Search

Abstract Background Dentists serve a crucial role in managing treatment complications for patients with head and neck cancer, including post-radiation caries and oral infection. To date, dental services for head and neck cancer patients in Ontario, Canada have not been well characterized and considerable disparities in allocation, availability, and funding are thought to exist. The current study aims to describe and assess the provision of dental services for head and neck cancer patients in Ontario. Methods A mixed methods scoping assessment was conducted. A purposive sample of dentist-in-chiefs at each of Ontario’s 9 designated head and neck cancer centres (tertiary centres which meet provincially-set quality and safety standards) was invited to participate. Participants completed a 36-item online survey and 60-minute semi-structured interview which explored perceptions of dental services for head and neck cancer patients at their respective centres, including strengths, gaps, and inequities. If a centre did not have a dentist-in-chief, an alternative stakeholder who was knowledgeable on that centre’s dental services participated instead. Thematic analysis of the interview data was completed using a mixed deductive-inductive approach. Results Survey questionnaires were completed at 7 of 9 designated centres. A publicly funded dental clinic was present at 5 centres, but only 2 centres provided automatic dental assessment for all patients. Survey data from 2 centres were not captured due to these centres’ lack of active dental services. Qualitative interviews were conducted at 9 of 9 designated centres and elicited 3 themes: (1) lack of financial resources; (2) heterogeneity in dentistry care provision; and (3) gaps in the continuity of care. Participants noted concerning under-resourcing and limitations/restrictions in funding for dental services across Ontario, resulting in worse health outcomes for vulnerable patients. Extensive advocacy efforts by champions of dental services who have sought to mitigate current disparities in dentistry care were also described. Conclusions Inequities exist in the provision of dental services for head and neck cancer patients in Ontario. Data from the current study will broaden the foundation for evidence-based decision-making on the allocation and funding of dental services by government health care agencies.

Abstract Introduction Opportunistic oral cancer screening during visits to the dentist is a non-invasive and accessible option for detection of pre-malignant lesions and early-stage malignancies. The objective of this study was to investigate the knowledge, practices, and attitudes towards oral cancer screening among dentists. Methods A 42-item survey was sent to 650 dental professionals affiliated with the University of Toronto. Data regarding training/practice characteristics, knowledge of oral cavity cancer, current screening practices, attitudes towards screening, and remuneration were collected. Results Ninety-one dentists responded. Most obtained their dental degree from Canada (71.4%) and were practicing in large urban centers (87.9%). Most dentists correctly identified the oral tongue (87.8%) and floor of mouth (80%) as the two of most common sites of oral cavity cancer but only 56% correctly identified the most common presentation. 91% performed intra/extra oral examinations at every patient visit. Only 9.9% of dentists discussed the risk factors of oral cancer and 33% were not familiar with resources for smoking cessation and alcohol abuse. International medical graduates were more likely to discuss risk factor management than Canadian medical graduates (p

Abstract Background To assess variations in adherence to guideline-recommended processes of care for oral cavity cancer patients. Methods Retrospective study using a U.S. healthcare research database (MarketScan). Index diagnoses were considered from 2010 to 2012 with follow-up from 2013 to 2014. Diagnostic and procedure codes were utilized to identify oral cavity patients with a defined treatment modality. Compliance with guideline-recommended processes of care, which included pre-treatment imaging, thyroid-function testing (TFTs), multidisciplinary consultation and gastrostomy-tube insertion rates, were assessed. Results A total of 2752 patients were identified. Surgery alone was the most common treatment (60.8%), followed by surgery with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (20.4%) and surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy (18.8%). Head/neck and chest imaging were obtained in 60% and 62.5% of patients respectively. Significant geographical differences in head and neck imaging were observed between North-central (64%), South (58.4%) and West (56.1%) regions (p = 0.026). Differences in chest imaging were also present between North-east (65%) and West (56.8%; p = 0.007). TFTs were obtained in 54.4% of the patients after radiation treatment, and 18.6% of patients had multidisciplinary consultation during the 6 months before and 3 months after initiation of treatment. During the year after treatment initiation, 21.2% of patients underwent G-tube placement, with significantly higher rates in patients receiving triple modality treatment (58%) when compared to surgery plus radiation (27%) and surgery alone (15%; p

Abstract 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 (