METHOD: English language literature in major databases from the last 20 years was searched using controlled vocabulary and keywords. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were followed for selection of studies. The quality assessment was done as per the QUADAS tool 2 by three independent reviewers. The metanalysis was performed by using random effect model. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was considered as the effect measure. Statistical software used was STATA version 13.1.
RESULTS: With all inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight studies could qualify for metanalysis. The pooled estimate is found to be 0.13 (-0.35, 0.62), P = .585, which is statistically not significant. This indicates that there is a no significant difference in the fold change between metastasis and no metastasis groups. P-value of chi-square statistic for heterogeneity is
CASE REPORT: A 36-year-old man presented with a solitary cystic cervical swelling, initially diagnosed as branchial cleft cyst. Fine needle aspiration yielded 18 ml of straw-coloured fluid. During cytological examination no atypical cells were observed. Computed tomography of the neck showed a heterogeneous mass with multiseptation medial to the sternocleidomastoid muscle. Histopathological examination of the mass, post excision, revealed a metastatic lymph node. A suspicious mucosal lesion at the nasopharynx was detected after repeated thorough head and neck examinations and the biopsy result confirmed undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
CONCLUSION: Cystic cervical metastasis may occur in young patients under 40 years. The primary tumour may not be obvious during initial presentation because it mimicks benign branchial cleft cyst clinically. Retrospective review of the computed tomography images revealed features that were not characteristic of simple branchial cleft cyst. The inadequacy of assessment and interpretation had lead to the error in diagnosis and subsequent management. Metastatic head and neck lesion must be considered in a young adult with a cystic neck mass.
IMPORTANCE: This study established the largest database of globally circulating HPV6 genomic variants and contributed a total of 130 new, complete HPV6 genome sequences to available sequence repositories. Two HPV6 variant lineages and five sublineages were identified and showed some degree of association with geographical location, anatomical site of infection/disease, and/or gender. We additionally identified several HPV6 lineage- and sublineage-specific SNPs to facilitate the identification of HPV6 variants and determined a representative region within the L2 gene that is suitable for HPV6 whole-genome-based phylogenetic analysis. This study complements and significantly expands the current knowledge of HPV6 genetic diversity and forms a comprehensive basis for future epidemiological, evolutionary, functional, pathogenicity, vaccination, and molecular assay development studies.
Methods: We included patients with histopathologically diagnosed head and neck cancers who had received radiation, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and age range of 15-60 years. Patients with prior radiotherapy and chemotherapy, edentulous status, total parotidectomy, sicca syndrome or on xerosis-induced medications were excluded. We assigned 15 patients each to the Oral7® and salt-soda groups.
Results: There was no significant difference in the mean Decayed, Missing and Filling Teeth (DMFT) score between groups. Head and neck cancer patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly better quality of life than those on salt-soda in relation to the swallowing problems, social eating, mouth opening, xerostomia and illness scales. Patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly lower xerostomia score than patients on salt-soda mouthwash. Patients on Oral7® had a significantly lower mucositis score in week 5-7 compared to patients in the salt-soda group.
Conclusion: Oral7® showed advantages over salt-soda solution in relation to reducing xerostomia, easing radiation-induced mucositis, and improving quality of life, despite the non-significant difference in the dental caries assessment.