Considerations for head and neck oncology practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Wuhan and Toronto experience

Safety of An Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol After Head and Neck Free Tissue Transfer

OBJECTIVES

Implementing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols and decreasing length of stay (LOS) have become a priority for major surgeries, including microvascular free tissue transfer (MVFTT) reconstruction of the head and neck. We describe an ERAS protocol with the goal to further reduce length of stay beyond national medians.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review between August 2016 and February 2023, including all patients who underwent MVFTT after oral cavity, skull base, salivary gland, and cutaneous ablative surgery. An ERAS protocol was implemented in March 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients were included. Approximately 59.8% underwent oral cavity MVFTT, 34.5% cutaneous and lateral skull base, and 5.8% maxillary and anterior skull base. A total of 209 (54.7%) patients had surgery prior to implementation of the ERAS protocol and 174 (45.3%) after. Median LOS decreased from 9 days (interquartile interval [IQR] 8-11) to 6 (IQR 5-7.5, p < 0.0001) following oral cavity MVFTT. For cutaneous and lateral skull base reconstruction, median LOS decreased from 6 days (IQR 5-8) to 3 (IQR 3-7, p < 0.0001). For anterior skull base and sinonasal MVFTT, median LOS decreased from 8 (IQR 7-9) to 5 days (IQR 4.5-7, p = 0.0005). Rate of discharge to skilled nursing or subacute rehabilitation facilities decreased (24% before ERAS, 9.2% after, p < 0.0001). Thirty-day readmission rate was similar before and after implementation (10.5% vs. 10.3, p = 0.954). Discharge to facility was associated with readmission (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.12-4.89, p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Implementation of the ERAS protocol was associated with decreased LOS. There was no increase in rate of readmission.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:4527-4534, 2024.

The educational value of thyroidectomy YouTube videos for surgical trainees

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of thyroidectomy videos posted on YouTube for surgical training.

METHODS

The following keywords were searched on YouTube: "thyroidectomy", "conventional thyroidectomy", "hemithyroidectomy", and "thyroid lobectomy". The first 30 videos from each search were selected for a total of 120 videos. Included videos were those displaying a conventional approach to thyroidectomy and real, non-animated patient surgery. Two independent reviewers assessed each video using the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational Guidelines (LAP-VEGaS) and a thyroidectomy-specific grading score (TSS).

RESULTS

The search yielded 22 videos that met the selection criteria. The inter-rater agreement was excellent for the grading systems (ICC = 0.910). The average LAP-VEGaS score was of medium quality (8.82 ± 3.56 standard deviation (SD)). The highest average score (11.00 ± 1.68 SD) was assigned to videos published from academic institutions. There was no statistically significant difference in LAP-VEGaS scores when comparing the type of publisher between videos (p = 0.132). The majority of the videos (12/22, 55 %) did not include all hallmarks of thyroidectomy according to the novel TSS score. There was a significant positive correlation between TSS markers and the overall LAP-VEGaS score (r = 0.577, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

YouTube videos as an educational resource for thyroidectomy instructions vary in quality. Most of the thyroidectomy videos were medium quality according to the LAP-VEGaS score. YouTube sourced thyroidectomy videos should be used to supplement traditional educational methods.

International recommendations for plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA measurement in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in resource-constrained settings: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to constrain health-care staff and resources worldwide, despite the availability of effective vaccines. Aerosol-generating procedures such as endoscopy, a common investigation tool for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, are recognised as a likely cause of SARS-CoV-2 spread in hospitals. Plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA is considered the most accurate biomarker for the routine management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A consensus statement on whether plasma EBV DNA can minimise the need for or replace aerosol-generating procedures, imaging methods, and face-to-face consultations in managing nasopharyngeal carcinoma is urgently needed amid the current pandemic and potentially for future highly contagious airborne diseases or natural disasters. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 33 international experts in otorhinolaryngology or head and neck surgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and clinical oncology with vast experience in managing nasopharyngeal carcinoma, representing 51 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. These consensus recommendations aim to enhance consistency in clinical practice, reduce ambiguity in delivering care, and offer advice for clinicians worldwide who work in endemic and non-endemic regions of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, in the context of COVID-19 and other airborne pandemics, and in future unexpected settings of severe resource constraints and insufficiency of personal protective equipment.

