This graduated curriculum provides a realistic training experience to develop competency with oropharyngeal resections before transition to the operating room. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: First-1563, 2016.

Objectives The role of promoter methylation in the development of mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) has not been fully explored. In this study, we investigated the epigenetic landscape of MEC. Methods The Illumina HumanMethylation27 BeadChip array and differential methylation analysis were utilized to screen for epigenetic alterations in 14 primary MEC tumors and 14 matched normal samples. Bisulfite sequencing was used to validate these results, with subsequent quantitative Methylation-Specific PCR (qMSP) to validate chloride intracellular channel protein 3 (CLIC3) in a separate cohort. Furthermore, CLIC3 immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was performed in another separate cohort of MEC. Finally, clinical and pathological characteristics were statistically analyzed for correlation with methylation status of CLIC3 and CLIC3 IHC H-scores by Wilcoxon rank sum, Kruskall-Wallis, and X2 test tests. Results We obtained 6 significantly differentially methylated gene candidates demonstrating significant promoter hyper- or hypo- methylation from the array data. Using bisulfite sequencing, we found one gene, CLIC3, which showed differential methylation between MEC tumor and normal samples in a small validation cohort. qMSP analysis of the CLIC3 promoter in a separate validation set showed significantly lower methylation level in tumor than in normal. The level of CLIC3 methylation in MECs was not statistically correlated with clinical or pathological characteristics. However, IHC staining intensity and distribution of CLIC3 were significantly increased in MECs, compared with those of normal salivary gland tissues. Conclusions Hypomethylation of CLIC3 promoter and its overexpression are significant events in MEC. Its functional role and potential therapeutic utility in MEC are worthy of further exploration.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) guidelines recommend regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) monitoring and early intervention to optimize dysphagia outcomes; however, many factors affect the ability to achieve these goals. The aims of this study were to explore the barriers/facilitators to establishing and sustaining a MDT HNC care pathway and to examine the dysphagia-related speech-language pathology (SLP) and dietetic components of the pathway. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a mixed methods study design was used to evaluate an established MDT HNC pathway. Ten MDT members provided perceptions of facilitators/barriers to implementing and sustaining the pathway. Patients attending the SLP and dietetic components of the pathway who commenced treatment between 2013 and 2014 (n = 63) were audited for attendance, outcome data collected per visit, and swallowing outcomes to 24-month post-treatment. Dysphagia outcomes were compared to a published cohort who had received intensive prophylactic dysphagia management. Multiple CFIR constructs were identified as critical to implementing and sustaining the pathway. Complexity was a barrier. Patient attendance was excellent during treatment, with low rates of non-compliance (< 15%) to 24 months. Collection of clinician/patient outcome tools was good during treatment, but lower post-treatment. Dysphagia outcomes were good and comparable to prior published data. The pathway provided patients with access to regular supportive care and provided staff opportunities to provide early and ongoing dysphagia monitoring and management. However, implementing and sustaining a HNC pathway is complex, requiring significant staff resources, financial investment, and perseverance. Regular audits are necessary to monitor the quality of the pathway.

Background: Submandibular gland transfer (SMGT) mitigates radiation-induced xerostomia but has yet to be widely adopted. We evaluate the feasibility of incorporating SMGT at multiple academic institutions and report the incidence of treatment delay. Methods: Forty-nine patients were identified who underwent SMGT. Time points pertaining to diagnosis and key treatment events including SMGT, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation were extracted. Treatment delay was defined as either >60 days from diagnosis to definitive therapy or >6 weeks between surgery and adjuvant therapy.

No abstract