Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients Amongst Specialty Trainees in Restorative Dentistry

Background: Upon completion of Specialty Training in Restorative Dentistry, trainees (StRs) should
be proficient in maxillofacial prosthodontics to meet the restorative needs of head and neck cancer patients (HANC), and in preparation for the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE).1,2
Objective: The aim of this study is to collate and compare data relating to the training of Restorative Dentistry Rs in the management of HANC patients across different geographical locations within the British Isles. Methods: Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience in assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre and manufacturing surgical obturators, and in providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching within their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing oncology- based questions in a future ISFE. Results: Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training in all five countries within the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%). A third were in their 5th year of training. Less than half reported that they were confident
of independently assessing (48%) or treatment planning (38%) HANC patients. More than half of StRs (52%) indicated that they were not confident of attending theatres alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. One third (33%) rated their experience of treating oncology patients with implants as poor or very poor, including three in their 5th year of training. Less than one third rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as good or excellent. Only 4 respondents indicated that they were confident of answering an ISFE oncology question on management of healthcare delivery. Six StRs expressed concerns over a lack of case-based exposure.
Conclusion: Experience and training in maxillofacial prosthodontics is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with many lacking in clinical exposure.

Prognoses and improvement for head and neck cancers diagnosed in Europe in early 2000s: The EUROCARE-5 a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck (H&N) cancers are a heterogeneous group of malignancies, affecting various sites, with different prognoses. The aims of this study are to analyse survival for patients with H&N cancers in relation to tumour location, to assess the change in survival between European countries, and to investigate whether survival improved over time.
METHODS: We analysed about 250,000 H&N cancer cases from 86 cancer registries (CRs). Relative survival (RS) was estimated by sex, age, country and stage. We described survival time trends over 1999-2007, using the period approach. Model based survival estimates of relative excess risks (RERs) of death were also provided by country, after adjusting for sex, age and sub-site.
RESULTS: Five-year RS was the poorest for hypopharynx (25%) and the highest for larynx (59%). Outcome was significantly better in female than in male patients. In Europe, age-standardised 5-year survival remained stable from 1999-2001 to 2005-2007 for laryngeal cancer, while it increased for all the other H&N cancers. Five-year age-standardised RS was low in Eastern countries, 47% for larynx and 28% for all the other H&N cancers combined, and high in Ireland and the United Kingdom (UK), and Northern Europe (62% and 46%). Adjustment for sub-site narrowed the difference between countries. Fifty-four percent of patients was diagnosed at advanced stage (regional or metastatic). Five-year RS for localised cases ranged between 42% (hypopharynx) and 74% (larynx).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows survival progresses during the study period. However, slightly more than half of patients were diagnosed with regional or metastatic disease at diagnosis. Early diagnosis and timely start of treatment are crucial to reduce the European gap to further improve H&N cancers outcome.

Impact of Referral Protocols on the Dental Management of Patients Undergoing Treatment for Head and Neck Oncology in Northern Ireland

Objective: To evaluate the handling, by a group of practice-based researchers, of a recently introduced bulk fill resin-based composite restorative material, Filtek Bulk Fill Restorative (3M ESPE).

Methods: The twelve selected evaluators were sent explanatory letters, a pack of the material under investigation to use for 8 weeks, and a questionnaire.

Results: The evaluators rated the ease of use of the bulk fill restorative the same as the previously used posterior composite material. The provision of one shade only for evaluation may have compromised the score for aesthetic quality. No post-operative sensitivity was reported.

Conclusions: The bulk fill material was well received as indicated by the high number of evaluators who would both purchase the material and recommend it to colleagues.

Clinical relevance: A recently introduced bulk fill restorative material achieved a rating for handling which was similar to the evaluators’ previously used resin composite, although there were some concerns regarding the translucency of the material.

Oral Health Status of Patients Undergoing Treatment for Head and Neck Oncology in Northern Ireland

This study aimed to collect data on the oral health status of patients undergoing treatment for head and neck oncology across Northern Ireland. Data were collected on all patients referred to the Northern Ireland Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Oncology Team for discussion and treatment planning. Each patient underwent pre-treatment dental assessment in the Centre for Dentistry, Queen’s University Belfast, between June 2013 and November 2014. Data were collected from clinical oral examinations supplemented with intra-oral radiographs. During the course of the study 96 patients were assessed and the levels of dental disease observed in this cohort were high. On clinical examination
43% were diagnosed with caries and 46% with periodontal disease. Ten patients were completely edentate. The disease profile of this patient group presents significant challenges to dental services tasked with rendering patients dentally fit prior to undergoing oncology treatment.

POU2F1 activity regulates HOXD10 and HOXD11 promoting a proliferative and invasive phenotype in head and neck cancer

HOX genes are master regulators of organ morphogenesis and cell differentiation during embryonic development, and continue to be expressed throughout post-natal life. To test the hypothesis that HOX genes are dysregulated in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) we defined their expression profile, and investigated the function, transcriptional regulation and clinical relevance of a subset of highly expressed HOXD genes. Two HOXD genes, D10 and D11, showed strikingly high levels in HNSCC cell lines, patient tumor samples and publicly available datasets. Knockdown of HOXD10 in HNSCC cells caused decreased proliferation and invasion, whereas knockdown of HOXD11 reduced only invasion. POU2F1 consensus sequences were identified in the 5' DNA of HOXD10 and D11. Knockdown of POU2F1 significantly reduced expression of HOXD10 and D11 and inhibited HNSCC proliferation. Luciferase reporter constructs of the HOXD10 and D11 promoters confirmed that POU2F1 consensus binding sites are required for optimal promoter activity. Utilizing patient tumor samples a significant association was found between immunohistochemical staining of HOXD10 and both the overall and the disease-specific survival, adding further support that HOXD10 is dysregulated in head and neck cancer. Additional studies are now warranted to fully evaluate HOXD10 as a prognostic tool in head and neck cancers.

Specialty Registrars’ Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Objective The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training of Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) in the management of head and neck cancer (HANC) patients across different training units within the UK and Ireland. Methods Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre alone and manufacturing surgical obturators, and providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE)-station assessing knowledge of head and neck cancer. Results Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training within all five countries of the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%), with one StR in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A third (33%) were in their 5th year of training. Almost half of the StRs indicated that they were confident of independently assessing (48%) new patients with HANC, with fewer numbers reporting confidence in treatment planning (38%). The majority (52%) of respondents indicated that they were not confident of attending theatre alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. A third (33%) rated their experience of treating HANC patients with implants as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’, including three StRs in their 5th year of training. Less than one third (<33%) rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 7 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE-station focused on HANC. Conclusion Experience and training regarding patients with head and neck cancer is inconsistent for StRs across the UK and Ireland with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.