Recommendations for the safety of hospitalised patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To map the recommendations for hospitalised patient safety in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Scoping review using the method recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA SOURCES

Databases: Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, LILACS, CINAHL and IBECS; grey literature platform: Google Scholar; and 11 official websites of leading healthcare institutions were searched on 27 April 2021 and updated on 11 April 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included documents that present recommendations for the safety of hospitalised patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, published in any language, from 2020 onwards.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was performed in pairs with consensus rounds. A descriptive analysis was carried out to present the main characteristics of the articles. Qualitative data from the extraction of recommendations were analysed through content analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five documents were included. Most papers were identified as expert consensus (n=56, 44.8%). Forty-six recommendations were identified for the safety of hospitalised patients: 17 relating to the reorganisation of health services related to the flow of patients, the management of human and material resources and the reorganisation of the hospital environment; 11 on the approach to the airways and the prevention of the spread of aerosols; 11 related to sanitary and hygiene issues; 4 about proper use of personal protective equipment and 3 for effective communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations mapped in this scoping review present the best practices produced so far and serve as a basis for planning and implementing good practices to ensure safe hospital care, during and after COVID-19. The engagement of everyone involved in the care of hospitalised patients is essential to consolidate the mapped recommendations and provide dignified, safe and quality care.

Expanded use of telemedicine for thyroid and parathyroid surgery in the COVID-19 era and beyond

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly expanded the use of telemedicine in healthcare. Surgical thyroid and parathyroid diseases are uniquely suited for comprehensive telemedicine. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of telemedicine with in-person preoperative visits in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery at a tertiary care center in a COVID-19 hotspot from March 2020 to October 2020. Patients were divided into a telemedicine cohort, with preoperative consultation and surgical decision-making conducted via telemedicine, and a conventional in-person cohort.

Results

Of 94 patients, 28 were enrolled in the telemedicine cohort and 66 were enrolled in the conventional cohort. Telemedicine patients were more likely to have parathyroid disease (50% versus 24%, p = 0.02) compared with the conventional cohort, but there was no significant difference in surgery for malignancy (43% versus 56%, p = 0.27). There were no significant differences in surgical outcomes or postoperative complications between cohorts, including intraoperative blood loss (19.4 mL versus 35.5 mL, p = 0.06), postoperative length of stay (1.3 days versus 1.2 days, p = 0.93), persistent hypocalcemia (3.6% versus 0%, p = 0.30), and true vocal fold paresis (0% versus 4.5%, p = 0.55).

Conclusions

With careful selection, many patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery may be safely treated using comprehensive telemedicine.

The effectiveness of computer-assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (cCBT) for psychological outcomes in patients with laryngectomy: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The symptom burden was tremendous and rates of psychological distress were high because of laryngectomy in Laryngeal carcinoma. Anxiety and depression as mainly psychological distress influenced their sleep, pain, and the quality of life (QOL). This study aimed to assess the effiacy of computer-assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (cCBT) for psychological outcomes and QOL in patients with laryngectomy, in addition to overall experience with health care service, during the perioperative period.

METHODS

A cCBT program was be customized focused on improving anxiety and depressive symptoms among patients with laryngectomy, and then its effectiveness was assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to the TAU (treatment as usual) group (n=40) or CCBT group (cCBT+ TAU, n = 40). The primary outcome measures were the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI), Patients Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The secondary outcome measures were the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Visual Analogue Scale-10 (VAS-10). The outcomes were obtained from patients before intervention (T1), 1 hour before surgery (T2), postoperative 3-day (T3), postoperative 7-day (T4), and postoperative 10-day(T5: after intervention completed). Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N) and satisfaction for health care service were assessed before discharge.

