Objective: We present two patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) after platinum-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) with complete response via abscopal effect following combined immunotherapy (IT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We review the literature for patients undergoing combined treatment with IT and RT to identify potential cases of abscopal response. Study Design: This is a case series with a contemporary review of the literature. Methods: Retrospective chart review identified two patients with potential abscopal responses after IT and RT for R/M HNSCC. The MEDLINE database was queried using the search terms “abscopal AND head and neck squamous cell carcinoma” and “immunotherapy AND stereotactic body radiation therapy.” Results: Two patients with metastatic HNSCC developed complete responses via a possible abscopal effect following combined SBRT and IT. Interim follow-up of both patients revealed a sustained, complete response. We examine the immunogenic effects of RT and report the first cases of potential abscopal effect for R/M HNSCC. We also review several preclinical studies demonstrating the synergistic efficacy of combined RT and IT with a discussion of possible mechanism. Conclusion: Observation of abscopal effect with combined IT and RT is currently under investigation through several preclinical studies and trials. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first two reported cases of abscopal effect for patients with HNSCC. We report two patients with R/M HNSCC with sustained, complete response after systemic IT and local RT.

ObjectiveTo characterize the influence of expanding indications on the profile of adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) at a high-volume CI center.Study DesignRetrospective review.SettingTertiary referral center.Patients774 adults undergoing CI evaluation from August 2015 to August 2020.Main Outcome MeasuresDemographics; audiometry; speech recognition; speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ-12).ResultsOf 745 (96.3%) patients qualifying for implantation, 642 (86.6%) pursued surgery. Median age at evaluation was 69 years; 56.3% were men; 88.2% were Caucasian. Median distance to our center was 95 miles. The majority (51.8%) had public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid), followed by private (47.8%) and military (0.4%). Mean PTA, CNC, and AzBio in quiet and noise for the ear to be implanted were 85.2 dB HL, 15.0%, and 19.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Hybrid/EAS criteria were met by 138 (18.5%) CI candidates, and 436 (77.0%) unilateral CI recipients had aidable contralateral hearing for bimodal hearing configurations. Younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–0.99) and non-Caucasian race (OR, 6.95; 95% confidence interval, 3.22–14.98) predicted candidacy. Likelihood of surgery increased for Caucasian (OR, 8.08; 95% confidence interval, 4.85–13.47) and married (OR, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.50–3.47) patients and decreased for those with public insurance (OR, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29–0.69). A lower SSQ-12 score predicted both candidacy and surgery.ConclusionDespite expansions in criteria, speech understanding remained extremely low at CI evaluation. Younger age and non-Caucasian race predicted candidacy, and Caucasian, married patients with private insurance and lower SSQ scores were more likely to pursue surgery.

Three discrete supramolecular self-assembled arsenic(iii) complexes including an unusual S(4)-symmetric tetranuclear [As(4)L(2)Cl(4)] metallacyclophane and two diastereomeric cis/trans-[As(2)LCl(2)] metallacycle intermediates co-crystallize within a single crystal lattice.

Objective: Precurved cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays have demonstrated superior audiometric outcomes compared with straight electrodes in a handful of studies. However, previous comparisons have often failed to account for preoperative hearing and age. This study compares hearing outcomes for precurved and straight electrodes by a single manufacturer while controlling for these and other factors in a large cohort. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary academic medical center. Patients: Two hundred thirty-one adult CI recipients between 2015 and 2021 with cochlear (Sydney, Australia) 522/622 (straight) or 532/632 (precurved) electrode arrays. Interventions: Postactivation speech recognition and audiometric testing. Main Outcome Measures: Speech recognition testing (consonantnucleus-consonant word [CNCw] and AzBio) was collected at 6 and 12 months postactivation. Hearing preservation was characterized by a low-frequency pure-tone average shift, or the change between preoperative and postoperative low-frequency pure-tone average. Results: Two hundred thirty-one patients (253 ears) with 6-month and/or 12-month CNCw or AzBio testing were included. One hundred forty-nine (59%) and 104 (41%) ears were implanted with straight and precurved electrode arrays, respectively. Average age at implantation was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-77 y). There was no significant difference in mean age between groups. CNCw scores were significantly different ( p = 0.001) between straight (51%; IQR, 36-67%) and precurved arrays (64%; IQR, 48-72%). AzBio scores were not significantly different ( p = 0.081) between straight (72%; IQR, 51-87%) and precurved arrays (81%; IQR, 57-90%). Controlling for age, race, sex, preoperative hearing, and follow-up time, precurved electrode arrays performed significantly better on CNCw (b = 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-16.0; p < 0.001) and AzBio (b = 8.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-16.0;, p = 0.014) testing. Hearing preservation was not different between electrodes on adjusted models. Conclusion: During the study period, patients undergoing placement of precurved electrode arrays had significantly higher CNC and AzBio scores than patients receiving straight electrodes, even after controlling for age, preoperative hearing, and follow-up time. Professional Practice Gap and Educational Need: Understanding the difference in audiometric outcomes between precurved and straight electrode arrays will help to guide electrode selection. Learning Objective: To understand differences in speech recognition scores postoperatively by electrode array type (precurved versus straight).