Moore, Eric J.

Objective To examine the utility of telemedicine in a tertiary otologic practice. Study Design Retrospective case series. Setting Tertiary neurotology clinic. Patients Consecutive adult patients presenting via video visit between January 2020 and January 2021. Intervention(s) Televideo modality to conduct visits with patients seeking evaluation for new concerns, second opinions, or routine follow-up for established conditions. Main Outcome Measure(s) Success of the televideo visit defined by the televideo visit being sufficient for determining a definitive plan and not requiring deferment of recommendations for a subsequent in-person visit. Results A total of 102 televideo visits were performed among 100 unique patients. Of those, 92 (90.2%) visits were for second opinions or evaluation of new concerns, most commonly for vestibular schwannoma (n = 32, 31.4%), followed by sensorineural hearing loss (n = 20, 19.6%). Other visits were conducted for early postoperative follow-up and established general follow-up. In 91.2% of cases (n = 93), patients were successfully evaluated and provided recommendations from the initial video visit. All visits with patients having a diagnosis of meningioma (n = 7), and nearly all with vestibular Schwannoma (97%, n = 31) and sensorineural hearing loss (95%, n = 19) were successful. Of the 79 patients offered surgery as one potential treatment option, 31 patients underwent surgery at our institution by time of review. Patients with unsuccessful visits (n = 9, 8.8%) were advised to schedule additional in-person diagnostic imaging, vestibular testing, or cochlear implant candidacy evaluation to establish a more definitive care plan. Conclusion Virtual televideo visits were successful for a high percentage of selected patients seen at a tertiary neurotology practice, particularly those seeking evaluation of vestibular schwannoma or sensorineural hearing loss.

AbstractBackgroundWe seek to inform radiotherapy (RT) delivery for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck (ACC) by evaluating RT techniques and recurrence patterns.MethodsWe identified patients with ACC treated with curative‐intent RT from 2005 to 2021. Imaging was reviewed to determine local recurrence (LR).ResultsNinety‐one patients were included. The 5‐year LR risk was 12.2% (6.6–22.7). One patient each experienced a marginal and out‐of‐field recurrence. Patients receiving >60 Gy postoperatively had a 5‐year LR risk of 0% compared to 10.7% (4.2–27.2) with ≤60 Gy. Those receiving 70 and <70 Gy definitively had a 5‐year LR risk of 15.2% (2.5–91.6) and 33.3% (6.7–100.0), respectively. No patients had regional nodal failure.ConclusionsModern, conformal RT for ACC results in low rates of LR. Doses >60 and 70 Gy may improve control in the postoperative and definitive settings, respectively. Elective nodal treatment can be omitted in well‐selected patients.

AbstractBackgroundWe aim to explore the prognostic role of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) before, during, and after treatment on oncologic outcomes in human papillomavirus associated oropharyngeal cancer (HPV(+)OPSCC).MethodsRetrospective cohort at a tertiary center, 2006–2018. Multivariable Cox regressions were used to determine the effect of ALC on risk of progression. Univariate linear regression was performed to determine clinical factors associated with lower ALC.ResultsAll 197 patients underwent primary surgery. Mean (SD) ALC nadirs (×109 cells/L) were: baseline (N = 149): 1.69 (0.56); postoperative (N = 126): 1.58 (0.59); post‐RT (N = 141): 0.68 (0.35) and long‐term (N = 105): 0.88 (0.37). Lower baseline ALC nadir was associated with worse overall survival (HR 3.85, 95%CI: 1.03–14.29, p = 0.04). Lower postoperative ALC nadir was associated with higher risk of progression (HR 2.63, 95%CI: 1.04–6.67, p = 0.04).ConclusionsLower baseline ALC is associated with worse survival, whereas lower postoperative ALC is associated with increased risk of progression in surgically treated HPV(+)OPSCC.Level of Evidence3

Abstract Background Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is an emerging minimally invasive surgical treatment for residual, recurrent, and new primary head and neck cancers in previously irradiated fields, with limited evidence for its oncological effectiveness. Methods A retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive cases performed in 16 high-volume international centers before August 2018 was conducted (registered at clinicaltrials.gov [NCT04673929] as the RECUT study). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, disease-specific survivals (DSS), and local control (LC) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, with subgroups compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling for multivariable analysis. Maximally selected rank statistics determined the cut point for closest surgical resection margin based on LC. Results Data for 278 eligible patients were analyzed, with median follow-up of 38.5 months. Two-year and 5-year outcomes were 69.0% and 62.2% for LC, 71.8% and 49.8% for OS, 47.2% and 35.7% for disease-free survival, and 78.7% and 59.1% for disease-specific survivals. The most discriminating margin cut point was 1.0 mm; the 2-year LC was 80.9% above and 54.2% below or equal to 1.0 mm. Increasing age, current smoking, primary tumor classification, and narrow surgical margins (≤1.0 mm) were statistically significantly associated with lower OS. Hemorrhage with return to theater was seen in 8.1% (n = 22 of 272), and 30-day mortality was 1.8% (n = 5 of 272). At 1 year, 10.8% (n = 21 of 195) used tracheostomies, 33.8% (n = 66 of 195) used gastrostomies, and 66.3% (n = 53 of 80) had maintained or improved normalcy of diet scores. Conclusions Data from international centers show TORS to treat head and neck cancers in previously irradiated fields yields favorable outcomes for LC and survival. Where feasible, TORS should be considered the preferred surgical treatment in the salvage setting.