RESULTS

A mixed linear model displayed significant improvement in symptoms of anxiety, depression, insomnia, and pain in the two groups (all p<0.001); and revealed a significant decreasing on the SAI, PHQ-9, AIS, and VAS-10 scores in the CCBT group compared to that of TAU group during the post-intervention periods (all p<0.05). Furthermore, the other QOL of patients were higher except for physical well-being (p=0.176) and the satisfaction scores were higher in the CCBT group than that of TAU group (all p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The new developed cCBT program has a positive effect on psychosomatic symptoms surgery-related among patients with laryngectomy,. And patients with cCBT program reported high levels of QOL and satisfaction during perioperative period. To minimize face-to-face contact, the computer-assisted intervention may be an attractive approach.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis in the Piedmont Region, Italy: Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has likely affected the most vulnerable groups of patients and those requiring time-critical access to healthcare services, such as patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to use time trend data to assess the impact of COVID-19 on timely diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) in the Italian Piedmont region.

Methods

This study was based on two different data sources. First, regional hospital discharge register data were used to identify incident HNC in patients ≥18 years old during the period from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to model the long-time trends in monthly incident HNC before COVID-19 while accounting for holiday-related seasonal fluctuations in the HNC admissions. Second, in a population of incident HNC patients eligible for recruitment in an ongoing clinical cohort study (HEADSpAcE) that started before the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the distribution of early-stage and late-stage diagnoses between the pre-COVID-19 and the COVID-19 period.

Results

There were 4,811 incident HNC admissions in the 5-year period before the COVID-19 outbreak and 832 admissions in 2020, of which 689 occurred after the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. An initial reduction of 28% in admissions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.84) was largely addressed by the end of 2020 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.03) when considering the whole population, although there were some heterogeneities. The gap between observed and expected admissions was particularly evident and had not completely recovered by the end of the year in older (≥75 years) patients (RR: 0.88, 0.76-1.01), patients with a Romano-Charlson comorbidity index below 2 (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-1.00), and primary surgically treated patients (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97). In the subgroup of patients eligible for the ongoing active recruitment, we observed no evidence of a shift toward a more advanced stage at diagnosis in the periods following the first pandemic wave.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected differentially the management of certain groups of incident HNC patients, with more pronounced impact on older patients, those treated primarily surgically, and those with less comorbidities. The missed and delayed diagnoses may translate into worser oncological outcomes in these patients.

Practical Recommendations for the Preoperative Screening and Protective Protocols in Cancer Surgeries During COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The new coronavirus (COVID-19) has posed many new challenges to the health care and the timing of surgical care. At the beginning of the pandemic many guidelines recommended postponing elective surgical procedures to reallocate resources. As regards, delay in cancer treatment could be effective on cancer progression. The aim of this systematic review was to outline a guideline for preoperative screening before cancer surgeries and protecting health care workers during the pandemic.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted through a search in electronic databases up to August 2020. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases were searched without time limitation. The keywords were a combination of preoperative, cancer surgery, COVID-19, and their synonyms.

Results: The most commonly used ways to triage preoperatively were telephone pre-assessment for suspicious symptoms and history of contact or travel, 14-day self-isolation, in- hospital queries at admission, temperature monitoring, and isolation in a single room COVID-free ward or physical distancing. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test 24–72 h before operation was recommended commonly, except in inaccessible centers, but non-contrast chest-CT scan is not routinely advised for elective surgeries to salvage medical resources. Recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) for staffs were wearing N95 mask in addition to gown, gloves, eye protection in aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), and wearing gloves, hats, and disposable surgical masks, practice distancing, and hand hygiene for all staffs. Meanwhile team separation of hospital staffs caring for COVID-19 patients, segregated areas for COVID-19 clean and contact, restriction of visitors and family members, and personal distancing are mostly recommended.

Conclusion: We hope this review would be a guidance for triage, preoperative testing, and summarizing safety principles during COVID-19 pandemic alongside with surgical reintegration.

