Viral markers in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the detection of p16INK4a, human papillomavirus (HPV), and Ebstein-Barr virus (EBV).

PURPOSE: This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the distribution of EBV and HPV stratified according to histological NPC type. MATERIALS & METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to produce pooled prevalence estimates in a random-effects model. We also performed calculations for attributable fractions of viral combinations in NPC, stratified according to histological type. RESULTS: There was a higher prevalence of HPV DNA in WHO Type I (34.4%) versus WHO Type II/III (18.4%). The attributable fractions of WHO Type I NPC was predominantly double negative EBV(-) HPV(-) NPC (56.4%), and EBV(-) HPV(+) NPC (21.5%), in contrast to the predominant infection in WHO Type II/III which was EBV(+) HPV(-) NPC (87.5%). Co-infection of both EBV and HPV was uncommon, and double-negative infection was more common in WHO Type I NPC. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of WHO Type I NPC was either double-negative EBV(-)HPV(-) or EBV(-)HPV(+).

Personalized prognostication in head and neck cancer: A systematic review of nomograms according to the AJCC precision medicine core (PMC) criteria.

BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Precision Medicine Core (PMC) has recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions above the "TNM" staging system and has recently released a checklist of inclusion and exclusion criteria for evaluating prognostic models. METHODS: A systematic review of articles in which nomograms were created for head and neck cancer (HNC) was carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The AJCC PMC criteria were used to score the individual studies. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. The mean number of inclusion criteria met was 9.3 out of 13, and the mean number of exclusion criteria met was 2.1 out of 3. Studies were generally of high quality, but no single study fulfilled all of the AJCC PMC criteria. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to utilize the AJCC checklist to comprehensively evaluate the published prognostic nomograms in HNC. Future studies should attempt to adhere to the AJCC PMC criteria. Recommendations for future research are given. SUMMARY: The AJCC recently released a set of criteria to grade the quality of prognostic cancer models. In this study, we grade all published nomograms for head and neck cancer according to the new guidelines.

Does Calculated Prognostic Estimation Lead to Different Outcomes Compared With Experience-Based Prognostication in the ICU? A Systematic Review.

Little is known about the impact of providing calculator/guideline based versus clinical experiential-based prognostic estimates to patients/caregivers in the ICU. We sought to determine whether studies have compared types of prognostic estimation in the ICU and associations with outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, databases searched were PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The search was run on January 4, 2016, and April 12, 2017. References for included articles were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the analysis: communication of prognostic estimates, a comparator group, and in the adult ICU setting. DATA EXTRACTION: Titles/abstracts were reviewed by two researchers. We identified 10,704 articles of which 10 met inclusion criteria. Seven of the studies included estimates obtained from calculators/guidelines and three were based on subjective estimation wherein clinicians were asked to estimate prognosis based on experience. Only the seven using calculated/guideline based estimation were used for pooled analysis. Of these, one was a randomized trial, and six were nonrandomized before/after studies. All of the studies communicated the calculated/guideline-based estimates to the clinician. Two studies involved the communication of calculated prognostic estimates to the ICU physicians for all ICU patients. Four included identification of high-risk patients based on guidelines or review of historical local data which triggered a palliative care/ethics consultation, and one study included communication to physicians about guideline based likely outcomes for neurologic recovery for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors. The comparator arm in all studies was usual care without protocolized prognostication. DATA SYNTHESIS: Included studies were assessed for risk of bias. The most common outcomes measured were hospital mortality; do-not-resuscitate status; and medical ICU length of stay. In pooled analyses, there was an association between calculated/guideline based prognostic estimation and decreased medical ICU length of stay as well as increased do-not-resuscitate status, but no difference in hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Protocolized assessment of calculator/guideline based prognosis in ICU patients is associated with decreased medical ICU length of stay and increased do-not-resuscitate status but does not have a significant effect on mortality. Future studies should explore how communicating these estimates to physicians changes behaviors including communication to patients/families and whether calculator/guideline based prognostication is associated with improved patient and family rated outcomes.

Is human papillomavirus and p16 expression associated with survival outcomes in nasopharyngeal cancer?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a known prognostic indicator in oropharyngeal cancer. Not much is known about the prognostic role of HPV in Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to investigate if HPV status was a prognostic factor for NPC. METHODS: PubMed (via the web), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched. A systematic review and meta-analysis was done to generate the pooled Hazard Ratios (HR) for Overall Survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 7 studies from 2014 to 2018, reporting data on 2646 patients (range 43-1328) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that HPV/p16 status was not associated with OS in NPC with HR of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.55-1.09, p = 0.14). The test for heterogeneity showed little to no heterogeneity of results (I2 = 4%, p = 0.38). Subgroup analysis showed that in large sample sizes, HPV was significantly associated with survival. CONCLUSION: Despite the finding in the pooled HR, we could not draw a definitive conclusion as to the prognostic significance of HPV in NPC. Recommendations for future research are given.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic indicator in head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to investigate the relationship between the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and prognosis in head and neck cancer. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were done to investigate the role of NLR in overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: For qualitative analysis, 33 cohorts with over 10 072 patients were included. For quantitative analysis, 15 studies were included with 5562 patients. The pooled data demonstrated that an elevated NLR significantly predicted poorer OS and DSS. CONCLUSION: An elevated pretreatment NLR is a prognostic marker for head and neck cancer. It represents a simple and easily obtained marker that could be used to stratify groups of high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy.

The lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio as a prognostic indicator in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the relationship between the pre-treatment lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and prognosis in HNC. METHODS: PubMed (via the Web), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched. A systematic review and meta-analysis was done to generate the pooled hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Our analysis included the results of 4260 patients in seven cohorts. The pooled data demonstrated that an elevated LMR was associated with significantly improved OS (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.44-0.57), and DFS (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.62-0.80). Of note, there was no detectable heterogeneity in either OS (I2 = 0%) or DFS (I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: An elevated LMR may be an indicator of favorable prognosis in HNC. However, our results should be interpreted with some degree of caution due to the retrospective nature of cohort studies. Further research with high-quality prospective studies is needed to confirm the effect of LMR in HNC prognosis.

Is Shared Decision Making for End-of-Life Decisions Associated With Better Outcomes as Compared to Other Forms of Decision Making? A Systematic Literature Review.

Background: Whether shared decision making (SDM) has been evaluated for end-of-life (EOL) decisions as compared to other forms of decision making has not been studied. Purpose: To summarize the evidence on SDM being associated with better outcomes for EOL decision making, as compared to other forms of decision making. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched through April 2014. Study Selection: Studies were selected that evaluated SDM, compared to any other decision making style, for an EOL decision. Data Extraction: Components of SDM tested, comparators to SDM, EOL decision being assessed, and outcomes measured. Data Synthesis: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (three experimental and four observational studies). Results were analyzed using narrative synthesis. All three experimental studies compared SDM interventions to usual care. The four observational studies compared SDM to doctor-controlled decision making, or reported the correlation between level of SDM and outcomes. Components of SDM specified in each study differed widely, but the component most frequently included was presenting information on the risks/benefits of treatment choices (five of seven studies). The outcome most frequently measured was communication, although with different measurement tools. Other outcomes included decisional conflict, trust, satisfaction, and "quality of dying." Limitations: We could not analyze the strength of evidence for a given outcome due to heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and measurement tools. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting SDM being associated with improved outcomes for EOL decisions as opposed to other forms of decision making. Future studies should describe which components of SDM are being tested, outline the comparator decision making style, and use validated tools to measure outcomes.