Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:24:55.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic review: impact of in-office biopsy on safety and waiting times in head and neck cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2022

A E Lim Open the ORCID record for A E Lim [Opens in a new window] ,
A D G Rogers ,
M Owusu-Ayim ,
S Ranjan ,
J Manickavasagam  and
J Montgomery
A E Lim*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
A D G Rogers
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
M Owusu-Ayim
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK
S Ranjan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK
J Manickavasagam
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK Tayside Academic Science Centre, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK
J Montgomery
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Dr A Lim, Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Rd, GlasgowG51 4TF, UK E-mail: alison.lim@ggc.scot.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to assess the current literature on the safety and impact of in-office biopsy on cancer waiting times as well as review evidence regarding cost-efficacy and patient satisfaction.

Method

A search of Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Prospero, PubMed and Web of Science was conducted for papers relevant to this study. Included articles were quality assessed and critically appraised.

Results

Of 19 741 identified studies, 22 articles were included. Lower costs were consistently reported for in-office biopsy compared with operating room biopsy. Four complications requiring intervention were documented. In-office biopsy is highly tolerated, with a procedure abandonment rate of less than 1 per cent. When compared with operating room biopsy, it is associated with significantly reduced time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment initiation. It is linked to improved overall three-year survival.

Conclusion

In-office biopsy is a safe procedure that may help certain patients avoid general anaesthetic. It was shown to significantly reduce time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment initiation when compared with operating room biopsy. This may have important implications for oncological outcomes. In-office biopsy requires fewer resources and is likely to be cost-saving five-years following introduction. With high rates of sensitivity and specificity, in-office biopsy should be considered as the first-line procedure to achieve tissue diagnosis.

Keywords

Head And Neck NeoplasmsEndoscopesBiopsySafetyDiagnosis
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 136 , Issue 10 , October 2022 , pp. 909 - 916
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

