Low frequency of cigarette smoking and the risk of head and neck cancer in the INHANCE consortium pooled analysis

Funding • The pooled data coordination team (PBoffetta, MH, YCAL) were supported by National Cancer Institute grant R03CA113157 and by National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grant R03DE016611 • The Milan study (CLV) was supported by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (Grant no. 10068). • The Aviano study (LDM) was supported by a grant from the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC), Italian League Against Cancer and Italian Ministry of Research • The Italy Multicenter study (DS) was supported by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC), Italian League Against Cancer and Italian Ministry of Research. • The Study from Switzerland (FL) was supported by the Swiss League against Cancer and the Swiss Research against Cancer/Oncosuisse [KFS-700, OCS-1633]. • The central Europe study (PBoffetta, PBrenan, EF, JL, DM, PR, OS, NS-D) was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the European Commission INCOCOPERNICUS Program [Contract No. IC15- CT98-0332] • The New York multicentre study (JM) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [P01CA068384 K07CA104231]. • The study from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center from Seattle (CC, SMS) was supported by a National Institute of Health grant [R01CA048996, R01DE012609]. • The Iowa study (ES) was supported by National Instituteof Health [NIDCR R01DE011979, NIDCR R01DE013110, FIRCA TW001500] and Veterans Affairs Merit Review Funds. • The North Carolina studies (AFO) were supported by National Institute of Health [R01CA061188], and in part by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30ES010126]. • The Tampa study (PLazarus, JM) was supported by National Institute of Health grants [P01CA068384, K07CA104231, R01DE013158] • The Los Angeles study (Z-F Z, HM) was supported by grants from National Institute of Health [P50CA090388, R01DA011386, R03CA077954, T32CA009142, U01CA096134, R21ES011667] and the Alper Research Program for Environmental Genomics of the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. • The Houston study (EMS, GL) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01ES011740, R01CA100264]. • The Puerto Rico study (RBH, MPP) was supported by a grant from National Institutes of Health (NCI) US and NIDCR intramural programs. • The Latin America study (PBoffetta, PBrenan, MV, LF, MPC, AM, AWD, SK, VW-F) was supported by Fondo para la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica (FONCYT) Argentina, IMIM (Barcelona), Fundaco de Amparo a‘ Pesquisa no Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [No 01/01768-2], and European Commission [IC18-CT97-0222] • The IARC multicentre study (SF, RH, XC) was supported by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS) of the Spanish Government [FIS 97/ 0024, FIS 97/0662, BAE 01/5013], International Union Against Cancer (UICC), and Yamagiwa-Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study Grant. • The Boston study (KKelsey, MMcC) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA078609, R01CA100679]. • The Rome study (SB, GC) was supported by AIRC (Italian Agency for Research on Cancer). • The US multicentre study (BW) was supported by The Intramural Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, United States. • The Sao Paolo study (V W-F) was supported by Fundacao de Ampara a Pesquisa no Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP No 10/51168-0) • The MSKCC study (SS, G-P Y) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA051845]. • The Seattle-Leo stud (FV) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA030022] • The western Europe Study (PBoffetta, IH, WA, PLagiou, DS, LS, FM, CH, KKjaerheim, DC, TMc, PT, AA, AZ) was supported by European Community (5th Frame work Programme) grant no QLK1-CT-2001- 00182. • The Germany Heidelberg study (HR) was supported by the grant No. 01GB9702/3 from the German Ministry of Education and Research.

Aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescriptions and survival after the diagnosis of head and neck and oesophageal cancer

Peer reviewed

A randomized trial of specialized versus standard neck physiotherapy in cervical dystonia

We thank: the patients who took part; Monsieur John-Pierre Bleton for training the physiotherapists; Gladys McPherson (Senior IT Manager), Adesoji Adeyemi (programmer) and Diana Collins (data entry) from the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen who provided the randomisation and database service; and the funders including The Dystonia Society, the RS Macdonald Charitable Trust, The Sir Halley Stewart Trust, The Foyle Foundation and The Garfield Weston Foundation. The Dystonia Society and other funders had no role in the design, conduct, analysis or writing of the report or the decision to submit the manuscript.

Postoperative analgesic effect, of preoperatively administered dexamethasone, after operative fixation of fractured neck of femur: randomised, double blinded controlled study.

