Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

High-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) have been proposed to be associated with a subset of head and neck cancers (HNSCCs). However, clear biological evidence linking HPVmediated oncogenesis to the development of HNSCC is hardly available. An important biological mechanism underlying HPV-mediated carcinogenesis is the inactivation of p53 by the HPV E6 oncoprotein. In the present study we investigated this biological relationship between HPV and HNSCC. In total 84 HNSCC tumors were analyzed for the presence of high-risk HPV nucleic acids by DNA polymerase chain reaction-enzyme immunoassay (PCR-EIA) and E6 reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR as well as for the presence of mutations in the p53 gene. We found 20/84 HPV16 DNA-positive cases with one or more DNA assays, 10 of which were consistently positive with all assays. Only 9/20 cases showed E6 mRNA expression, indicative for viral activity. Only these nine E6 mRNA-positive cases all lacked a p53 mutation, whereas both the other HPV DNA-positive and HPV-DNA negative tumors showed p53 mutations in 36% and 63% of the cases, respectively. Moreover, only in lymph node metastases of HPV E6 mRNA-positive tumors both viral DNA and E6 mRNA were present. Our study provides strong biological evidence for a plausible etiological role of high-risk HPV in a subgroup of HNSCC. Analysis of E6 mRNA expression by RT-PCR or alternatively, semiquantitative analyses of the viral load, seem more reliable assays to assess HPV involvement in HNSCC than the very sensitive DNA PCR analyses used routinely. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Key words: papillomavirus; head and neck cancer; squamous cell carcinoma; p53 mutations; E6 oncoproteinMucosotropic high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs), known to cause cervical and other anogenital cancers, have been proposed to play a role in the etiology of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). 1 The presence of high-risk HPV DNA in a subgroup of HNSCCs has supported this hypothesis. [2][3][4][5] Molecular studies have provided important data on the role and oncogenic mechanism of high-risk HPV in carcinogenesis. 6 -8 By expression of the viral oncoproteins E6 and E7, the virus dysregulates crucial cellular mechanisms such as the cell cycle and the apoptotic pathway. The E6 oncoprotein specifically inactivates wild-type p53, and the E7 oncoprotein inactivates Rb. In this way the high-risk HPV E6-mediated degradation of the p53 protein should be considered an alternative pathway for "classical" mutation to knock-out the p53 regulated pathways; it provides the biological basis to expect that tumors originating from HPV infection will show wild-type p53. Indeed, this general biological mechanism is supported by the finding that p53 mutations hardly occur in cervical carcinomas. 9,10 However, in most studies on head and neck cancer, HPV DNA presence and p53 mutations were overlapping, 2,11,12 an observation that gave rise to a long debate as to whether HPV is causally related to the development of a subset of these tumors.On the other hand, the inconsi...

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of (preventive) rehabilitation on swallowing and mouth opening after concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Forty-nine patients with advanced oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx, or nasopharynx cancer treated with CCRT were randomized into a standard (S) or an experimental (E) preventive rehabilitation arm. Structured multidimensional assessment (i.e., videofluoroscopy, mouth-opening measurement, structured questionnaires) was performed before and 10 weeks after CCRT. In both S and E arms, feasibility was good (all patients could execute the exercises within a week) and compliance was satisfactory (mean days practiced per week was 4). Nevertheless, mouth opening, oral intake, and weight decreased significantly. Compared to similar CCRT studies at our institute, however, fewer patients were still tube-dependent after CCRT. Furthermore, some functional outcomes seemed less affected than those of studies in the literature that did not incorporate rehabilitation exercises. Patients in the E arm practiced significantly fewer days in total and per week, but they obtained results comparable to the S arm patients. Preventive rehabilitation (regardless of the approach, i.e., experimental or standard) in head and neck cancer patients, despite advanced stage and burdensome treatment, is feasible, and compared with historical controls, it seems helpful in reducing the extent and/or severity of various functional short-term effects of CCRT.

Purpose There is a large body of evidence supporting the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), more recently termed photobiomodulation (PBM) for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). Recent advances in PBM technology, together with a better understanding of mechanisms involved and dosimetric parameters may lead to the management of a broader range of complications associated with HNC treatment. This could enhance patient adherence to cancer therapy, and improve quality of life and treatment outcomes. The mechanisms of action, dosimetric, and safety considerations for PBM have been reviewed in part 1. Part 2 discusses the head and neck treatment side effects for which PBM may prove to be effective. In addition, PBM parameters for each of these complications are suggested and future research directions are discussed. Methods Narrative review and presentation of PBM parameters are based on current evidence and expert opinion. Results PBM may have potential applications in the management of a broad range of side effects of (chemo)radiation therapy (CRT) in patients being treated for HNC. For OM management, optimal PBM parameters identified were as follows: wavelength, typically between 633 and 685 nm or 780–830 nm; energy density, laser or light-emitting diode (LED) output between 10 and 150 mW; dose, 2–3 J (J/cm2), and no more than 6 J/cm2 on the tissue surface treated; treatment schedule, two to three times a week up to daily; emission type, pulsed (<100 Hz); and route of delivery, intraorally and/or transcutaneously. To facilitate further studies, we propose potentially effective PBM parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for dermatitis, dysphagia, dry mouth, dysgeusia, trismus, necrosis, lymphedema, and voice/speech alterations. Conclusion PBM may have a role in supportive care for a broad range of complications associated with the treatment of HNC with CRT. The suggested PBM irradiation and dosimetric parameters, which are potentially effective for these complications, are intended to provide guidance for well-designed future studies. It is imperative that such studies include elucidating the effects of PBM on oncology treatment outcomes.

Purpose There is a large body of evidence supporting the efficacy of low level laser therapy (LLLT), more recently termed photobiomodulation (PBM), for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). Recent advances in PBM technology, together with a better understanding of mechanisms involved, may expand the applications for PBM in the management of other complications associated with HNC treatment. This article (part 1) describes PBM mechanisms of action, dosimetry, and safety aspects and, in doing so, provides a basis for a companion paper (part 2) which describes the potential breadth of potential applications of PBM in the management of side-effects of (chemo)radiation therapy in patients being treated for HNC and proposes PBM parameters. Methods This study is a narrative non-systematic review. Results We review PBM mechanisms of action and dosimetric considerations. Virtually, all conditions modulated by PBM (e.g., ulceration, inflammation, lymphedema, pain, fibrosis, neurological and muscular injury) are thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of (chemo)radiation therapy-induced complications in patients treated for HNC. The impact of PBM on tumor behavior and tumor response to treatment has been insufficiently studied. In vitro studies assessing the effect of PBM on tumor cells report conflicting results, perhaps attributable to inconsistencies of PBM power and dose. Nonetheless, the biological bases for the broad clinical activities ascribed to PBM have also been noted to be similar to those activities and pathways associated with negative tumor behaviors and impeded response to treatment. While there are no anecdotal descriptions of poor tumor outcomes in patients treated with PBM, confirming its neutrality with respect to cancer responsiveness is a critical priority. Conclusion Based on its therapeutic effects, PBM may have utility in a broad range of oral, oropharyngeal, facial, and neck complications of HNC treatment. Although evidence suggests that PBM using LLLT is safe in HNC patients, more research is imperative and vigilance remains warranted to detect any potential adverse effects of PBM on cancer treatment outcomes and survival.