ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Second primary cancers (SPCs) after nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) are rare, but have an impact on the follow-up of this patient population. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature to determine the prevalence and most typical sites of SPCs after NPC. METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for articles on SPCs after NPC. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. RESULTS: This review includes data on 89 168 patients with NPC from 21 articles. The mean occurrence for SPCs was 6.6% and varied from 4.9% in endemic areas to 8.7% in non-endemic areas. The most frequent locations of SPCs were oral cavity, pharynx, nose and paranasal sinuses, esophagus and lung. CONCLUSION: There is an increased risk for a SPC after NPC management, especially in non-endemic areas. However, their mean rate is lower than after other head and neck carcinomas.
Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms , Neoplasms, Second Primary , Humans , Head and Neck Neoplasms/complications , Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasms, Second Primary/epidemiology , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: During the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, many patients cancelled their scheduled hearing aid renewal. We offered to send them new hearing aids programmed according to the audiometric data on file. In this study we compared remote hearing aid renewal to a conventional renewal with a recent audiogram based on scores from the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) questionnaire. We also examined the need for a physical visit for hearing aid adjustment in the remote group and analysed the accuracy of the pre-existing audiogram correction method using data from the control group. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. STUDY SAMPLE: 51 patients who underwent remote hearing aid renewal and 22 control patients who received office-based hearing aid renewal. RESULTS: IOI-HA scores were lower in the remote fitted group, but comparison with data from a Swedish nationwide database had no clinically significant differences. A follow-up physical appointment was required in only 20% of the remote group. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the pure tone averages of the corrected former audiogram and measured audiogram was high. CONCLUSIONS: Remote hearing aid renewal using existing audiometric data is feasible, and most physical visits can be avoided.