Body Donation, Teaching, and Research in Dissection Rooms in Spain in Times of Covid-19

The state of alarm due to Covid-19 pandemic in Spain stopped all educational and most university research activities. The Spanish Anatomical Society (SAE) Consensus Expert Group on Body Donations piloted a study based on a questionnaire to know the status of body donations and dissection activities during the lockdown, as well as the future implications of Covid-19 pandemic for body donation programs and anatomy teaching. The questionnaire results show that Spanish Universities refused body donations and stopped all dissection research and teaching. The Covid-19 expected influence on anatomy teaching was referred to the increase in teaching workforce and resources required to apply the new safety measures to future practical activities, as well as to prepare and adapt teaching material for online-only programs. The application of reinforced safety measures was expected to be perceived by the respondent's students as a gain in teaching quality, while the transformation of the anatomy courses in online-only programs will be perceived as a quality decrease. The respondent's concerns about future institutional implications of the pandemic were related to increased costs of the adaptation of the facilities and the reinforced preventive measures, as well as the eventual decrease in donations. The complete lockdown applied to dissection rooms was not justified by scientific evidence and represented a break of the confidence deposed in the institutions by the donors. A consensus is required for the adoption of a renewed, comprehensive protocol for present and future body donations including the evidence Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to create.

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19-positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment.

LAY SUMMARY

Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment.

Head and neck cancer management in the Covid-19 era: Our experience

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Perioral Aerosol Sequestration Suction Device Effectively Reduces Biological Cross-Contamination in Dental Procedures

Objective  The infection risk during dental procedures is a common concern for dental professionals which has increased due to coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic. The development of devices to specifically mitigate cross-contamination by droplet/splatter is crucial to stop infection transmission. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a perioral suction device (Oral BioFilter, OBF) to reduce biological contamination spread during dental procedures.

Materials and Methods  Forty patients were randomized 1:1 to a standard professional dental hygiene treatment with OBF and without. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence assay was used to evaluate the spread of potential contaminants. The total number of relative light units (RLU) from key dental operatory locations: operator’s face-shield, back of the surgical operator’s-gloves, patient’s safety-goggles, and instrumental table were measured. Percentage contamination reductions between control and OBF were compared.

Statistical Analysis  Primary outcome, total RLU, was analyzed by comparing the means of logged data, using a two-sided two-sample t -test. Secondary outcomes as RLU of logged data for the different locations were analyzed in the same way. Proportion of patients from whom different locations reported events (clean, acceptable, and failure) were analyzed by using Fisher’s exact test.

Results  For the whole dental environment, RLUs reduction (<150 units) achieved with OBF was 98.4% (97.4–99%). By dental operatory location the reduction in RLUs was from 99.6%, on the operator face-shield, to 83% on instrumental table. The control group reported a very high percentage of failures, (>300) being 100% on the surfaces closer to the patient’s mouth and decreasing to 70% on instrumental table. In contrast, the higher failure percentage in the OBF group was found on the patient’s goggles (40%), while the operator face-shield showed an absence of contamination.

Conclusion  OBF device has shown efficient reduction of biological aerosol cross-contamination during dental procedures as proved by ATP-bioluminescence assay. Nevertheless, for maximum safety, its use must be combined with standard protective gear such as goggles, face shield, and surgical gloves.

Consideration in Microvascular Reconstruction during Times of Social Crises: Perspectives on Resource Utilization

Reconstruction of head and neck surgical defects can be a complicated, costly process. While the era of cost-effective medicine has begun to broadly question the necessity of high-cost care, times of extraordinary sociomedical demand bring increased scrutiny to even routine costs and resource utilization. Within this context, we reviewed the advantages, drawbacks, and financial costs of both regional and free flap reconstructions, namely the decreased costs and hospital resource utilization that may be associated with reconstruction using regional flaps. Although beset by reports of partial necrosis in certain regional flaps-particularly the submental island, cervicofacial advancement, and supraclavicular artery island flaps-many reports have demonstrated complication and flap failure rates equivalent to those of free flaps. Additionally, regional flaps have been associated with decreased costs for hospital stay, most notably in cases of postoperative complications. In cases necessitating free flap reconstruction, cost-savings strategies such as bypassing postoperative intensive care unit admissions have been shown to provide satisfactory, safe outcomes. As the head and neck surgeon continues to adapt to the medical pressures of a global pandemic, resource-sparing approaches to oncologic care will persist in their newfound importance.

