Systematic review of postoperative therapy for resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Executive summary of the American Radium Society appropriate use criteria.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this systematic review are to (a) evaluate the current literature on the impact of postoperative therapy for resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) on oncologic and non-oncologic outcomes and (b) identify the optimal evidence-based postoperative therapy recommendations for commonly encountered clinical scenarios. METHODS: An analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Prospective studies and methodology-based systematic reviews and meta-analyses of postoperative therapy for SCCHN were identified by searching Medline (OVID) and EMBASE (Elsevier) using controlled vocabulary terms (ie, National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings [MeSH], EMTREE). Study screening and selection was performed with Covidence software and full-text review. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriate use of postoperative therapy, and the modified Delphi method was used to come to consensus. RESULTS: A total of 5660 studies were identified and screened using the title and abstract, leading to 201 studies assessed for relevance using full-text review. After limitation to the eligibility criteria, 101 studies from 1977 to 2020 were identified, including 77 with oncologic endpoints and 24 with function and quality of life endpoints. All studies reported staging prior to the implementation of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC-8). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective clinical studies and systematic reviews identified through the PRISMA systematic review provided good evidence for consensus statements regarding the appropriate use of postoperative therapy for resected SCCHN. Further research is needed in domains where consensus by the expert panel could not be achieved for the appropriateness of specific postoperative therapeutic interventions.

Scholarly Publishing in the Wake of COVID-19.

The speed at which the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe and the accompanying need to rapidly disseminate knowledge have highlighted the inadequacies of the traditional research/publication cycle, particularly the slowness and the fragmentary access globally to manuscripts and their findings. Scholarly communication has slowly been undergoing transformational changes since the introduction of the Internet in the 1990s. The pandemic response has created an urgency that has accelerated these trends in some areas. The magnitude of the global emergency has strongly bolstered calls to make the entire research and publishing lifecycle transparent and open. The global scientific community has collaborated in rapid, open, and transparent means that are unprecedented. The general public has been reminded of the important of science, and trusted communication of scientific findings, in everyday life. In addition to COVID-19-driven innovation in scholarly communication, alternative bibliometrics and artificial intelligence tools will further transform academic publishing in the near future.

The 3 Bs of cancer care amid the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: "Be safe, be smart, be kind"-A multidisciplinary approach increasing the use of radiation and embracing telemedicine for head and neck cancer.

Because of the national emergency triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government-mandated public health directives have drastically changed not only social norms but also the practice of oncologic medicine. Timely head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment must be prioritized, even during emergencies. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 predominantly resides in the sinonasal/oral/oropharyngeal tracts, nonessential mucosal procedures are restricted, and HNCs are being triaged toward nonsurgical treatments when cures are comparable. Consequently, radiation utilization will likely increase during this pandemic. Even in radiation oncology, standard in-person and endoscopic evaluations are being restrained to limit exposure risks and preserve personal protective equipment for other frontline workers. The authors have implemented telemedicine and multidisciplinary conferences to continue to offer standard-of-care HNC treatments during this uniquely challenging time. Because of the lack of feasibility data on telemedicine for HNC, they report their early experience at a high-volume cancer center at the domestic epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis.

Palliative Radiation Therapy for Oncologic Emergencies in the Setting of COVID-19: Approaches to Balancing Risks and Benefits.

Palliation of metastatic disease compromises a significant portion of radiation treatments in the United States. These patients present a unique challenge in resource-limited settings, as expeditious treatment is often required to prevent serious morbidity. In order to reduce the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 and maximize the benefit to patients, we present evidence-based recommendations for radiation in patients with oncologic emergencies. Radiation oncologists with expertise in the treatment of metastatic disease at a high-volume comprehensive cancer center reviewed the available evidence and recommended best practices for the treatment of common oncologic emergencies, with attention to balancing the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 and the potential morbidity of delaying treatment. Many prospective trials and national guidelines support the use of abbreviated courses of radiotherapy for patients with oncologic emergencies. As such, in the setting of the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy for patients requiring palliation for oncologic emergencies achieves desirable functional outcomes without compromising care.