No abstract

IMPORTANCE Overall, the prognosis of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is poor. This malignancy can arise de novo or from inverted papillomas, but it is unclear whether survival differences between the 2 pathologies exist.OBJECTIVE To assess for survival differences between patients with sinonasal de novo SCC (dnSCC) and those with inverted papilloma-associated SCC (IPSCC).DATA SOURCES A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 23, 2020, with cross-referencing of retrieved studies, was performed. Additional data were requested from authors.STUDY SELECTION Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to capture studies with survival outcomes of adults with sinonasal SCC who underwent regular treatment. Clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series with more than 10 adults aged 18 years or older with sinonasal SCC were included. Exclusion criteria were studies on non-SCC sinonasal neoplasms, studies without histopathologic diagnoses, non-English language articles, nonhuman animal studies, and abstract-only articles. Two blinded investigators (J.J.L., A.M.P., T.W.E., or N.S.W.) screened each abstract and full text, and a third investigator (J.J.L. or P.P.) adjudicated discrepancies. Of 729 unique citations, 26 studies of 1194 total patients were included.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria were used to assess study quality. Two blinded investigators (J.J.L., A.M.P., T.W.E., or N.S.W.) independently extracted data from each study. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes were disease-free and disease-specific survival. Before data collection, it was hypothesized that the dnSCC cohort would have worse survival outcomes than the IPSCC cohort. RESULTSOne study of patients with dnSCC, 12 studies of patients with IPSCC, and 5 studies with both cohorts were included in the meta-analysis of overall survival. The pooled 5-year overall survival rate for 255 patients with dnSCC was 56% (95% CI, 41%-71%; I 2 = 83.8%) and for 475 patients with IPSCC was 65% (95% CI, 56%-73%; I 2 = 75.7%). Five comparative studies of both cohorts totaling 240 patients with dnSCC and 155 patients with IPSCC were included in another meta-analysis. The pooled overall survival hazard ratio was 1.87 (95% CI, 1.24-2.84; I 2 = 0%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This systematic review and meta-analysis found that patients with dnSCC had almost a 2-fold increased risk of mortality compared with those with IPSCC. Large, multicenter studies are necessary to validate these findings before considering treatment alterations such as de-escalation based on histopathology.

IMPORTANCE A patient's decision to undergo surgery may be fraught with uncertainty and decisional conflict. The unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants further study into factors associated with patient decision-making.OBJECTIVE To assess decisional conflict and patient-specific concerns for people undergoing otolaryngologic surgery during the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTSThis prospective cross-sectional survey study was conducted via telephone from April 22 to August 31, 2020. English-speaking adults scheduled for surgery from a single academic surgical center were invited to participate. Individuals who were non-English speaking, lacked autonomous medical decision-making capacity, scheduled for emergent surgery, or had a communication disability were excluded. For race and ethnicity reporting, participants were classified dichotomously as White according to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or non-White as a collective term including Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and ethnicity.EXPOSURES The SURE Questionnaire (sure of myself, understand information, risks/benefits ratio, and encouragement) was used to screen for decisional conflict, with a total score greater than or equal to 3 indicating clinically significant decisional conflict. Participants were asked to share their specific concerns about having surgery. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURESDecisional conflict and patient demographic data were assessed via bivariate analyses, multivariable logistic regression and conjunctive consolidation. Patient-specific concerns were qualitatively analyzed for summative themes. RESULTSOf 444 patients screened for eligibility, 182 (40.9%) respondents participated. The median age was 60.5 years (interquartile range, 48-70 years). The racial and ethnic identity of the participants was classified as binary White (84% [153 of 182]) and non-White (16% [29 of 182]). The overall prevalence of decisional conflict was 19% (34 of 182). Decisional conflict was more prevalent among non-White than White participants (proportion difference 18.8%, 95% CI, 0.6%-37.0% and adjusted odds ratio 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.4). Combining information from multiple variables through conjunctive consolidation, the group with the highest rate of decisional conflict was non-White patients with no college education receiving urgent surgery (odds ratio, 10.8; 95% CI, 2.6-45.0). Intraoperative and postoperative concerns were the most common themes expressed by participants. There was a clinically significant difference in the proportion of participants who screened positive for decisional conflict (30%) and expressed postoperative concerns than those who screened negative for decisional conflict (17%) (proportion difference, 13%; 95% CI, 1%-25%). Among patients reporting concerns about COVID-19, most screened positive for decisional conflict.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this cross-sectional survey study suggest t...

Improving results reporting is necessary to enhance the reader's ability to interpret the results of any given study. This can only be achieved through increasing the reporting of effect sizes and CIs rather than relying on P values for both statistical significance and clinically meaningful results.

Objectives/Hypothesis Neurogenic cough affects 11% of Americans and causes significant detriment to quality of life. With the advent of novel therapies, the objective of this review is to determine how procedural therapies (e.g., superior laryngeal nerve block) compare to other established pharmacologic and non‐pharmacologic treatments for neurogenic cough. Methods With the assistance of a medical librarian, a systematic review was performed using PICOS (patients, interventions, comparator, outcome, study design) format: adults with neurogenic cough receiving any pharmacologic or non‐pharmacologic treatment for neurogenic cough compared to adults with neurogenic cough receiving any other relevant interventions, or treated as single cohorts, assessed with cough‐specific quality of life outcomes, in all study designs and case series with ≥ 10 cases. Case reports, review articles, non‐human studies, non‐English language articles, and unavailable full‐text articles were excluded. Results There were 2408 patients with neurogenic cough in this review, treated with medical therapy (77%), speech therapy (19%), both medical and speech therapy (1%), and procedural therapy (3%). The included studies ranged from low to intermediate quality. Overall, most interventions demonstrated successful improvement in cough. However, the heterogeneity of included study designs precluded direct comparisons between intervention types. Conclusion This meta‐analysis compared various treatments for neurogenic cough. Procedural therapy should be considered in the armamentarium of neurogenic cough treatments, particularly in patients refractory to, or intolerant of, the side effects of medical therapy. Lastly, this review illuminates key areas for improving neurogenic cough diagnosis, such as strict adherence to diagnostic and treatment guidelines, sophisticated reflux testing, and standardized, consistent outcome reporting. Laryngoscope, 132:107–123, 2022