Background To compare outcomes of high-risk human papilloma virus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV OPSCC) treated with modern radiation treatment (RT) and daily image-guidance, staged with the 7 th versus the 8 th Edition (Ed) Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging systems. Methods All eligible patients with HPV OPSCC treated definitively over a 10-year period (2007–2016) at a single institution were included. Protocols consisting of either RT or chemo-radiation (CRT) (weekly cisplatin or cetuximab) +/− neoadjuvant chemotherapy for those with bulky disease were used. All patients were Fluorine-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) staged at baseline and at intervals for up to 2 years post-treatment. Patients received parotid-sparing intensity modulated or volumetric modulated arc therapy with simultaneous integrated boost to either 70Gy in 35 fractions or 66Gy in 30 fractions. The overall survival (OS) was determined for each stage using the 7 th Ed and subsequently with the updated 8 th Ed staging system. Results One hundred fifty-three patients were analysed. Patient stage groupings varied between the 7 th and 8 th Eds respectively; Stage I (0.7% vs 64.7%), Stage II (8.5% vs 22.2%), stage III (21.6% vs 12.4%) and stage IV (69.3% vs 0.7%). In the 7 th Ed, the 5 year probability of OS for stages I to III was 90%, versus stage IV 85.5%. There was no statistically significant difference between the staging groups ( p = 0.85). In the 8 th Ed there was a statistically significant difference in 5 year OS for stage I and stage II disease (96.9% vs 77.1% respectively; p < 0.0001), but not between stage II and III disease ( p = 0.98). Conclusions The new 8 th Ed UICC/AJCC TNM staging system better discriminates between stage I and Stage II HPV OPSCC with respect to OS compared with the 7 th Ed staging system. Further investigation is required for stage III or IV patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Chronic rhinosinusitis patients with biofilms cultured from their sinonasal cavity have greater symptom burden and risk of recalcitrant disease. A number of non-antibiotic, ‘anti-biofilm’ treatments exist which show anti-biofilm properties in preclinical studies. There is little evidence evaluating their impact on clinical symptom scores in chronic rhinosinusitis. Method A systematic review was performed to assess the literature regarding the efficacy of non-steroid, non-antibiotic, anti-biofilm specific topical therapies in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. The primary outcome assessed was change in validated patient reported outcome measures before and after anti-biofilm treatment. Results Thirteen studies assessing the effect of anti-biofilm therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis through validated patient-reported outcome measures were included. Seven different anti-biofilm specific therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis were identified. None of the seven anti-biofilm therapies was identified as being confidently efficacious beyond placebo. Only one therapy (intranasal xylitol) showed a statistically significant reduction in symptom scores compared with placebo in more than one trial. Conclusion Robust evidence supporting the use of various anti-biofilm therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis is lacking. Further high quality, human, in vivo trials studying the effect of anti-biofilm therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis are needed to address the deficiencies of the current evidence base.