MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted literature search in three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Clinical Key) on July 15th, 2020. The keywords were ("Head and Neck Mucosal Malignancy" OR "Head and Neck Cancer") AND ("Management" OR "Head and Neck Surgery") AND ("COVID-19" OR "Pandemic"). The inclusion criteria were cancer in adult patients, published from 2020 in English, and with available access to full text. The exclusion criteria were comments, letters, and case reports. The articles were critically appraised using the Centre of Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford and Duke University. The literature search strategy is illustrated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram.
RESULTS: A total of 150 articles were identified; 21 articles were gathered from Clinical Key, 33 from Cochrane, and 96 from Pubmed. After screening abstracts and reviewing the full text, the authors determined five articles met the inclusion criteria. There are several key points of head and neck cancer management in the COVID-19 pandemic. Head and neck cancer management is considered a high-risk procedure; the clinician should use proper personal protective equipment. Before operative treatment, all patients should undergo a PCR test 14 days before surgery. In diagnosing head and neck cancer, laryngoscopy should be considered carefully; and cytology should be preferred instead. Medically Necessary, Time-sensitive (MeNTS) score is recommended for risk stratification and surgery prioritization; it has three domains: procedure, disease, and patient. However, it is not specified to head and neck cancer; therefore, it should be combined with other references. Stanford University Head and Neck Surgery Division Department of Otolaryngology made surgery prioritization into three groups, urgent (should be operated immediately), can be postponed for 30 days, and can be postponed for 30- 90 days. Some urgent cases and should be operated on immediately include cancers involving the airways, decreased renal function, and metastases. For chemoradiation decision to delay or continue should refer to the goal of treatment, current oncologic status, and tolerance to radiation. In terms of patient's follow up, telephone consultation should be maximized.
CONCLUSION: MeNTS scoring combined with Guideline from Department of Otolaryngology at Stanford University prioritizing criteria can be helpful in decision making of stratifying Risk and prioritizing surgery in head and neck cancer management.
METHODS: 5 radiologists read 1 identical test set of 200 mammographic (180 normal cases and 20 abnormal cases) 3 times and were requested to adhere to 3 different recall rate conditions: free recall, 15% and 10%. The radiologists were asked to mark the locations of suspicious lesions and provide a confidence rating for each decision. An independent expert radiologist identified the various types of cancers in the test set, including the presence of calcifications and the lesion location, including specific mammographic density.
RESULTS: Radiologists demonstrated lower sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for non-specific density/asymmetric density (H = 6.27, p = 0.04 and H = 7.35, p = 0.03, respectively) and mixed features (H = 9.97, p = 0.01 and H = 6.50, p = 0.04, respectively) when reading at 15% and 10% recall rates. No significant change was observed on cancer characterized with stellate masses (H = 3.43, p = 0.18 and H = 1.23, p = 0.54, respectively) and architectural distortion (H = 0.00, p = 1.00 and H = 2.00, p = 0.37, respectively). Across all recall conditions, stellate masses were likely to be recalled (90.0%), whereas non-specific densities were likely to be missed (45.6%).
CONCLUSION: Cancers with a stellate mass were more easily detected and were more likely to continue to be recalled, even at lower recall rates. Cancers with non-specific density and mixed features were most likely to be missed at reduced recall rates. Advances in knowledge: Internationally, recall rates vary within screening mammography programs considerably, with a range between 1% and 15%, and very little is known about the type of breast cancer appearances found when radiologists interpret screening mammograms at these various recall rates. Therefore, understanding the lesion types and the mammographic appearances of breast cancers that are affected by readers' recall decisions should be investigated.