[Oncology Services for Patients with Head Neck Cancer during Corona-Times - Patients' Perspective]

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 pandemic has impact on the oncology service system for tumor patients. What is the view of head and neck cancer patients (HNC) on this situation and which coping strategies were developed?

MATERIAL & METHODS

In study 1 PRIO asked 433 tumor patients regarding their impressions/fears during the lockdown between April 15 and May 15, 2020 (online, standardized questionnaire). In 2^nd study 292 tumor patients reported their pandemic-induced perceived changes and coping strategies by established questionnaires (WHO-5, MLQ, GrAw-7). An analysis of the HNC-data obtained by standardized questionnaires was performed.

RESULTS

Study 1 had 91 HNC, study 2-84 HNC. Study 1 shows high stress levels for the majority of HNC (53,8 %). Personal fears regarding the own disease and therapies (39.6 %) are a central problem. The participants await physical (24.7 %) as well as psychological (21.3 %) consequences due to the pandemic and its current management. During the lockdown the isolation (banned visitors at any hospital) was discussed as critical main point by 58.5 % of HNC patients. Study 2 (after lockdown) underlined the mental stress caused by pandemic. Intensified relations within the families (58/100 points) as well as more intensive experience of nature and silence (58/60 points) are the most perceived changes in corona-times. HNC showed increased own inactivity (MLQ) and depressed well-being (WHO-5) and attention to the moment (GrAw-7).

CONCLUSIONS

HNC patients have had high burden and fears due to the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. Their views are important for further strategies to organize and stabilize the oncology service system during further pandemic periods.

Is the oral cavity a reservoir for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 shedding?

Limited knowledge about the contagiosity and case fatality rate of COVID-19 as well as the still enigmatic route of transmission have led to strict limitations of non-emergency health care especially in head and neck medicine and dentistry. There are theories that the oral cavity provides a favorable environment for SARS-CoV-2 entry and persistence which may be a risk for prolonged virus shedding. However, intraoral innate immune mechanisms provide antiviral effects against a myriad of pathogenic viruses. Initial hints of their efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 are surfacing. It is hypothesized that intraoral immune system activity modulates the invasion pattern of SARS-CoV-2 into oral cells. Thus, the significance of intraoral tissues for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and persistence cannot be assessed.

The underlying concept for this hypothesis was developed by the critical observation of a clinically asymptomatic COVID-19 patient. Despite a positive throat swab for SARS-CoV-2, molecular pathologic analysis of an oral perisulcular tissue specimen failed to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA. More research effort is necessary to define the true origin of the contagiosity of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients.

[Surgical care during the new coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic]

Safe and reasonable surgical care in the context of COVID-19 pandemic is difficult task. The main current issues are selection of patients for surgical treatment, principles of surgical treatment in cancer patients, possibilities of endoscopic surgery, organization of surgical department and operating theatre, surgical strategy in infected patients. Own experience and rational implementation of the recommendations developed by international research and practical communities are extremely important for optimizing surgical treatment of patients in a pandemic, as well as for ensuring the safety of patients and medical staff.

A Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has inevitably caused those involved in cancer care to change clinical practice in order to minimize the risk of infection while maintaining cancer treatment as a priority. General advice during the pandemic suggests that most patients continue with ongoing therapies or planned surgeries, while follow-up visits may instead be delayed until the resolution of the outbreak. We conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify articles published in English language that reported on care recommendations for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic from its inception up to 1st June 2020, using the terms "(cancer or tumor) AND (COVID 19)". Articles were selected for relevance and split into five categories: (1) personal recommendations of single or multiple authors, (2) recommendations of single authoritative centers, (3) recommendations of panels of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, (4) recommendations of multicenter cooperative groups, (5) official guidelines or recommendations of health authorities. Of the 97 included studies, 10 were personal recommendations of single or multiple independent authors, 16 were practice recommendations of single authoritative cancer centers, 35 were recommendations provided by panel of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, 19 were cooperative group position papers, and finally, 17 were official guidelines statements. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency, and has rapidly modified our clinical practice. Delaying unnecessary treatment, minimizing toxicity, and identifying care priorities for surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies must be viewed as basic priorities in the COVID-19 era.

