION: The association with use of fluoride tablets and varnish probably reflects reverse causality but indicates the need for early preventative interventions in children with UCLP.

Centre-level variation in outcomes and treatment for otitis media with effusion and hearing loss and the association of hearing loss with developmental outcomes at ages 5 and 7 years in children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: The Cleft Care UK study. Part 2.

OBJECTIVES: To explore centre-level variation in otitis media with effusion (OME), hearing loss and treatments in children in Cleft Care UK (CCUK) and to examine the association between OME, hearing loss and developmental outcomes at 5 and 7 years. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight 5-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) recruited to CCUK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children had air and bone conduction audiometry at age 5. Information on grommet and hearing aid treatment was obtained from parental questionnaire and medical notes. Hearing loss at age 5 was defined as >20 dB in the better ear and history of OME and hearing loss was determined from past treatment. Children with sensorineural hearing loss were excluded. Associations were examined with speech, behaviour and self-confidence at age 5 and educational attainment at age 7. Centre variation was examined using hierarchical models and associations between hearing variables and developmental outcomes were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: There was centre-level variation in early grommet placement (variance partition coefficient (VPC) 18%, P=.001) and fitting of hearing aids (VPC 8%, P=.03). A history of OME and hearing loss was associated with poor intelligibility of speech (adjusted odds ratio=2.87, 95% CI 1.42-5.77) and aspects of educational attainment. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing loss is an important determinant of poor speech and treatment variation across centres suggest management of OME and hearing loss could be improved.

Centre-level variation in treatment and outcomes and predictors of outcomes in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip treated within a centralized service: the Cleft Care UK study. Part 6: summary and implications.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and discuss centre-level variation across a range of treatment and outcome measures and examine individual and ecological determinants of outcome in children in Cleft Care UK (CCUK). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight 5-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) recruited to CCUK and treated within a centralized service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children had a range of treatment and outcome measures collected at a 5-year audit clinic. These outcomes included dento-alveolar arch relationships from study models, measures of facial appearance from cropped photographs, hearing loss from audiological assessment, speech from speech recordings, self-confidence and strengths and difficulties from parental self-report. Data were collected on educational attainment at age 7 using record linkage. Centre variation was examined using hierarchical regression and associations between variables were examined using logistic or poisson regression. RESULTS: There was centre-level variation for some treatments (early grommet placement, fitting of hearing aids, fluoride treatment, secondary speech surgery and treatment for cleft speech characteristics) and for some outcomes (intelligibility of speech). Hearing loss was associated with a higher risk of poor speech while speech therapy was associated with a lower risk of poor speech. Children had high levels of caries but levels of preventative treatment (fluoride varnish and tablets) were low. CONCLUSIONS: Further improvements to and monitoring of the current centralized model of care are required to ensure the best outcomes for all children with cleft lip and palate.

Centre-level variation in behaviour and the predictors of behaviour in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip: The Cleft Care UK study. Part 5.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe child behavioural and psychosocial outcomes associated with appearance and speech in the Cleft Care UK (CCUK) study. We also wanted to explore centre-level variation in child outcomes and investigate individual predictors of such outcomes. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight five-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) recruited to CCUK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parents completed the Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) and reported their own perceptions of the child's self-confidence. Child facial appearance and symmetry were assessed using photographs, and intelligibility of speech was derived from audio-visual speech recordings. Centre-level variation in behavioural and psychosocial outcomes was examined using hierarchical models, and associations with clinical outcomes were examined using logit regression models. RESULTS: Children with UCLP had a higher hyperactive difficulty score than the general population. For boys, the average score was 4.5 vs 4.1 (P=.03), and for girls, the average score was 3.8 vs 3.1 (P=.008). There was no evidence of centre-level variation for behaviour or parental perceptions of the child's self-confidence. There is no evidence of associations between self-confidence and SDQ scores and either facial appearance or behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Children born with UCLP have higher levels of behaviour problems than the general population.

Centre-level variation of treatment and outcome in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: The Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: Methodology and results for dento-facial outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Outline methods used to describe centre-level variation in treatment and outcome in children in the Cleft Care UK (CCUK) study. Report centre-level variation in dento-facial outcomes. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two hundred and sixty-eight five-year-old British children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012, data were collected on a comprehensive range of outcomes. Child facial appearance and symmetry were assessed using photographic pictures. Dental arch relationships were assessed from standardized dental study models. Hierarchical statistical models were used to predict overall means and the variance partition coefficient (VPC)-a measure of amount of variation in treatment or outcome explained by the centre. RESULTS: Data on dento-alveolar arch relationships and facial appearance were available on 197 and 252 children, respectively. The median age of the children was 5.5 years, and 68% were boys. Variation was described across 13 centres. There was no evidence of centre-level variation in good or poor dento-alveolar arch relationships with a VPC of 4% and 3%, respectively. Similarly, there was no evidence of centre-level variation in good or poor facial appearance with a VPC of 2% and 5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of centre-level variation for dento-facial outcomes although this study only had the power to detect large variation between sites.

