Standardised definitions and diagnostic criteria for extranodal extension detected on histopathological examination in head and neck cancer: Head and Neck Cancer International Group consensus recommendations.

Detection of extranodal extension on histopathology in surgically treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma indicates poor prognosis. However, there is no consensus on the diagnostic criteria, interpretation, and reporting of histology detected extranodal extension, which has contributed to conflicting evidence in the literature, and likely clinical inconsistency. The Head and Neck Cancer International Group conducted a three-round modified Delphi process with a group of 19 international pathology experts representing 15 national clinical research groups to generate consensus recommendations for histology detected extranodal extension diagnostic criteria. The expert panel strongly agreed on terminology and diagnostic features for histology detected extranodal extension and soft tissue metastasis. Moreover, the panel reached consensus on reporting of histology detected extranodal extension and on nodal sampling. These consensus recommendations, endorsed by 19 organisations representing 34 countries, are a crucial development towards standardised diagnosis and reporting of histology detected extranodal extension, and more accurate data collection and analysis.

Criteria for the diagnosis of extranodal extension detected on radiological imaging in head and neck cancer: Head and Neck Cancer International Group consensus recommendations.

Extranodal extension of tumour on histopathology is known to be a negative prognostic factor in head and neck cancer. Compelling evidence suggests that extranodal extension detected on radiological imaging is also a negative prognostic factor. Furthermore, if imaging detected extranodal extension could be identified reliably before the start of treatment, it could be used to guide treatment selection, as patients might be better managed with non-surgical approaches to avoid the toxicity and cost of trimodality therapy (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy together). There are many aspects of imaging detected extranodal extension that remain unresolved or are without consensus, such as the criteria to best diagnose them and the associated terminology. The Head and Neck Cancer International Group conducted a five-round modified Delphi process with a group of 18 international radiology experts, representing 14 national clinical research groups. We generated consensus recommendations on the terminology and diagnostic criteria for imaging detected extranodal extension to harmonise clinical practice and research. These recommendations have been endorsed by 19 national and international organisations, representing 34 countries. We propose a new classification system to aid diagnosis, which was supported by most of the participating experts over existing systems, and which will require validation in the future. Additionally, we have created an online educational resource for grading imaging detected extranodal extensions.

Surgery for tympanic membrane retraction pockets.

BACKGROUND: Tympanic membrane retractions are commonly managed by ENT surgeons. There is currently no consensus as to the indications, timing and options for management of this condition. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness of different surgical options in the management of tympanic membrane retractions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010 Issue 1); PubMed (1950 to 2010); EMBASE (1974 to 2010); CINAHL (1982 to 2010); BIOSIS Previews; ISI Web of Science; CAB Abstracts; LILACS; KoreaMed; IndMed; PakMediNet; China National Knowledge Infrastructure; ISCTRN; UKCRN; ICTRP and Google. The date of the search was 17 March 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the surgical management of tympanic membrane retraction pockets in adults or children. Staging of the retraction using a known system must have been performed. Studies of cholesteatoma or perforations were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently collected and analysed data to minimise the effects of selection and reporting bias. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were included, involving 71 participants. The first study showed no statistically significant benefit of cartilage graft tympanoplasty over a watch and wait policy for either disease progression or hearing outcome. The second showed no additional benefit from the insertion of ventilation tubes over cartilage tympanoplasty alone with regards to hearing outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence currently exists to either support or refute the role of surgery in the management of tympanic membrane retractions. Higher quality studies are much needed to ascertain this.

Transoral tongue base mucosectomy for the identification of the primary site in the work-up of cancers of unknown origin: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and laser microsurgery (TLM) in the diagnosis and identification of the site of the unknown primary has become increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the use and efficacy of TORS and TLM for this indication. METHOD: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies employing TORS or TLM in diagnosis of the unknown primary tumor site in patients with cervical nodal metastases of squamous cell origin. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL were searched from inception to July 2018 for all studies that used TORS and or TLM in identifying the unknown primary. RESULTS: 251 studies were identified, of which 21 were eligible for inclusion. The primary tumour was identified by TORS/TLM in 78% of patients (433 out of 556). Tongue base mucosectomy (TBM) identified the primary in 222 of 427 cases (53%). In patients with negative physical examination, diagnostic imaging and PETCT, TBM identified the primary in 64% (95% CI 50, 79) cases. In patients who had negative CT/MRI imaging, negative PETCT and negative EUA and tonsillectomy, TBM identified a tongue base primary in 78% (95% CI 41, 92) cases. Haemorrhage, the commonest complication, was reported in 4.9% cases. Mean length of stay varied between 1.4 and 6.3 days. CONCLUSION: Tongue base mucosectomy, performed by TORS or TLM, is highly efficacious in identifying the unknown primary in the head and neck region.

Refeeding syndrome--awareness, prevention and management.

BACKGROUND: Refeeding syndrome is an important, yet commonly overlooked condition affecting patients. It occurs when feeding is commenced after a period of starvation. Head and neck cancer patients are at particular risk owing to prolonged periods of poor nutritional intake. This may be from general effects such as cancer anorexia or from more specific problems of dysphagia associated with this group of patients. Awareness of the condition is crucial in identifying patients at risk and taking measures to prevent its occurrence. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to: 1) Highlight the condition and stress the importance of its consideration when admitting head and neck cancer patients. 2) Discuss the pathophysiology behind refeeding syndrome. 3) Review the literature for the best available evidence and guidelines. 4) Highlight the need for further high quality research. CONCLUSION: Refeeding syndrome is potentially fatal, yet is preventable. Awareness and identification of at-risk patients is crucial to improving management. Refeeding syndrome is caused by rapid refeeding after a period of under-nutrition, characterised by hypophosphataemia, electrolyte shifts and has metabolic and clinical complications. High risk patients include the chronically under-nourished and those with little intake for greater than 10 days. Patients with dysphagia are at particular risk. Refeeding should commence at 10 kcal/kg per day in patients at risk, and increased slowly. Thiamine, vitamin B complex and multi-vitamin supplements should be started with refeeding. New NICE guidelines state that pre-feeding correction of electrolyte and fluid deficits is unnecessary, but should be done concurrently with re-feeding. More research in this field is needed as the evidence base is lacking.