Background: Patients with human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) have substantially better treatment response and overall survival (OS) than patients with HPV-negative disease. Treatment options for HPV+ OPC can involve either a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach (± concomitant chemotherapy) or a primary surgical approach (± adjuvant radiation) with transoral surgery (TOS). These two treatment paradigms have different spectrums of toxicity. The goals of this study are to assess the OS of two de-escalation approaches (primary radiotherapy and primary TOS) compared to historical control, and to compare survival, toxicity and quality of life (QOL) profiles between the two approaches. Methods: This is a multicenter phase II study randomizing one hundred and forty patients with T1–2 N0–2 HPV+ OPC in a 1:1 ratio between de-escalated primary radiotherapy (60 Gy) ± concomitant chemotherapy and TOS ± de-escalated adjuvant radiotherapy (50–60 Gy based on risk factors). Patients will be stratified based on smoking status (< 10 vs. ≥ 10 pack-years). The primary endpoint is OS of each arm compared to historical control; we hypothesize that a 2-year OS of 85% or greater will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, QOL and toxicity. Discussion: This study will provide an assessment of two de-escalation approaches to the treatment of HPV+ OPC on oncologic outcomes, QOL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03210103. Date of registration: July 6, 2017, Current version: 1.3 on March 15, 2019.

Background: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a postoperative clinical care pathway for patients undergoing major head and neck oncologic surgery with microvascular reconstruction. Methods: This is a comparative trial of a prospective treatment group managed on a postoperative clinical care pathway and a historical group managed prior to pathway implementation. Effectiveness outcomes evaluated were total hospital days, return to OR, readmission to ICU and rate of pulmonary complications. Costing perspective was from the government payer. Results: 118 patients were included in the study. All outcomes demonstrated that the postoperative pathway group was both more effective and less costly, and is therefore a dominant clinical intervention. The overall mean pre- and post-pathway costs are ․22,733 and ․16,564 per patient, respectively. The incremental cost reduction associated with the postoperative pathway was ․6,169 per patient. Conclusion: Implementing the postoperative clinical care pathway in patients undergoing head and neck oncologic surgery with reconstruction resulted in improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs.

Objective: Patients with head and neck cancer frequently present to academic tertiary referral centers with imaging studies that have been performed and interpreted elsewhere. At our institution, these outside head and neck imaging studies undergo formal second opinion reporting by a fellowship-trained academic neuroradiologist with expertise in head and neck imaging. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of this practice on cancer staging and patient management. Methods: Our institutional review board approved the retrospective review of randomized original and second opinion reports for 94 consecutive cases of biopsy proven or clinically suspected head and neck cancer in calendar year 2010. Discrepancy rates for staging and recommended patient management were calculated and, for the 32% (30/94) of cases that subsequently went to surgery, the accuracies of the reports were determined relative to the pathologic staging gold standard. Results: Following neuroradiologist second opinion review, the cancer stage changed in 56% (53/94) of cases and the recommended management changed in 38% (36/94) of patients with head and neck cancer. When compared to the pathologic staging gold standard, the second opinion was correct 93% (28/30) of the time. Conclusion: In a majority of patients with head and neck cancer, neuroradiologist second opinion review of their outside imaging studies resulted in an accurate change in their cancer stage and this frequently led to a change in their management plan.

Surgery with free flap reconstruction is a standard treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC). Because of the complexity of HNC surgery, recovery can be challenging, and complications are common. One of the foundations of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is early postoperative mobilization. The ERAS guidelines for HNC surgery with free flap reconstruction recommend mobilization within 24 h. This is based mainly on evidence from other surgical disciplines, and the extent to which mobilization within 24 h improves recovery after HNC surgery has not been explored. This retrospective analysis included 445 patients from the Calgary Head and Neck Enhanced Recovery Program. Mobilization after 24 h was associated with more complications of any type (OR = 1.73, 95% CI [confidence interval] = 1.16–2.57) and more major complications (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.00–3.16). When accounting for patient and clinical factors, mobilization after 48 h was a significant predictor of major complications (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.10–6.21) and prolonged length of stay (>10 days; OR = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.41–5.76). This comprehensive analysis of the impact of early mobilization on postoperative complications and length of stay in a large HNC cohort provides novel evidence supporting adherence to the ERAS early mobilization recommendations. Early mobilization should be a priority for patients undergoing HNC surgery with free flap reconstruction.

Postoperative opioid use has been linked to the subsequent development of opioid dependency. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) can reduce the use of opioids in the postoperative period, but MMA has not been well-studied after major head and neck surgery. Our goal is to explore the association between MMA and postoperative opioid use and pain control in patients undergoing major head and neck surgery. We performed a retrospective study in adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients undergoing primary head and neck cancer resection with free-flap reconstruction. All patients were treated using an established care pathway. The baseline group was treated between January 2015–December 2015 (n = 41), prior to the implementation of MMA, and were compared to an MMA-treated cohort treated between December 2017–June 2019 (n = 97). The primary outcome was the proportion of opioids prescribed and oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) consumed during the hospitalization. The secondary outcome was pain control. We found that the post-MMA group consumed fewer opioids in the postoperative period compared to the pre-MMA group. Prior to post-operative day (POD) 6, pain control was better in the post-MMA group; however, the pain control lines intersect on POD 6 and the pre-MMA group appeared to have better pain control from PODs 7–10. In conclusion, our data suggest MMA is an effective method of pain control and opioid reduction in patients undergoing surgery for head and neck cancer with free flap reconstruction. MMA use was associated with a significant decrease in the quantity of opioids consumed postoperatively. The MMA protocol was associated with improved pain management early in the postoperative course. Finally, the MMA protocol is a feasible method of pain control and may reduce the adverse side effects associated with opioid use.