Back to Authors

McClellan, Kim

Mayo Clinic

Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis Foundation Lawrenceville New Jersey USA

Citations 1

Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis Foundation Position Statement on the Management of Adults With RRP
Best, Simon R. , Friedman, Aaron D. , Rosen, Clark A., Sataloff, Robert T. , Matrka, Laura , Sims, H. Steven , Rosow, David E. , Lott, David G., Mau, Ted, Wikenheiser‐Brokamp, Kathryn A., Norberg, Scott M. , McClellan, Kim, Young, Geoffrey D., ALLEN, C., Lott, David G. , Wikenheiser‐Brokamp, Kathryn A. , Mau, Ted , Rosen, Clark , Matrka, Laura , Lott, David G , Mau, Ted , Allen, Clint T , Amin, Milan R , Saba, Nabil F. , Klein, Adam M.

The Laryngoscope | January 16, 2026 | Volume: 136 | Issue: S4 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/lary.70379 Get It

ABSTRACT Objective With regulatory approval of HPV‐specific immunotherapy for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) and growing experience with systemic bevacizumab, a management algorithm incorporating these medical treatments is warranted. Data Sources and Methods RRP Foundation (RRPF) Key Opinion Leaders offer a proposed management algorithm for adults with RRP considering published literature and commercial drug availability. Results Preventative HPV vaccination should be considered for all patients. Determination of HPV type and pulmonary imaging are important for contemporary RRP patient care and assist in decision making. Risks and benefits of papilloma debulking as needed versus medical management of RRP must be deliberated on a patient case‐by‐case basis. HPV ‐specific immunotherapy that induces an HPV ‐specific T cell response to target the underlying HPV infection that is the cause of RRP is safe, offers the possibility of durable disease control following a short treatment course and is the recommended first‐line medical treatment for patients who wish to avoid the risks of repeat procedural management. Papilloma disease control with systemic bevacizumab, which carries defined risks and must be continued for clinical benefit is the recommended second‐line medical treatment for patients who do not achieve a complete response with immunotherapy and wish to continue medical management. For patients who elect to be treated with debulking procedures as needed, use of locally‐administered adjuvant should be considered. Conclusion This proposed management algorithm from the RRPF serves as a contemporary resource and information guide for adult patients with RRP and their physicians considering treatment options. Level of Evidence 5