Symptom-based remote assessment in post-treatment head and neck cancer surveillance: A prospective national study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the incidence of locoregional recurrence in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based remote assessment. DESIGN: A 16-week multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: UK ENT departments. PARTICIPANTS: HNC patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based telephone assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of locoregional recurrent HNC after minimum 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Data for 1078 cases were submitted by 16 centres, with follow-up data completed in 98.9% (n = 1066). Following telephone consultation, 83.7% of referrals had their face-to-face appointments deferred (n = 897/1072). New symptoms were reported by 11.6% (n = 124/1072) at telephone assessment; 72.6% (n = 90/124) of this group were called for urgent assessments, of whom 48.9% (n = 44/90) came directly for imaging without preceding clinical review. The sensitivity and specificity for new symptoms as an indicator of cancer recurrence were 35.3% and 89.4%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 99.7% (p = .002). Locoregional cancer identification rates after a minimum of 6 months of further monitoring, when correlated with time since treatment, were 6.0% (n = 14/233) <1 year; 2.1% (n = 16/747) between 1 and 5 years; and 4.3% (n = 4/92) for those >5 years since treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone assessment, using patient-reported symptoms, to identify recurrent locoregional HNC was widely adopted during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients had no face-to-face reviews or investigations. New symptoms were significantly associated with the identification of locoregional recurrent cancers with a high specificity, but a low sensitivity may limit symptom assessment being used as the sole surveillance method.

Remote triage incorporating symptom-based risk stratification for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: A prospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Remote triage for suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referrals was adopted by many institutions during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Its safety in this population has not been established. METHODS: A 16-week, prospective, multicenter national service evaluation was started on March 23, 2020. Suspected HNC referrals undergoing remote triage in UK secondary care centers were identified and followed up for a minimum of 6 months to record the cancer status. Triage was supported by risk stratification using a validated calculator. RESULTS: Data for 4568 cases were submitted by 41 centers serving a population of approximately 26 million. These represented 14.1% of the predicted maximum referrals for this population outside of pandemic times, and this gave the study a margin of error of 1.34% at 95% confidence. Completed 6-month follow-up data were available for 99.8% with an overall cancer rate of 5.6% (254 of 4557). The rates of triage were as follows: urgent imaging investigation, 25.4% (n = 1156); urgent face-to-face review, 27.8%; (n = 1268); assessment deferral, 30.3% (n = 1382); and discharge, 16.4% (n = 749). The corresponding missed cancers rates were 0.5% (5 of 1048), 0.3% (3 of 1149), 0.9% (12 of 1382), and 0.9% (7 of 747; P = .15). The negative predictive value for a nonurgent triage outcome and no cancer diagnosis was 99.1%. Overall harm was reported in 0.24% (11 of 4557) and was highest for deferred assessments (0.58%; 8 of 1382). CONCLUSIONS: Remote triage, incorporating risk stratification, may facilitate targeted investigations for higher risk patients and prevent unnecessary hospital attendance for lower risk patients. The risk of harm is low and may be reduced further with appropriate safety netting of deferred appointments. LAY SUMMARY: This large national study observed the widespread adoption of telephone assessment (supported by a risk calculator) of patients referred to hospital specialists with suspected head and neck cancer during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The authors identified 4568 patients from 41 UK centers (serving a population of more than 26 million people) who were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Late cancers were identified, whether reviewed or investigated urgently (0.4%) or nonurgently (0.9%), but the overall rate of harm was low (0.2%), with the highest rate being seen with deferred appointments (0.6%).

Effect of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and the Distance From the Eye Piece of Surgical Microscope on the Field of Vision; An Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: During the Covid-19 pandemic, otolaryngologists are at risk due to aerosol-generating procedures such as mastoidectomy and need enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE). Eye protection can interfere with the use of a microscope due to a reduction in the field of vision. We aimed to study the effect of PPE on the microsurgical field. METHODS: Five surgeons measured the visual field using digital calipers at different power settings. They were done with no PPE, a surgical mask, FFP3 mask (N99), and with the addition of small goggles, large vistamax goggles, vistamax plus a face shield, and only a face shield. The measurements were repeated with rings of 5 mm increments. We also measured the "eye relief" of the microscope which is the ideal distance for maximum field of view. RESULTS: There was no major reduction of the field with the surgical or FFP3 mask. But even simple goggles reduced the field up to 31.6% and there were progressive reductions of up to 75.7% with large goggles, 76.8% when a face shield was added, and 61.9% when only face shield was used. The distance rings more than 5 mm also affected the field of view.The eye relief of our eyepiece was found to be 15 mm. CONCLUSION: The current PPE eye protection is not compatible with the use of a microscope. There is scope for research into better eye protection. Mitigation strategies including barrier drapes and alternative techniques such as endoscopic surgery or use of exoscopes should also be considered.

Rapid implementation of an evidence-based remote triaging system for assessment of suspected referrals and patients with head and neck cancer on follow-up after treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Model for international collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient telemedicine consultations are being adopted to triage patients for head and neck cancer. However, there is currently no established structure to frame this consultation. METHODS: For suspected referrals with cancer, we adapted the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator (HaNC-RC)-V.2, generated from 10 244 referrals with the following diagnostic efficacy metrics: 85% sensitivity, 98.6% negative predictive value, and area under the curve of 0.89. For follow-up patients, a symptom inventory generated from 5123 follow-up consultations was used. A customized Excel Data Tool was created, trialed across professional groups and made freely available for download at www.entintegrate.co.uk/entuk2wwtt, alongside a user guide, protocol, and registration link for the project. Stakeholder support was obtained from national bodies. RESULTS: No remote consultations were refused by patients. Preliminary data from 511 triaging episodes at 13 centers show that 77.1% of patients were discharged directly or have had their appointments deferred. DISCUSSION: Significant reduction in footfall can be achieved using a structured triaging system. Further refinement of HaNC-RC-V.2 is feasible and the authors welcome international collaboration.