ObjectiveFailure to recognize symptoms of non‐human papillomavirus‐associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(−)OPSCC) at presentation can delay diagnosis and treatment. We aim to identify patient factors and provider practice patterns that delay presentation and care in HPV(−)OPSCC.MethodsRetrospective review at a tertiary care center. Patients with HPV(−)OPSCC receiving treatment from 2006 to 2016. Patients were excluded if their date of symptom onset or diagnosis was unknown after thorough review of the electronic medical record or their tissue was not tested for HPV or p16. Clinical data, workup, and care timelines were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable linear regressions were performed to determine associations between patient and provider factors and delays in care.ResultsOf 70 included patients, 52 (74%) were male and mean age was 60.5 (SD = 9.0). Median time to diagnosis was 69 days (IQR = 32–127 days), with a median latency of 30 days (IQR = 12–61 days) from symptom onset to first presentation and 19.5 days (IQR = 4–46 days) from the first presentation to diagnosis. Most patients visited at least 2 providers (n = 52, 74%) before diagnosis. Evaluation by 3 or more providers prior to diagnosis was associated with significant delays in diagnosis of nearly a year (357.7 days, p < 0.001) and being treated or prescribed analgesia prior to diagnosis was significantly associated with delays in diagnosis (p = 0.004) on univariate regression analysis.ConclusionsDelays in care related to evaluations by multiple providers and misdiagnosis prolonged time to diagnosis in HPV(−)OPSCC. Improved patient and provider education is necessary to expedite the diagnosis of HPV(−)OPSCC.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 133:1394–1401, 2023

Abstract Objectives: We hypothesize that a validated panel of methylated DNA markers (MDMs) for HPV(+)CSCC will be similar to but distinct from a cohort of HPV(+)OPSCC. Methods: Patients were excluded for recurrent tumor, prior pelvic or head or neck cancer/neoplasia, chemotherapy &lt; 1 year, prior therapeutic radiation to the target region, prior transplant, insufficient target tissue (&lt;5mm), or if &lt;18 yrs. MDMs identified from sequenced differentially methylated regions were selected from a panel validated for HPV(+)CSCC and evaluated on DNA from independent FFPE HPV(+)OPSCC, HPV(+)CSCC, normal oropharynx tonsil, and normal cervix tissue using methylation-specific PCR. White blood cells (WBCs) were used as a background control. Results: 34 HPV(+)OPSCC, 36 HPV(+)CSCC, 26 normal tonsil tissue, and 24 normal cervical tissue patients met criteria. The HPV(+)OPSCC cohort was older (57 vs 44 yrs, p=0.027), had more frequent alcohol exposure (85% vs 64%, p=0.02), but similar ACE-27 comorbidity scores (p=0.078) and tobacco use (p=0.066). Tumor stages were stage I (47% and 83%), stage II (44% and 11%) and stage III (9% and 6%) for HPV(+)OPSCC and HPV(+)CSCC, respectively. Twenty-one MDMs were evaluated and areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) are reported (Table 1). 95% confidence intervals excluded a non-diagnostic null hypothesis AUC of 0.5. 5/21 (24%) achieved an AUC ≥ 0.90, 15/21 (71%) achieved an AUC ≥ 0.8, and 19/21 (90%) exhibited better than chance classifications relative to control tonsil tissue (all p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: MDMs have the potential to discriminate both HPV(+)OPSCC and HPV(+)CSCC from their normal tissue controls. 90% of the MDMs discovered for HPV(+)CSCC had better than chance discrimination in HPV(+)OPSCC suggesting a distinct signature between the two subtypes. Future discovery efforts specific to HPV(+)OPSCC is warranted. Methylated DNA Markers in HPV(+)OPSCC and HPV(+)CSCC CSCC AUC (95% CI) OPSCC AUC (95% CI) AUC CSCC vs AUC OPSCC Pvalue GRIN2D 0.72 (0.59-0.85) 0.91 (0.83-0.99) 0.019 EMX1 0.93 (0.86-0.99) 0.77 (0.65-0.89) 0.0191 VWC2 0.88 (0.79-0.97) 0.57 (0.42-0.72) 0.0001 ZNF610 0.99 (0.98-1) 0.89 (0.8-0.97) 0.0162 ZNF781.F 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.79 (0.67-0.91) 0.0585 TBX15 0.99 (0.96-1) 0.82 (0.72-0.93) 0.0025 TSPYL5 0.94 (0.87-1) 0.82 (0.72-0.93) 0.058 LOC645323 0.95 (0.89-1) 0.88 (0.8-0.97) 0.1952 ASCL1 0.98 (0.93-1) 0.86 (0.76-0.95) 0.0187 ABCB1 0.97 (0.93-1) 0.74 (0.61-0.86) 0.0001 ZNF69 0.89 (0.8-0.97) 0.95 (0.9-1) 0.2017 MAX.chr9 0.97 (0.92-1) 0.82 (0.72-0.93) 0.0113 ARHGAP12 0.91 (0.83-0.99) 0.9 (0.81-1) 0.9223 C1orf114 0.94 (0.86-1) 0.88 (0.8-0.97) 0.3366 MAX.chr6 0.99 (0.97-1) 0.86 (0.76-0.96) 0.0099 NEUROG3 0.95 (0.89-1) 0.7 (0.57-0.83) 0.0001 NID2 0.98 (0.95-1) 0.86 (0.77-0.95) 0.0207 TMEM200C 0.95 (0.89-1) 0.54 (0.39-0.69) 0.0001 TTYH1 0.99 (0.98-1) 0.82 (0.71-0.93) 0.0023 ZNF773 0.93 (0.86-1) 0.9 (0.82-0.98) 0.5696 ZNF781.R 1 (1-1) 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.0198 Citation Format: Kathryn M. Van Abel, David M. Routman, Daniel J. Ma, Karen A. Doering, Kelli N. Burger, Patrick H. Foote, William R. Taylor, Douglas W. Mahoney, Calise K. Berger, Xiaoming Cao, Sara S. Then, Alyssa M. Larish, Eric J. Moore, Joaquin G. Garcia, Rondell P. Graham, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, John B. Kisiel. Comparison of methylated DNA markers between human papillomavirus mediated carcinoma in oropharynx and cervical cancer: A pilot study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3742.

Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 accelerated the use of virtual visits within health care. We examined the utility of telemedicine for conducting visits in a tertiary head and neck practice. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on patients presenting via video to a tertiary-level head and neck clinic between January 2020 and December 2020. Patient demographics were collected in addition to visit indication, diagnostic imaging/tests at the time of visit, and post-visit plan. Visits were deemed successful if evaluation by video was sufficient in determining a clinical plan and did not require deferment of recommendations for subsequent in-person consult visits and/or work-up (labs, imaging). Logistic regression was performed to identify variables that served as significant predictors of successful video visits. Results A total of 124 video visits were reviewed. Video visits were successful for the initial evaluation 88.7% of the time ( n = 110). Computerized tomographic scans were the most available diagnostic test, available for 54% of patients ( n = 67), followed by biopsy report 30.6% ( n = 38). Visit indication had a statistically significant effect on whether a treatment plan could be made ( p = 0.024). For new patients with parotid masses ( n = 42), definitive treatment plans could be made 97.6% of the time ( n = 41). Patients presenting with an indication of thyroid mass (odds ratio: 0.19 (confidence interval: 0.00072–0.50), p = 0.018) and other neck mass (odds ratio: 0.035 (confidence interval: 0.0014, 0.90), p = 0.043) were at significantly lesser odds than parotid patients to have a successful video visit. Discussion In this study, virtual visits were successful for a high percentage of head and neck visits, particularly among patients seeking evaluation for parotid-related concerns.

Introduction We examined the suitability of using a video visit platform to perform postoperative parotidectomy evaluation at a tertiary care, multiple-surgeon otolaryngology center. Methods A retrospective case review was conducted of patients who underwent parotidectomy and postoperative video visits between November 2019 and December 2020. Success of video visit, plan if applicable, and post-visit outcomes were reviewed. Video visits were designated as successful if the physician could assess for complications in the postoperative course (e.g. first bite pain, Frey syndrome, ear numbness, unplanned visits to the emergency department, unplanned return to the operating room), perform examination of facial nerve function, and formulate care recommendations per clinical judgement without deferment of recommendations for a subsequent in-person visit. Results There were 96 postoperative video visits with 91 unique parotidectomy patients. Demographics: 28/63 male/female; average age, 54y. All video visits were suitable for successful postoperative parotidectomy patient evaluation. Eight visits (8.3%) consisted of patients presenting with common postoperative complications (e.g. eye dryness, first bite pain) and warranted care recommendations. In only two cases did the patient require further in-person procedural (hematoma evacuation, seroma aspiration) follow-ups. For the other 91.7% of visits (n = 88), no additional recommendations were required as patients experienced uncomplicated postoperative courses. Of all the patients, 26.1% (n = 23) were instructed to follow-up for routine surveillance. All other patients, 73.9% (n = 65) were instructed to follow-up as needed. Conclusion Postoperative parotidectomy evaluation is highly amenable to being performed by video. A telemedicine option offers convenience for patients in the majority of cases without compromising clinical assessment and judgment for the physician.