ABSTRACT
Introduction: Patients receiving treatment for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) also may have coexisting viral infections caused by HIV, HBV, and HCV (seropositive). There is scarce literature regarding the clinical presentation and treatment outcomes for these patients with coexisting viral infections (seropositive HNSCC). We conducted this study to assess the clinical presentation and treatment outcomes (overall survival [OS] and disease-specific survival [DSS]) of seropositive HNSCC patients. Methodology: This was a retrospective cohort study on seropositive HNSCC patients registered at our center from 2012 to 2014. The viral infections were identified by the presence of the antibodies to these viruses in the patient's blood samples. Results: Out of the 19,137 HNSCC patients registered, 156 patients had HBV, HCV, and/or HIV infection. Among these, HBV infection was the most common (n = 86/156, 55.1%) followed by HIV infection (n = 36/156, 23.1%) and HCV infection (n = 29/156, 18.6%). The oral cavity was the most common subsite involved. Majority of these patients presented at an advanced stage (advanced T stage – 71.8% and node positive – 62.2%). The majority of the patients received curative-intent treatment (65.4%). The OS at 3 years for these HNSCC patients with coexisting HIV, HBV, and HCV infection was 60%, 62.6%, and 57.5%, respectively, and their DSS at 3 years was 58.8%, 78.6%, and 53.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Seropositive patients with HNSCC often present in the advanced stage but have a good survival if treated appropriately
ABSTRACT
Background: Parotid cancers are uncommon and have a relatively long natural history. Determination of prognostic factors affecting the outcome is difficult. Materials and Methods: The primary objective was to determine the demographic, clinical, histopathology and treatment-related factors affecting overall survival (OS) in parotid cancers. The secondary objective was to study the impact of these factors on disease-free survival (DFS) and patterns of failure. Data of consecutive patients who underwent parotidectomy for primary parotid malignancy between July 2006 and April 2015 with at least 6 months of posttreatment follow-up were retrospectively retrieved. Patients whose follow-up status was known at the time of analysis were included. One hundred and sixty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. Results: The median follow-up was 38 months. The mean OS and DFS were 141.03 and 124.38 months, respectively. Age > 45 years affected both OS and DFS (P = 0.00 and 0.002 respectively) adversely. Advanced T stage affected adversely OS in univariate (P = 0.00) but not in multivariate analysis (P = 0.91) and DFS in both univariate (P = 0.00) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). Nodal positivity adversely affected survival adversely in univariate (P = 0.00 for OS and DFS) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.022 for OS and P = 0.001 for DFS). Resection margin of < 5mm affected OS as compared to a margin of ≥5mm (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Nodal positivity is the single most important factor affecting survival in parotid cancers. A histopathological resection margin of at least 5 mm is desirable. Advanced age along with high grade, advanced T and N stages need to be considered for adjuvant treatment.
ABSTRACT
Introdução: A tireoplastia tipo I é o tratamento de escolha nas paralisias unilaterais das pregas Análise de custo-bene-vocais que não se recuperam espontaneamente. fício. Objetivos: Comparar o uso de implante de Silastic® com o uso de titânio pré-fabricado TVFMI® (Titanium Vocal Fold Medializing Implant) na tireoplastia tipo I para o tratamento da paralisia unilateral das pregas vocais com relação à melhora subjetiva e objetiva da voz, às alterações endoscópicas nas pregas vocais, ao tempo de cirurgia e à relação custo-benefício. Método: Trata-se de um estudo prospectivo com 40 pacientes portadores de paralisia unilateral das pregas vocais submetidos à tireoplastia tipo I com implante de silastic® ou TVFMI®. A avaliação e comparação estatística foram realizadas antes e quatro semanas depois da cirurgia por meio de videolaringoscopia, estroboscopia, análise perceptiva (escala GRBAS-Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain) e subjetiva (IDV-índice de desvantagem vocal) da voz e avaliação eletroglotográfica e avaliação acústica computadorizada. Também foram observados o tempo de cirurgia e o custo do implante. Resultados: Embora os dois implantes mostrem melhora na qualidade da voz após a tireoplastia, o TVFMI® teve um resultado ligeiramente melhor na análise objetiva da voz. O TVFMI® levou menos tempo de cirurgia para ser inserido, porém foi mais caro. Conclusão: O TVFMI® poderá ser preferencial na tireoplastia de medialização, já que possui melhores resultados vocais e leva menos tempo de cirurgia, porém é mais caro que o implante de Silastic®. .
Introduction: Type I thyroplasty is the treatment of choice for unilateral vocal cord palsy with no spontaneous recovery. Objectives: To compare the use of silastic implant with titanium vocal fold medializing implant (TVFMI®) in type I thyroplasty for unilateral vocal cord palsy with respect to subjective and objective improvement in voice, endoscopic changes in vocal cords, surgical time, and cost effectiveness. Methodology: This was a prospective study conducted on 40 patients with unilateral vocal cord paralysis who underwent type I thyroplasty with either silastic implant or TVFMI®. Pre-operative and four-week post-operative assessment and statistical comparison were performed by videolaryngoscopy, stroboscopy, perceptual assessment (GRBAS), subjective (voice handicap index) analysis of voice, and computer-assisted acoustic and electroglottographic assessment. The duration of surgery and cost of implant were also recorded. Results: Although both implants showed improvement in quality of voice following thyroplasty, TVFMI® presents slightly better results in objective voice analysis. The surgery time for TVFMI®insertion was shorter, but the costs were higher. Conclusion: TVFMI® may be preferred for medialization thyroplasty as it presents better voice results and demands less surgical time; however, it is costlier than silastic implant. .