Randomized clinical trial of postoperative chewing gum versus standard care after colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Chewing gum may stimulate gastrointestinal motility, with beneficial effects on postoperative ileus suggested in small studies. The primary aim of this trial was to determine whether chewing gum reduces length of hospital stay (LOS) after colorectal resection. Secondary aims included examining bowel habit symptoms, complications and healthcare costs. METHODS: This clinical trial allocated patients randomly to standard postoperative care with or without chewing gum (sugar-free gum for at least 10 min, four times per day on days 1-5) in five UK hospitals. The primary outcome was LOS. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for LOS. RESULTS: Data from 402 of 412 patients, of whom 199 (49·5 per cent) were allocated to chewing gum, were available for analysis. Some 40 per cent of patients in both groups had laparoscopic surgery, and all study sites used enhanced recovery programmes. Median (i.q.r.) LOS was 7 (5-11) days in both groups (P = 0·962); the hazard ratio for use of gum was 0·94 (95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·15; P = 0·557). Participants allocated to gum had worse quality of life, measured using the EuroQoL 5D-3L, than controls at 6 and 12 weeks after operation (but not on day 4). They also had more complications graded III or above according to the Dindo-Demartines-Clavien classification (16 versus 6 in the group that received standard care) and deaths (11 versus 0), but none was classed as related to gum. No other differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Chewing gum did not alter the return of bowel function or LOS after colorectal resection. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55784442 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Patient experiences of perioperative nutrition within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme for colorectal surgery: a qualitative study.

AIM: Nutrition is an important element of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme. Patients have previously indicated that nutrition is a key component of ERAS that requires improvement. Our aim was to explore the perioperative nutrition experiences of colorectal surgical patients to identify barriers and facilitators to the integration of nutrition within ERAS. METHOD: Sixteen individuals undergoing colorectal surgery participated in a semi-structured interview between postoperative day three and hospital discharge. The topic guide was developed iteratively throughout the study; topics included preoperative counselling, carbohydrate loading, fasting and postoperative nutrition. A constant comparison technique was employed during coding, and an inductive thematic analysis was used. Validity was ensured by double coding a sample of transcripts. RESULTS: Findings are presented in the context of the following clinical themes: preoperative information, preoperative fasting, carbohydrate loading and nutritional drinks, postoperative diet and discharge. Individuals received too much general information which was repetitive, contradictory and not disease specific; this formed a key barrier affecting nutrition. Other barriers were negative experiences of nutritional drinks, stoma management, nausea and vomiting, and challenges from the hospital environment. Facilitators included interactions with staff, food accessibility and choice, and motivation for discharge. CONCLUSION: The key barrier to adherence of perioperative nutrition protocols was poor provision of information. Targeted information regarding postoperative diet, stoma management and coping with nausea and vomiting would be beneficial for colorectal surgical patients. Easily accessible food provided by ward staff was considered a facilitator.

Does low-energy sweetener consumption affect energy intake and body weight? A systematic review, including meta-analyses, of the evidence from human and animal studies.

By reducing energy density, low-energy sweeteners (LES) might be expected to reduce energy intake (EI) and body weight (BW). To assess the totality of the evidence testing the null hypothesis that LES exposure (versus sugars or unsweetened alternatives) has no effect on EI or BW, we conducted a systematic review of relevant studies in animals and humans consuming LES with ad libitum access to food energy. In 62 of 90 animal studies exposure to LES did not affect or decreased BW. Of 28 reporting increased BW, 19 compared LES with glucose exposure using a specific 'learning' paradigm. Twelve prospective cohort studies in humans reported inconsistent associations between LES use and body mass index (-0.002 kg m(-)(2) per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.009 to 0.005). Meta-analysis of short-term randomized controlled trials (129 comparisons) showed reduced total EI for LES versus sugar-sweetened food or beverage consumption before an ad libitum meal (-94 kcal, 95% CI -122 to -66), with no difference versus water (-2 kcal, 95% CI -30 to 26). This was consistent with EI results from sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (10 comparisons). Meta-analysis of sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (4 weeks to 40 months) showed that consumption of LES versus sugar led to relatively reduced BW (nine comparisons; -1.35 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.42), and a similar relative reduction in BW versus water (three comparisons; -1.24 kg, 95% CI -2.22 to -0.26). Most animal studies did not mimic LES consumption by humans, and reverse causation may influence the results of prospective cohort studies. The preponderance of evidence from all human randomized controlled trials indicates that LES do not increase EI or BW, whether compared with caloric or non-caloric (for example, water) control conditions. Overall, the balance of evidence indicates that use of LES in place of sugar, in children and adults, leads to reduced EI and BW, and possibly also when compared with water.

A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: the Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: background and methodology.

