ABSTRACT
Purpose We aim to assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic delays in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and to describe their underlying reasons. Methods All HPV+ OPC referred to a tertiary cancer centre and diagnosed between June-December 2019 (Pre-Pandemic cohort) vs June-December 2020 (Pandemic cohort) were reviewed. TNM classification, gross-tumor-volumes (GTV) and intervals between sign/symptom onset and treatment initiation were compared between the cohorts. Reasons for delay (>6 months from onset of signs/symptoms to a positive biopsy of the primary tumor, or a delay specifically mentioned in the patient chart) in establishing the diagnosis were recorded per clinician's documentation, and categorized as COVID-related or non-COVID-related. Results A total of 157 consecutive HPV+ OPC patients were identified (Pre-Pandemic: 92;Pandemic: 65). Compared to the Pre-Pandemic cohort, Pandemic cohort patients had a higher proportion of N2-N3 (32% vs 15%, p=0.019) and stage III (38% vs 23%, p=0.034) disease at presentation. The differences in proportions with >6 months delay from symptom onset to establishing the diagnosis (29% vs 20%, p=0.16) or to first treatment (49% vs 38%, p=0.22) were not statistically different. 47% of diagnostic delays in the Pandemic cohort were potentially attributable to COVID-19. Conclusion We observed a collateral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HPV+ OPC care through more advanced stage at presentation and a non-significant but numerically longer interval to diagnosis. This could adversely impact patient outcomes and future resource allocation. Both COVID-19-related or unrelated factors contribute to diagnostic delay. Tailored interventions to reduce delays are warranted.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We aim to assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic delays in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and to describe their underlying reasons. METHODS: All HPV + OPC referred to a tertiary cancer centre and diagnosed between June-December 2019 (Pre-Pandemic cohort) vs June-December 2020 (Pandemic cohort) were reviewed. TNM classification, gross-tumor-volumes (GTV) and intervals between sign/symptom onset and treatment initiation were compared between the cohorts. Reasons for delay (>6 months from onset of signs/symptoms to a positive biopsy of the primary tumor, or a delay specifically mentioned in the patient chart) in establishing the diagnosis were recorded per clinician's documentation, and categorized as COVID-related or non-COVID-related. RESULTS: A total of 157 consecutive HPV + OPC patients were identified (Pre-Pandemic: 92; Pandemic: 65). Compared to the Pre-Pandemic cohort, Pandemic cohort patients had a higher proportion of N2-N3 (32 % vs 15 %, p = 0.019) and stage III (38 % vs 23 %, p = 0.034) disease at presentation. The differences in proportions with > 6 months delay from symptom onset to establishing the diagnosis (29 % vs 20 %, p = 0.16) or to first treatment (49 % vs 38 %, p = 0.22) were not statistically different. 47 % of diagnostic delays in the Pandemic cohort were potentially attributable to COVID-19. CONCLUSION: We observed a collateral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HPV + OPC care through more advanced stage at presentation and a non-significant but numerically longer interval to diagnosis. This could adversely impact patient outcomes and future resource allocation. Both COVID-19-related and unrelated factors contribute to diagnostic delays. Tailored interventions to reduce delays are warranted.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oropharyngeal Neoplasms , Papillomavirus Infections , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
Background: First-year resident physicians began training in July 2020 in an environment of decreased clinical case exposure and increased feelings of discomfort because of the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve specialty learning, the University of Toronto Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery piloted a novel virtual case-based teaching intervention for first-year residents. Methods: A weekly virtual resident-led casebased discussion series was designed. Six residents and 4 staff otolaryngologists participated. A Likert-type survey administered retrospectively evaluated the effect on resident confidence. The survey rated participant comfort level on a scale of 1 to 5, from "not well prepared or comfortable" to "very well prepared or comfortable," in 7 different areas at the beginning of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 in July 2020, and in April 2021. Qualitative data collected assessed strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Results: Residents reported increased comfort level in all areas assessed, including overall emergency department consults, inpatient consults, and specific epistaxis consults by 28%;triaging consults and addressing peritonsillar abscess consults by 24%;addressing pediatric otolaryngologic and airway concerns by 20% each;and addressing otologic concerns by 32%. All respondents agreed the intervention would benefit residents of other programs. Conclusion: The studied intervention can potentially improve both resident education and patient care. It facilitated real-time discussion of topics relevant to self-perceived knowledge deficits and timely advice on management of a new and changing population of patients with COVID-19. The intervention described could be applied to benefit residents in otolaryngology and other surgical specialty programs nationwide during and after the pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Healthcare services in many countries have been partially or completely disrupted by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic since its onset in the end of 2019. Amongst the most impacted are the elective medical and surgical services in order to conserve resources to care for COVID-19 patients. As the number of infected patients decrease across Canada, elective surgeries are being restarted in a staged manner. Since Otolaryngologists - Head & Neck Surgeons manage