Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:20:58.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reviewing indications for panendoscopy in the investigation of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

A Noor ,
L Stepan ,
S S-T Kao ,
N Dharmawardana ,
E H Ooi ,
J-C Hodge ,
S Krishnan  and
A Foreman
A Noor*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Australia
L Stepan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Australia
S S-T Kao
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
N Dharmawardana
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
E H Ooi
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
J-C Hodge
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Australia
S Krishnan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Australia
A Foreman
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Dr A Noor, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia E-mail: anthonynoor@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The role of panendoscopy in the modern investigation of head and neck cancer is changing with the development of improved radiological techniques, in-office biopsy capabilities and the low rate of synchronous primary tumours. This study aimed to review the indications for panendoscopy in the investigation of newly diagnosed head and neck cancer.

Method

A retrospective review was conducted of 186 patients with newly diagnosed head and neck cancer, between January 2014 and December 2015, at two tertiary centres.

Results

Obtaining a tissue diagnosis was the most common indication for panendoscopy (65 per cent), followed by surgical planning including transoral robotic surgery suitability assessment (22.6 per cent), and the investigation of carcinoma of an unknown primary (11.3 per cent). Two synchronous primary tumours were identified, generating a yield of 1.1 per cent.

Conclusion

Panendoscopy remains integral in the assessment of transoral robotic surgery suitability. Refining indications for modern panendoscopy could reduce the need for this procedure in this cohort of patients.