Development and validation of a Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN-HN) in a scarce resource setting: Response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, access to surgical care for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) is limited and unpredictable. Determining which patients should be prioritized is inherently subjective and difficult to assess. The authors have proposed an algorithm to fairly and consistently triage patients and mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes.

Methods

Two separate expert panels, a consensus panel (11 participants) and a validation panel (15 participants), were constructed among international HNC surgeons. Using a modified Delphi process and RAND Corporation/University of California at Los Angeles methodology with 4 consensus rounds and 2 meetings, groupings of high‐priority, intermediate‐priority, and low‐priority indications for surgery were established and subdivided. A point‐based scoring algorithm was developed, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN). Agreement was measured during consensus and for algorithm scoring using the Krippendorff alpha. Rankings from the algorithm were compared with expert rankings of 12 case vignettes using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

Results

A total of 62 indications for surgical priority were rated. Weights for each indication ranged from −4 to +4 (scale range; −17 to 20). The response rate for the validation exercise was 100%. The SPARTAN‐HN demonstrated excellent agreement and correlation with expert rankings (Krippendorff alpha, .91 [95% CI, 0.88‐0.93]; and rho, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.45‐0.95]).

Conclusions

The SPARTAN‐HN surgical prioritization algorithm consistently stratifies patients requiring HNC surgical care in the COVID‐19 era. Formal evaluation and implementation are required.

Lay Summary

Many countries have enacted strict rules regarding the use of hospital resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Facing delays in surgery, patients may experience worse functional outcomes, stage migration, and eventual inoperability.

Treatment prioritization tools have shown benefit in helping to triage patients equitably with minimal provider cognitive burden.

The current study sought to develop what to the authors' knowledge is the first cancer–specific surgical prioritization tool for use in the COVID‐19 era, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN). This algorithm consistently stratifies patients requiring head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID‐19 era and provides evidence for the initial uptake of the SPARTAN‐HN.

To the authors' knowledge, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN) is the first cancer surgery–specific prioritization tool for use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. The SPARTAN‐HN algorithm is reliable and valid for the stratification of patients with head and neck cancer who require urgent cancer care in resource‐restricted practice environments.

Recommendations for head and neck surgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread exponentially worldwide. In Brazil, the number of infected people diagnosed has been increasing and, as in other countries, it has been associated with a high risk of contamination in healthcare teams. For healthcare professionals, the full use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is mandatory, such as wearing surgical or filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) masks, waterproof aprons, gloves, and goggles, in addition to training in care processes. A reduction in the number of face-to-face visits and non-essential elective procedures is also recommended. However, surgery should not be postponed in the case of the most essential elective indications (mostly associated with head and neck cancers). As malignant tumors of the head and neck are clinically time sensitive, neither consultations for these tumors nor their treatment should be postponed. Postponing surgical treatment can result in a change in the disease stage and alter an individual's chance of survival. In this situation, planning of all treatments must begin with the request for, in addition to routine examinations, a nasal swab polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 and chest computed tomography. Only if the results of these tests are positive or if fever or other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 are present should the surgical procedure be postponed until the patient completely recovers. This is mandatory not only because of the risk of contamination of the surgical team but also because of the increased risk of postoperative complications and high risk of death. During this pandemic, the most effective safety measures are social distancing for the general public and the adequate availability and use of PPE in the healthcare field. The treatment of other chronic diseases, such as cancer, should be continued, as the damming of cases of these diseases will have a deleterious effect on the public healthcare system.

COVID-19 pandemic and health care disparities in head and neck cancer: Scanning the horizon

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly disrupted head and neck cancer (HNC) care delivery in ways that will likely persist long term. As we scan the horizon, this crisis has the potential to amplify preexisting racial/ethnic disparities for patients with HNC. Potential drivers of disparate HNC survival resulting from the pandemic include (a) differential access to telemedicine, timely diagnosis, and treatment; (b) implicit bias in initiatives to triage, prioritize, and schedule HNC-directed therapy; and (c) the marked changes in employment, health insurance, and dependent care. We present four strategies to mitigate these disparities: (a) collect detailed data on access to care by race/ethnicity, income, education, and community; (b) raise awareness of HNC disparities; (c) engage stakeholders in developing culturally appropriate solutions; and (d) ensure that surgical prioritization protocols minimize risk of racial/ethnic bias. Collectively, these measures address social determinants of health and the moral imperative to provide equitable, high-quality HNC care.

