Objective: How a patient chooses a physician has not been evaluated in otolaryngology. Our purpose was to determine which factors are important for people in the selection of an otolaryngologist. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional survey study using Amazon Mturk. Demographic data was collected. Participants rated 24 factors related to choosing an otolaryngologist on a 10-point scale. Multiple choice questions queried preferences on a physician’s social media, clothing, gender, and personality. Results: Out of 287 participants, 105 (36.6%) were female, 209 (72.8%) were between the ages of 25–40, and 252 (87.7%) identified as white. The majority of participants had primary residence in the southern US (N = 115, 38.3%) and were native-English speakers (N = 286, 99.7%). 254 (88.5%) had completed a Bachelor’s degree, 232 (80.8%) were employed in healthcare, 237 (82.6%) had prior experience being treated by an otolaryngologist, and 275 (95.8%) rated their health status as good or better. The most important factors for respondents in choosing an otolaryngologist were “surgeon’s explanation of their diagnosis and treatment”, “the quality of their surgeon’s office”, “favorable office location”, “the surgeon’s ability to grasp their problem”, “the surgeon’s professionalism”, and “the surgeon’s physical examination”. Regarding attire and personality, formal or business casual with a white coat was preferred (N = 124, 43.2%). Participants preferred surgeons with a combination of a professional and lighthearted personality (N = 145, 50.5%). Conclusion: The way in which an otolaryngologist engages with and examines a patient is most important to the lay public, although reputation carries some importance in choosing a doctor.

Objective(s): To characterize the somatic mutational landscape of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) using AACR Project GENIE data to identify potential biomarkers for tumor progression and guide precision therapy. Methods: Clinical and genomic data from 135 LSCC samples (primary and metastatic) were analyzed from the AACR Project GENIE database. Mutations were compared by tumor site and gender using chi-squared and Mann–Whitney U tests; co-occurrence and mutual-exclusivity analyses were performed. Results: TP53 mutations were most common (89.6%), followed by KMT2D (27.4%), FAT1 (20.7%), and NOTCH1 (20.7%). CDK8 mutations were enriched in females (p = 0.011) and ATP8B1 in males (p = 0.013). DMD mutations characterized primary tumors (p = 0.049), whereas ATP8B1 and SAMD9L were linked to metastases (p < 0.001). The cohort was 85.9% male and 71.5% White; 59.2% of samples were primary and 39.2% recurrent/metastatic. Co-occurrence analysis identified distinct molecular subtypes. The identification of distinct molecular subtypes and gender-specific mutations, such as CDK8 in females and ATP8B1 in males, suggests potential avenues for tailored therapeutic interventions. Conclusions: LSCC exhibits marked genetic heterogeneity dominated by TP53 alterations. ATP8B1 and SAMD9L mutations may mark metastatic disease, and gender-specific mutations suggest avenues for personalized therapy. These insights support development of targeted strategies, including immunotherapies such as pembrolizumab in TP53-altered tumors. These insights into the genomic heterogeneity of LSCC lay the groundwork for developing targeted therapeutic strategies and patient stratification, ultimately advancing a personalized medicine approach to this disease.