Impact of tumor board recommendations on treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background/Aims: To identify physician selection factors in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer and how treatment outcome is affected by Tumor Board recommendations. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 213 patients treated for locally advanced head and neck cancer in a single institution was performed. All treatments followed Tumor Board recommendations: 115 patients had chemotherapy and radiation, and 98 patients received postoperative radiation. Patient characteristics, treatment toxicity, locoregional control and survival between these two treat- ment groups were compared. Patient survival was compared with survival data reported in randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: There were no differences in comorbidity factors, and T or N stages between the two groups. A statistically significant number of patients with oropharyngeal and oral cavity tumors had chemoradiation and postoperative radiation, respectively (p < 0.0001). Grade 3-4 toxicities during treatment were 48 and 87% for the postoperative radiation and chemoradiation groups, respectively (p = 0.0001). There were no differences in survival, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases between the two groups. Patient survival was comparable to survival rates reported by randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Conclusion: Disease sites remained the key determining factor for treatment selection. Multidisciplinary approaches provided optimal treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer, with overall survival in these patients being comparable to that reported in randomized clinical trials. Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG.

Development of a GEM Electronic Board (GEB) for triple-GEM detectors

Developed for use with triple GEM detectors, the GEM Electronic Board (GEB) forms a crucial part of the electronics readout system being developed as part of the CMS muon upgrade program. The objective of the GEB is threefold; to provide stable powering and ground for the VFAT3 front ends, to enable high-speed communication between 24 VFAT3 front ends and an optohybrid, and to shield the GEM detector from electromagnetic interference. The paper describes the concept and design of a large-size GEB in detail, highlighting the challenges in terms of design and feasibility of this deceptively difficult system component.