Background: Fractured neck of femur is a common cause of hospital admission in the elderly and usually requires operative fixation. In a variety of clinical settings, preoperative glucocorticoid administration has improved analgesia and decreased opioid consumption. Our objective was to define the postoperative analgesic efficacy of single dose of dexamethasone administered preoperatively in patients undergoing operative fixation of fractured neck of femur. Methods: Institutional ethical approval was granted and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients awaiting for surgery at Cork University Hospital were recruited between July 2009 and August 2012. Participating patients, scheduled for surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups (Dexamethasone or Placebo). Patients in the dexamethasone group received a single dose of intravenous dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg -1 immediately preoperatively. Patients in the placebo group received the same volume of normal saline. Patients underwent operative fixation of fractured neck of femur using standardised spinal anaesthesia and surgical techniques. The primary outcome was pain scores at rest 6 h after the surgery. Results: Thirty seven patients were recruited and data from thirty patients were analysed. The groups were similar in terms of patient characteristics. Pain scores at rest 6 h after the surgery (the principal outcome) were lesser in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group [0.8(1.3) vs. 3.9(2.9), mean(SD) p = 0.0004]. Cumulative morphine consumption 24 h after the surgery was also lesser in the dexamethasone group [7.7(8.3) vs. 15.1(9.4), mean(SD) mg, p = 0.04]. Conclusions: A single dose of intravenous dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg -1 administered before operative fixation of fractured neck of femur improve significantly the early postoperative analgesia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01550146, date of registration: 07/03/2012

AN INVESTIGATION ON ROUTINE FOLLOW-UP CARE FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER

BACKGROUND: Follow-up care aims to provide surveillance with early detection of recurring cancers and to address treatment complications and other health issues in survivorship. It is assumed that follow-up care fulfills these aims, however little evidence supports routine surveillance detecting curable disease early enough to improve survival. Cancer survivors are a diverse patient population, suggesting that a single follow-up regimen may not meet all patients’ follow-up needs. Little is known about what effective follow-up care should include for head and neck cancer patients in a Canadian setting. Identification of subgroups of patients with specific needs and current practices would allow for hypotheses to be generated for enhancing follow-up care. OBJECTIVES: 1a) To describe the follow-up needs and preferences of head and neck cancer patients, 1b) to identify which patient characteristics predict needs and preferences, 1c) to evaluate how needs and preferences change over time, 2a) to describe follow-up care practices by physician visits and imaging tests, and 2b) to identify factors associated to the delivered follow-up care. METHODS: 1) 175 patients who completed treatment between 2012 and 2013 in Kingston and London, Ontario were recruited to participate in a prospective survey study on patients’ needs and preferences in follow-up care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to describe patient survey responses and to identify patient characteristics that predicted needs and preferences. 2) A retrospective cohort study of 3975 patients on routine follow-up from 2007 to 2015 was carried out using data linkages across registry and administrative databases to describe follow-up practices in Ontario by visits and tests. Multivariate regression analyses assessed factors related to follow-up care. RESULTS: 1) Patients’ needs and preferences were wide-ranging with several characteristics predicting needs and preferences (ORECOG=2.69 and ORAnxiety=1.13). Needs and preferences declined as patients transitioned into their second year of follow-up (p<0.05). 2) Wide variation in practices was found, with marked differences compared to existing consensus guidelines. Multiple factors were associated with follow-up practices (RRTumor site=0.73 and RRLHIN=1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics can be used to personalize care and guidelines are not informing practice. Future research should evaluate individualized approaches to follow-up care.

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant? METHODS: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock. CONCLUSIONS: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

The Role of Perceived Social Support, Resilience, and Depression on Communicative Participation in Head and Neck Cancer Survivors

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Modified patch repair of femoral hernia after inguinal herniorrhaphy

Background and aim. It has been reported that femoral hernias are rather common after a previous repair of inguinal hernia. We herein present a modified patch repair technique for large femoral hernias that develop after a Lichtenstein operation for ipsilateral inguinal hernia. Patients and methods. The modified technique for femoral hernia was applied to three patients who had a Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. All patients were male. Hernia sac is dissected completely and sent back into to the preperitoneal space. Special attention should be given to the prevascular component of the sac. It is dissected as deep as possible into the preperitoneal space over the femoral vein. The defect is quite wide in this particular type of femoral hernia following Lichtenstein repair. A prosthetic patch that matches the defect is prepared. The medial edge of the mesh is configured to correspond to the pubic corner and lacunar ligament. The lateral margin of the patch is cut to create several petals for inverting the mesh above and medial to the femoral vein to prevent prevascular herniation. The mesh is secured to inguinal ligament, ilioinguinal tract, lacunar ligament, and Cooper ligament. Few sutures are put on the pubic corner and lacunar ligament. Results. One patient was discharged after two hours, other two stayed overnight. Readmission because of seroma development was recorded in two cases where standard polypropylene meshes were used. No complication was observed in the other patient who received lightweight meshes. No early recurrences were recorded after 4, 9, and 30 months. Conclusion. Femoral recurrence after previous inguinal hernia repair seems to be a specific entity. It has a prevascular component and the hernia defect can be much larger than that of a primary femoral hernia. A patch repair with infra-inguinal approach can be a valuable alternative with low complication rate.

Fadiga e conforto do quadricípite femoral gerados por estimulação eléctrica neuromuscular com modulação da forma de onda

Mestrado em Fisioterapia

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant? METHODS: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock. CONCLUSIONS: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.