OBJECTIVES: We describe the methodology for a major study investigating the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after an initial survey, detailed in the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report in 1998, had informed government recommendations on centralization. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: This is a UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Children born between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 were seen in cleft centre audit clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consent was obtained for the collection of routine clinical measures (speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health, psychosocial factors) and anthropometric measures (height, weight, head circumference). The methodology for each clinical measure followed those of the earlier survey as closely as possible. RESULTS: We identified 359 eligible children and recruited 268 (74.7%) to the study. Eleven separate records for each child were collected at the audit clinics. In total, 2666 (90.4%) were collected from a potential 2948 records. The response rates for the self-reported questionnaires, completed at home, were 52.6% for the Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire and 52.2% for the Satisfaction with Service Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates and measures were similar to those achieved in the previous survey. There are practical, administrative and methodological challenges in repeating cross-sectional surveys 15 years apart and producing comparable data.

Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: dento-facial outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare facial appearance and dento-alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Five-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high-volume operator model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento-alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5-Year-Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys. RESULTS: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento-alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento-alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento-alveolar relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Facial and dento-alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.

Functional outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study--Part 3: oral health and audiology.

OBJECTIVES: To compare oral health and hearing outcomes from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG, 1998) and the Cleft Care UK (CCUK, 2013) studies. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two UK-based cross-sectional studies of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate undertaken 15 years apart. CSAG children were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. CCUK children were treated in a centralized, high volume operator system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral health data were collected using a standardized proforma. Hearing was assessed using pure tone audiometry and middle ear status by otoscopy and tympanometry. ENT and hearing history were collected from medical notes and parental report. RESULTS: Oral health was assessed in 264 of 268 children (98.5%). The mean dmft was 2.3, 48% were caries free, and 44.7% had untreated caries. There was no evidence this had changed since the CSAG survey. Oral hygiene was generally good, 96% were enrolled with a dentist. Audiology was assessed in 227 of 268 children (84.7%). Forty-three per cent of children received at least one set of grommets--a 17.6% reduction compared to CSAG. Abnormal middle ear status was apparent in 50.7% of children. There was no change in hearing levels, but more children with hearing loss were managed with hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for dental caries and hearing were no better in CCUK than in CSAG, although there was reduced use of grommets and increased use of hearing aids. The service specifications and recommendations should be scrutinized and implemented.

The Cleft Care UK study. Part 4: perceptual speech outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the perceptual speech outcomes from the Cleft Care UK (CCUK) study and compare them to the 1998 Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) audit. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A cross-sectional study of 248 children born with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 who underwent speech assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centre-based specialist speech and language therapists (SLT) took speech audio-video recordings according to nationally agreed guidelines. Two independent listeners undertook the perceptual analysis using the CAPS-A Audit tool. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were tested. RESULTS: For each speech parameter of intelligibility/distinctiveness, hypernasality, palatal/palatalization, backed to velar/uvular, glottal, weak and nasalized consonants, and nasal realizations, there was strong evidence that speech outcomes were better in the CCUK children compared to CSAG children. The parameters which did not show improvement were nasal emission, nasal turbulence, hyponasality and lateral/lateralization. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that centralization of cleft care into high volume centres has resulted in improvements in UK speech outcomes in five-year-olds with unilateral cleft lip and palate. This may be associated with the development of a specialized workforce. Nevertheless, there still remains a group of children with significant difficulties at school entry.

Cleft Care UK study. Part 5: child psychosocial outcomes and satisfaction with cleft services.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of cleft service centralization on parental perceptions of child outcomes and satisfaction with care from the Cleft Care UK (CCUK) study and compare them to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) study that took place 15 years earlier. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A subgroup of respondents from a UK multicentre cross-sectional study (CCUK) of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on parents' perceptions of child self-confidence and their satisfaction with treatment outcomes and service provision were collected via self-report questionnaires. Data were compared with findings from the 1998 CSAG study. RESULTS: Fewer parents in the CCUK study perceived their children as having poor self-confidence than in the 1998 CSAG study (8 and 19%, respectively). At least 81% of parents report satisfaction with the child's facial features after surgery and 98% report being satisfied with the care received. These results are similar to those reported in 1998. There is no evidence of an adverse impact on families' ability to attend appointments at the cleft clinic following centralization. Levels of reported problems (around 30%) with attendance were similar to those reported by CSAG. CONCLUSION: Centralization of cleft services appears to have improved parental perceptions of some child outcomes but has made little difference to already high levels of parental satisfaction with cleft care services. Centralization is not associated with an increase in the proportion of families who find it difficult to attend appointments.

Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6: a tale of two studies.

OBJECTIVES: We summarize and critique the methodology and outcomes from a substantial study which has investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after the UK government started to implement the centralization of cleft care in response to an earlier survey in 1998, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Data were collected from children born in the UK with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We discuss and contextualize the outcomes from speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health and psychosocial factors in the current study. We refer to the earlier survey and other relevant studies. RESULTS: We present arguments for centralization of cleft care in healthcare systems, and we evidence this with improvements seen over a period of 15 years in the UK. We also make recommendations on how future audit and research may configure. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate have improved after the introduction of a centralized multidisciplinary service, and other countries may benefit from this model. Predictors of early outcomes are still needed, and repeated cross-sectional studies, larger longitudinal studies and adequately powered trials are required to create a research-led evidence-based (centralized) service.