HPV Status Improves Classification of Head and Neck Gray Zone Cancers

In epidemiologic studies, patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are classified mainly by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. However, some patients are of an unclear subsite, the “gray zone” cases, which could reflect ICD coding error, absence of primary subsite, or extensive primary tumors that cross over multiple subsites of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Patients with gray zone squamous cell carcinomas were compared with patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) and stratified by human papillomavirus (HPV) status that was determined by p16 immunostaining or HPV serology. Comparisons consisted of clinicodemographic features and prognostic outcomes presented by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression models, reported as hazard ratios. There were 158 consecutive patients with gray zone HNSCC diagnosed at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center between 2006 and 2017: 66 had subsite coding discrepancies against the clinician’s documentation (“discrepant” cases; e.g., the diagnosis by the clinician was OSCC, while the classification by ICD coding was OPSCC), while 92 were squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary of the head and neck (SCCUPHN) after complete diagnostic workup. Comparators included 721 consecutive OSCC and 938 OPSCC adult cases. All HPV-positive cohorts (OPSCC, discrepant, and SCCUPHN) had similar clinicodemographic characteristics and better 3- and 5-y overall survival and disease-free survival than their HPV-negative counterparts. In contrast, HPV-negative discrepant cases had prognostic outcomes most similar to HPV-negative OPSCC cases, while HPV-negative SCCUPHN had survival outcomes most similar to those of patients with OSCC in this study. HPV-positive status can improve the classification of patients with unclear or discrepant oral/oropharyngeal subsite, an improvement over classification systems that are solely clinician defined or conducted through ICD coding. However, due to clinical practice, we could not make definitive reclassification for patients with HPV-negative gray zone HNSCC.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 2 with Recommendations for the Therapy of Primary, Recurrent and Advanced Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 1 with Recommendations for the Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy of Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Methods The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.

Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Virtual colonoscopy has excellent sensitivity for the detection of cancer and polyps greater than 1 cm in diameter. For virtual colonoscopy to succeed as a screening test for colorectal neoplasia, it must be well tolerated and accepted by patients. Patients' experiences with virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy were assessed and compared.

METHODS

Patients referred to the GI clinic for colonoscopy for any indication were recruited to undergo virtual colonoscopy before conventional colonoscopy. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire twice: after virtual colonoscopy and after completing both tests. Three variables, overall pain, discomfort, and lack of respect, were assessed by using a 7-point Liken scale with higher scores denoting a worse experience. Patients' preferences for virtual colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy were determined with a time tradeoff technique. To verify response stability, patients were asked to return an additional questionnaire by mail at 24 hours.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-five patients completed the questionnaire immediately after the procedures, and 83 patients completed the questionnaire at 24 hours. At both 0 and 24 hours, patients reported more pain, discomfort, and less respect after virtual colonoscopy than conventional colonoscopy (p < 0.01). The overall agreement (Kappa statistic) between times 0 and 24 hours was fair. Patients reported that they preferred conventional colonoscopy and would wait longer for conventional colonoscopy (mean = 4.9 weeks) than undergo a virtual colonoscopy (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients tolerate both virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy, although they report more pain, discomfort, and less respect undergoing virtual colonoscopy. Efforts to improve patient experience during virtual colonoscopy need to be investigated.