Transoral radiofrequency of the terminal branches of the recurrent nerve in the treatment of adductor spasmodic dysphonia: our experience over 11 patients.

PURPOSE: Spasmodic dysphonia (SD) or laryngeal dystonia is as a rare vocal disorder characterized by involuntary action-induced endolaryngeal contraction. In the last decade, botulin toxin injection has become the standard treatment in adductor spasmodic dysphonia necessitating repetitive injections. The purpose of this study is to analyze retrospectively data from patients treated with the minimal-invasive transoral radiofrequency-induced thermotherapy (RFITT) of the terminal branches of the recurrent nerve. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2015, 11 patients (six females and five males aged from 32 to 91 years) with adductor SD were treated with RFITT. Pre-operative and post-operative vocal assessments (VHI-30, GRBASI, and acoustic-aerodynamics measurements), number of surgical revisions, delay between procedures, and post-operative complications were recorded. Statistical analyses were carried out on the first vocal assessment performed 2-8 weeks after the first procedure. RESULTS: Based on available data from ten patients, voice handicap index (VHI) showed improvement with a mean value of -17.7 points (p-value (pval) = 0.014, adjusted p-value (adj pval) = 0.21); instability has also revealed improvement in six patients (pval = 0.05, adj pval = 0.31). Four patients underwent only one procedure including one patient showing still long-term beneficial results after 5 years of follow-up. Other patients required one to three new procedures with an average time between procedures of 15.3 months. Over 24 surgeries performed on a total of 11 patients, one definitive treatment-related severe adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION: Thanks to long-lasting effect, repetitive treatments are less frequent compared to botulin toxin therapy. In our opinion, RFITT is a promising alternative to botulin toxin as a second-step procedure in case of toxin resistance or patient's lack of compliance.

Safety of systemic anti-cancer treatment in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The viral pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disrupted cancer patient management around the world. Most reported data relate to incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe COVID-19. The safety of systemic anti-cancer therapy in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19 is an important matter in daily practice. METHODS: ONCOSARS-1 was a single-center, academic observational study. Adult patients with solid tumors treated in the oncology day unit with systemic anti-cancer therapy during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium were prospectively included. All patients (n = 363) underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological testing after the first peak of the pandemic in Belgium. Additionally, 141 of these patients also had a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test during the pandemic. The main objective was to retrospectively determine the safety of systemic cancer treatment, measured by the rate of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. RESULTS: Twenty-two (6%) of the 363 eligible patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and/or serology. Of these, three required transient oxygen supplementation, but none required admission to the intensive care unit. Hematotoxicity was the only adverse event more frequently observed in SARS-CoV-2 -positive patients than in SARS-CoV-2-negative patients: 73% vs 35% (P < 0.001). This association remained significant (odds ratio (OR) 4.1, P = 0.009) even after adjusting for performance status and type of systemic treatment. Hematological adverse events led to more treatment delays for the SARS-CoV-2-positive group: 55% vs 20% (P < 0.001). Median duration of treatment interruption was similar between the two groups: 14 and 11 days, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, infections unrelated to COVID-19, and bleeding events occurred at a low rate in the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. CONCLUSION: Systemic anti-cancer therapy appeared safe in ambulatory oncology patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were, however, more treatment delays in the SARS-CoV-2-positive population, mainly due to a higher rate of hematological adverse events.