Head and neck oncological ablation and reconstruction in the COVID-19 era - our experience to date

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to the routine operations of healthcare services across the world. As the potential duration of the pandemic remains uncertain, the need to develop strategies to continue urgent elective services has received increasing attention. A solution adopted in the Kent, Sussex and Surrey area of England has been to create COVID-19-protected cancer hubs. The Queen Victoria Hospital is the designated hub for head and neck cancer services in the area. We report on the evolution of the head and neck cancer care pathway and standard operating protocols put in place and how these have combined both national guidelines and local problem solving. It is hoped that our experience can help guide other centres as they re-establish head and neck cancer services during the ongoing pandemic.

Recommendations for head and neck surgical oncology practice in a setting of acute severe resource constraint during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international consensus

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff.

Nonsurgical management of resectable oral cavity cancer in the wake of COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis

•

COVID-19 resource constraints have resulted in treatment delays for oral cancer.

•

Non-surgical treatment may be necessary to provide timely access to care.

•

Definitive CCRT is associated with an increased rate of death in early oral cancer.

•

Neoadjuvant regimens have not shown survival benefit in resectable oral cancer.

Objective

Surgery is the preferred treatment modality for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, due to limited resources, re-assessment of treatment paradigms in the wake of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is urgently required. In this rapid review, we described contemporary oncological outcomes for OSCC using non-surgical modalities.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published between January 1, 2010 and April 1, 2020 on MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL. Studies were included if they contained patients with OSCC treated with either neoadjuvant, induction, or definitive radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or combination thereof, and an outcome of overall survival.

Results

In total, 36 articles were included. Definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy were the focus of 18 articles and neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy were the focus of the other 18 articles. In early stage OSCC, definitive radiotherapy, with or without concurrent chemotherapy, was associated with a significantly increased hazard of death compared to definitive surgery (HR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.56–3.67, I²: 63%). The hazard of death was non-significantly increased with definitive chemoradiotherapy in studies excluding early disease (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.85–4.64, I²: 84%). Two recent randomized control trials have been conducted, demonstrating no survival advantage to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Conclusion

This review suggests that primary radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy are inferior to surgical management for OSCC. Strategies for surgical delay warranting consideration are sparse, but may include several neoadjuvant regimens, recognizing these regimens may not offer a survival benefit over definitive surgery alone.

Considerations for head and neck oncology practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Wuhan and Toronto experience

The practices of head and neck surgical oncologists must evolve to meet the unprecedented needs placed on our health care system by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Guidelines are emerging to help guide the provision of head and neck cancer care, though in practice, it can be challenging to operationalize such recommendations. Head and neck surgeons at Wuhan University faced significant challenges in providing care for their patients. Similar challenges were faced by the University of Toronto during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic in 2003. Herein, we outline our combined experience and key practical considerations for maintaining an oncology service in the midst of a pandemic.

Head and neck cancer surgery in COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Italy

•

COVID-2019 pandemic represents a great challenge both in itself and for time-sensitive diseases.

•

Head and neck cancer surgery is a high risk procedure for COVID-19.

•

Possibility of SARS-CoV-2 false negative at pre-operative evaluation in asymptomatic subjects should not let guard down in the post-operative time.

Surge after the surge: Anticipating the increased volume and needs of patients with head and neck cancer after the peak in COVID-19

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic continues to have extensive effects on public health as it spreads rapidly across the globe. Patients with head and neck cancer are a particularly susceptible population to these effects, and we expect there to be a potential surge in patients presenting with head and neck cancers after the surge in COVID‐19. Furthermore, the impact of social distancing measures could result in a shift toward more advanced disease at presentation. With appropriate anticipation, multidisciplinary head and cancer teams could potentially minimize the impact of this surge and plan for strategies to provide optimal care for patients with head and neck cancer.