surgical diseases of the upper aerodigestive tract where the highest viral load reside, it is imperative that these surgeries resume in a safe manner. The aim of this document is to compile the current best evidence available and provide expert consensus on the safe restart of rhinologic and skull base surgeries while discussing the pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative care and tips. Risk assessment, patient selection, case triage, and pre-operative COVID-19 testing will be analyzed and discussed. These guidelines will also consider the optimal use of personal protective equipment for specific cases, general and specific operative room precautions, and practical tips of intra-operative maneuvers to optimize patient and provider safety. Given that the literature surrounding COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, these recommendations will serve to start our specialty back into elective rhinologic surgeries over the next months and they may change as we learn more about this disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Nose/surgery , Otolaryngology/standards , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Preoperative Care/standards , Skull Base/surgery , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Humans , Otolaryngology/methods , Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases/surgery , Postoperative Care/standards , Preoperative Care/methodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine the outcomes of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OSCC) patients treated with non-surgical approach i.e. definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: All OSCC patients treated radically with IMRT (without primary surgery) between 2005-2014 were reviewed in a prospectively collected database. OSCC patients treated with definitive RT received concurrent chemotherapy except for early stage patients or those who declined or were unfit for chemotherapy. The 5-year local, and regional, distant control rates, disease-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival, and late toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 1316 OSCC patients treated with curative-intent; 108 patients (8%) received non-operative management due to: medical inoperability (n = 14, 13%), surgical unresectability (n = 8, 7%), patient declined surgery (n = 15, 14%), attempted preservation of oral structure/function in view of required extensive surgery (n = 53, 49%) or extensive oropharyngeal involvement (n = 18, 17%). Sixty-eight (63%) were cT3-4, 38 (35%) were cN2-3, and 38 (35%) received concurrent chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 52 months, the 5-year local, regional, distant control rate, disease-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival were 78%, 92%, 90%, 42%, 50%, and 76% respectively. Patients with cN2-3 had higher rate of 5-year distant metastasis (24% vs 3%, p = 0.001), with detrimental impact on DFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p < 0.02) on multivariable analysis. Grade ≥ 3 late toxicity was reported in 9% of patients (most common: grade 3 osteoradionecrosis in 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative management of OSCC resulted in a meaningful rate of locoregional control, and could be an alternative curative approach when primary surgery would be declined, unsuitable or unacceptably delayed.
Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms , Mouth Neoplasms , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Combined Modality Therapy , Humans , Mouth Neoplasms/therapy , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/adverse effects , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, access to surgical care for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) is limited and unpredictable. Determining which patients should be prioritized is inherently subjective and difficult to assess. The authors have proposed an algorithm to fairly and consistently triage patients and mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: Two separate expert panels, a consensus panel (11 participants) and a validation panel (15 participants), were constructed among international HNC surgeons. Using a modified Delphi process and RAND Corporation/University of California at Los Angeles methodology with 4 consensus rounds and 2 meetings, groupings of high-priority, intermediate-priority, and low-priority indications for surgery were established and subdivided. A point-based scoring algorithm was developed, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN-HN). Agreement was measured during consensus and for algorithm scoring using the Krippendorff alpha. Rankings from the algorithm were compared with expert rankings of 12 case vignettes using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 62 indications for surgical priority were rated. Weights for each indication ranged from -4 to +4 (scale range; -17 to 20). The response rate for the validation exercise was 100%. The SPARTAN-HN demonstrated excellent agreement and correlation with expert rankings (Krippendorff alpha, .91 [95% CI, 0.88-0.93]; and rho, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.45-0.95]). CONCLUSIONS: The SPARTAN-HN surgical prioritization algorithm consistently stratifies patients requiring HNC surgical care in the COVID-19 era. Formal evaluation and implementation are required. LAY SUMMARY: Many countries have enacted strict rules regarding the use of hospital resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Facing delays in surgery, patients may experience worse functional outcomes, stage migration, and eventual inoperability. Treatment prioritization tools have shown benefit in helping to triage patients equitably with minimal provider cognitive burden. The current study sought to develop what to the authors' knowledge is the first cancer-specific surgical prioritization tool for use in the COVID-19 era, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN-HN). This algorithm consistently stratifies patients requiring head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era and provides evidence for the initial uptake of the SPARTAN-HN.