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 Lim takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. London: NICE, 2015Google Scholar
Department of Health. The NHS Cancer plan. In: https://www.thh.nhs.uk/documents/_Departments/Cancer/NHSCancerPlan.pdf [10 April 2022]Google Scholar
The 2-week rule for suspected head and neck cancer in the United Kingdom: referral patterns, diagnostic efficacy of the guidelines and compliance. Oral Oncology 2008;44:851–6Google Scholar
Healthier Scotland Scottish Government, Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancer, 2019. In: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-referral-guidelines-suspected-cancer-january-2019/ [10 April 2022]Google Scholar
Public Health Scotland. Cancer Statistics Head and Neck Cancer, 2020. In: https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-topics/Cancer/Cancer-statistics/Head-and-neck/#head [10 April 2022]Google Scholar
Public Health Scotland. Cancer waiting times- a national statistics publication for Scotland, 2020. In: https://beta.isdscotland.org/find-publications-and-data/conditions-and-diseases/cancer/cancer-waiting-times/ [10 April 2022]Google Scholar
Taylor, R, Omakobia, E, Sood, S, Glore, . The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on head and neck cancer services: a UK tertiary centre study. J Laryngol Otol 2020;134:684–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, JT, Bishara, T, TRushin, V, Benyamini, L. Adverse events and time to diagnosis of in-office laryngeal biopsy procedures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;159:97–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scottish Health Technologies Group. What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of outpatient biopsy for diagnosis of suspicious lesions of the larynx, pharynx and tongue base? 2018, Evidence Note Number 84: 1–42Google Scholar
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 2009;6:e1000097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naidu, 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;26:604–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, JT, Safadi, A, Fliss, DM, Gil, Z, Horowitz, G. Reliability of a transnasal flexible fiberoptic in-office laryngeal biopsy. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139:341–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zalvan, CH, Brown, DJ, Oiseth, SJ, Roark, RM. Comparison of trans-nasal laryngoscopic office based biopsy of laryngopharyngeal lesions with traditional operative biopsy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2509–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, CT, Lee, LA, Fang, TJ, Li, HY, Liao, CT, Chen, IH. NBI flexible laryngoscopy targeted tissue sampling in head and neck cancer patients with difficult airways. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:263–9Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, JT, Benyamini, L. Transnasal flexible fiberoptic in-office laryngeal biopsies-our experience with 117 patients with suspicious lesions. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2014;5:e0011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castillo-Farias, F, Cobeta, I, Souviron, R, Barbera, R, Mora, E, Benito, A et al. In-office cup biopsy and laryngeal cytology versus operating room biopsy for the diagnosis of pharyngolaryngeal tumors: efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Head Neck 2015;37:1483–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, AL, Sugumaran, M, Aviv, JE, Woo, P, Altman, K. The utility of office-based biopsy for laryngopharyngeal lesions: comparison with surgical evaluation. Laryngoscope 2015;125: 909–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippert, 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;125:919–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, TJ, Lia, HY, Liao, CT, Chiang, HC, Chen, IH. Office-based narrow band imaging guided flexible laryngoscopy tissue sampling: a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating its impact on Taiwanese health insurance program. J Form Med Assoc 2015;114:633–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, W, Yoon, B, Jang, JY, Lee, JC, Lee, B, Wang, S et al. Office-based biopsies for laryngeal lesions: analysis of consecutive 581 cases. Laryngoscope 2016;126:2513–19Google ScholarPubMed
Chang, C, Lin, W, Hsin, L, Lee, L, Lin, C, Li, H et al. Reliability of office-based narrow-band imaging-guided flexible laryngoscopic tissue samplings. Laryngoscope 2016;126:2764–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellenstein, DJ, deWitt, JK, Schutte, HW, Honings, J, van den Hoogen, FJA, Marres, HAM et al. Safety of flexible endoscopic biopsy of the pharynx and larynx under topical anesthesia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:3471–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saga, C, Olalde, M, Larruskain, E, Alvarez, L, Altuna, X. Application of flexible endoscopy-based biopsy in the diagnosis of tumour pathologies in otorhinolaryngology. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed) 2018;69:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutte, HW, Takes, RP, Slootweg, PJ, Arts, MJPA, Honings, J, van den Hoogen, FJA et al. Digital video laryngoscopy and flexible endoscopic biopsies as an alternative diagnostic workup in laryngopharyngeal cancer: a prospective clinical study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2018;127:770–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, F, Smith, KA, Chandarana, S, Matthews, TW, Bosch, JD, Nakoneshny, SC et al. An evaluation of in-office flexible fiber-optic biopsies for laryngopharyngeal lesions. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;47:31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellenstein, DJ, Honings, J, Schutte, HW, Herruer, JM, van den Hoogen, FJA, Marrers, HAM et al. Cost analysis of office-based transnasal esophagoscopy Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276:1457–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, S, Timen, M, Dion, GR, Fritz, MA, Branski, RC, Amin, MR. Cost analysis of channeled, distal chip laryngoscope for in-office laryngopharyngeal biopsies. J Voice 2019;33:575–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassan, NH, Usman, R, Yousuf, M, Ahmad, AN, Hirani, I. Transoral flexible laryngoscope biopsy: safety and accuracy. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;5:30–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohammed, H, Del Pero, M, Coates, M, Masterson, L, Tassone, P, Burrows, S et al. Office-based transnasal esophagoscopy biopsies for histological diagnosis of head and neck patients. Laryngoscope 2019;129:2721–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mozzanica, F, Ottaviani, F, Ginocchio, D, Schindler, A. Office-based laryngeal biopsy in patients ineligible for general anesthesia. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2020;32:373–8Google ScholarPubMed
Schutte, HW, van den Broek, GB, Steens, SCA, Hermens, RPMG, Honings, J, Marres, HAM, Markx, MAW et al. Takes RP. Impact of optimizing diagnostic workup and reducing the time to treatment in head and neck cancer. Cancer 2020;126:3982–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, AR, Nellemann, HM, Overgaard, J. Tumour progression in waiting time for radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007;84:5–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eissner, F, Haymerle, G, Brunner, M. Risk factors for acute unplanned tracheostomy during panendoscopy in HNSCC patients. PLoS One 2018;13:e0207171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timon, C, Reilly, K. Head and neck mucosal squamous cell carcinoma: results of palliative management. J Laryngol Otol 2016;120:389–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimberg, AS, Wellenstein, DJ, van den Broek, EM, Honings, J, van den Hoogen, FJA, Marres, HAM et al. Office based vs operating room-performed laryngopharyngeal surgery: a review of cost differences. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276:2963–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehanna, H, Hardman, JC, Shenson, JA, Abou-Foul, AK, Topf, MC, AlFalasi, M et al. Recommendations for head and neck surgical oncology practice in a setting of acute severe resource constraint during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:e350–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Health Technology Group. Outpatient biopsy for diagnosis of suspicious lesions of the larynx pharynx and tongue base. Healthcare Improvement Scotland, 2018. In: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/topics_assessed/shtg_012-18.aspx [5 March 2021]Google Scholar