Keywords

Head And Neck CancerEndoscopySynchronous NeoplasmsSquamous Cell Carcinoma
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 10 , October 2018 , pp. 901 - 905
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr A Noor takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Slaughter, DP, Southwick, HW, Smejkal, W. “Field cancerization” in oral stratified squamous epithelium. Clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer 1953;6:963–8Google Scholar
2van Monsjou, HS, Balm, AJ, van den Brekel, MM, Wreesmann, VB. Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a unique disease on the rise? Oral Oncol 2010;46:780–5Google Scholar
3Chandran, D, Woods, C, Ullah, S, Ooi, E, Athanasiadis, T. A comparative study of voice outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing injection laryngoplasty performed under local versus general anaesthesia: an Adelaide voice specialist's experience. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:S41–6Google Scholar
4Thota, PN, Zuccaro, G Jr, Vargo, JJ 2nd, Conwell, DL, Dumot, JA, Xu, M. A randomized prospective trial comparing unsedated esophagoscopy via transnasal and transoral routes using a 4-mm video endoscope with conventional endoscopy with sedation. Endoscopy 2005;37:559–65Google Scholar
5Postma, GN, Bach, KK, Belafsky, PC, Koufman, JA. The role of transnasal esophagoscopy in head and neck oncology. Laryngoscope 2002;112:2242–3Google Scholar
6Lippert, D, Hoffman, MR, Dang, P, McCulloch, TM, Hartig, GK, Dailey, SH. In-office biopsy of upper airway lesions: safety, tolerance, and effect on time to treatment. Laryngoscope 2015;125:919–23Google Scholar
7Guardiola, E, Pivot, X, Dassonville, O, Poissonnet, G, Marcy, PY, Otto, J et al. Is routine triple endoscopy for head and neck carcinoma patients necessary in light of a negative chest computed tomography scan? Cancer 2004;101:2028–33Google Scholar
8Naidu, H, Noordzij, JP, Samim, A, Jalisi, S, Grillone, GA. Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of in-office cup forcep biopsies versus operating room biopsies for laryngopharyngeal tumors. J Voice 2012;26:604–6Google Scholar
9Arora, A, Kotecha, J, Acharya, A, Garas, G, Darzi, A, Davies, DC et al. Determination of biometric measures to evaluate patient suitability for transoral robotic surgery. Head Neck 2015;37:1254–60Google Scholar
10Krishnan, S, Connell, J, Ofo, E. Transoral robotic surgery base of tongue mucosectomy for head and neck cancer of unknown primary. ANZ J Surg 2017;87:E281–4Google Scholar
11Kwee, TC, Kwee, RM. Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2009;19:731–44Google Scholar
12Zhu, L, Wang, N. 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography as a diagnostic tool in patients with cervical nodal metastases of unknown primary site: a meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 2013;22:190–4Google Scholar
13Rusthoven, KE, Koshy, M, Paulino, AC. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cervical lymph node metastases from an unknown primary tumor. Cancer 2004;101:2641–9Google Scholar
14Mani, N, George, MM, Nash, L, Anwar, B, Homer, JJ. Role of 18-Fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography and subsequent panendoscopy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary. Laryngoscope 2016;126:1354–8Google Scholar
15Miller, FR, Karnad, AB, Eng, T, Hussey, DH, Stan McGuff, H, Otto, RA. Management of the unknown primary carcinoma: long-term follow-up on a negative PET scan and negative panendoscopy. Head Neck 2008;30:28–34Google Scholar
16Shaha, A, Hoover, E, Marti, J, Krespi, Y. Is routine triple endoscopy cost-effective in head and neck cancer? Am J Surg 1988;155:750–3Google Scholar
17Krishnatreya, M, Rahman, T, Kataki, AC, Das, A, Das, AK, Lahkar, K. Synchronous primary cancers of the head and neck region and upper aero digestive tract: defining high-risk patients. Indian J Cancer 2013;50:322–6Google Scholar
18Stoeckli, SJ, Zimmermann, R, Schmid, S. Role of routine panendoscopy in cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:208–12Google Scholar
19Hsu, SH, Wong, YK, Wang, CP, Wang, CC, Jiang, RS, Chen, FJ et al. Survival analysis of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma with simultaneous second primary tumors. Head Neck 2013;35:1801–7Google Scholar
20Liu, FY, Liao, CT, Yen, TC. Synchronous malignancies in patients with squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1020–8Google Scholar
21Rennemo, E, Zatterstrom, U, Boysen, M. Synchronous second primary tumors in 2,016 head and neck cancer patients: role of symptom-directed panendoscopy. Laryngoscope 2011;121:304–9Google Scholar
22Jain, KS, Sikora, AG, Baxi, SS, Morris, LG. Synchronous cancers in patients with head and neck cancer: risks in the era of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Cancer 2013;119:1832–7Google Scholar
23Haughey, BH, Arfken, CL, Gates, GA, Harvey, J. Meta-analysis of second malignant tumors in head and neck cancer: the case for an endoscopic screening protocol. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:105–12Google Scholar
24Xu, CC, Biron, VL, Puttagunta, L, Seikaly, H. HPV status and second primary tumours in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;42:36Google Scholar
25Panosetti, E, Luboinski, B, Mamelle, G, Richard, JM. Multiple synchronous and metachronous cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract: a nine-year study. Laryngoscope 1989;99:1267–73Google Scholar
26Priante, AV, Gross, JL, Sztokfisz, CZ, Nishimoto, IN, Kowalski, LP. Diagnosis of second primary tumor and long-term survival after single initial triple endoscopy in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2285–92Google Scholar
27Gustafson, LM, Tami, TA. Flexible versus rigid esophagoscopy: a practical comparison for otolaryngologists. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;8:227–31Google Scholar
28Waaijer, A, Terhaard, CH, Dehnad, H, Hordijk, G-J, Van Leeuwen, MS, Raaymakers, CP et al. Waiting times for radiotherapy: consequences of volume increase for the TCP in oropharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2003;66:271–6Google Scholar
29Huang, J, Barbera, L, Brouwers, M, Browman, G, Mackillop, WJ. Does delay in starting treatment affect the outcomes of radiotherapy? A systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:555–63Google Scholar
30Chen, Z, King, W, Pearcey, R, Kerba, M, Mackillop, WJ. The relationship between waiting time for radiotherapy and clinical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Radiother Oncol 2008;87:3–16Google Scholar
31Wyatt, RM, Beddoe, AH, Dale, RG. The effects of delays in radiotherapy treatment on tumour control. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:139–55Google Scholar
32Vergez, S, Moriniere, S, Dubrulle, F, Salaun, P-Y, De Mones, E, Bertolus, C et al. Initial staging of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx and pharynx (excluding nasopharynx). Part I: locoregional extension assessment: 2012 SFORL guidelines. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2013;130:39–45Google Scholar