Search

Introduction: With a prevalence of 0.55% to 4%, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a relevant part of the daily work of German otolaryngologists. The aim of the questionnaire-based data collection was to assess the current treatment status of CRSwNP in Germany., Material and Methods: For this purpose, 24 questions within an anonymized online questionnaire were sent to all German ENT departments., Results: Of 160 contacted ENT departments, 50 participated in the survey (31.3%). Among these, 76% performed more than 100 sinus surgeries annually and 38% treated more than 50 patients with biologics. Saline irrigations (80%) and intranasal glucocorticoids (GCS, 96%) were the most common conservative therapies. Systemic GCSs (52%) and intranasal GCS irrigation (20%) were less common. 80% of departments used biologics in the therapy of CRSwNP with an overall preference for dupilumab (70%). For therapy of aspirin intolerance, biologics (52%) were preferred to aspirin desensitization (26%). Prior to treatment with biologics clinical workup included the nasal polyp score (90%), the SNOT-22 questionnaire (84%), surrogate markers of type 2 inflammation (60%-72%), and computer tomography (50%). Final treatment success was assessed after 24 weeks (50%)., Conclusion: Mostly, the responding departments followed German and European recommendations for diagnosis and therapy of CRSwNP. Therapy with biologics is widely used. The value of preoperative systemic GCS and the frequent performance of CT before initiation of therapy with a biologic should be debated in regard to its currently widespread use., Competing Interests: L. Klimek berichtet über Zuschüsse und/oder Honorare von Allergopharma, Novartis, MEDA/Mylan, HAL Allergie, ALK Abelló, LETI Pharma, Stallergenes, Quintiles, Sanofi, ASIT Biotech, Lofarma, Allergy Therapeut., AstraZeneca, GSK, Inmunotk, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit; und Mitgliedschaft bei folgenden Organisationen: AeDA, DGHNO, Deutsche Akademie für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie, HNO-BV GPA, EAACI. S. Becker und B. Ernst berichten über Honorare für Beratung und Vorträge von GSK und Sanofi. E. Deuß, J. Eckrich, T. Hussain, S. Lang und M. Meyer haben keine Interessenkonflikte im Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden Arbeit., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Due to heterogeneous data, the indication for elective neck dissection (END) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx and oropharynx (HPSCC and OPSCC) in stages T1/2N0 is somewhat unclear. Therefore, in this multicenter study, we performed detailed analysis of the metastatic behavior of HPSCC and OPSCC., Material and Methods: The nodal metastatic patterns of 262 HPSCC and OPSCC patients who had undergone surgery was retrospectively investigated. In addition, recurrence-free and overall survival were recorded. Furthermore, a systematic literature review on the topic was completed., Results: In patients with HPSCC, a discrepancy between clinical and pathologic N status was recorded in 62.1% of patients vs. 52.4% for p16- OPSCC, and 43.6% for p16+ OPSCC. The occult metastasis rate in cT1/2cN0 primary tumors was 38.9% for HPSCC vs. 17.8% (p16- OPSCC) and 11.1% (p16+ OPSCC). Contralateral metastases occurred in 22.2% of cases for HPSCC at stages cT1/2cN0, compared to only 9.1% for p16- OPSCC, and 0% for p16+ OPSCC patients.Patients with p16+ OPSCC had better recurrence-free and overall survival than p16- OPSCC and HPSCC patients. A direct association between patient survival and the extent of neck surgical therapy could not be demonstrated in our patients., Conclusion: Patients with HPSCC are at risk for bilateral neck metastases from stage cT1/2cN0, justifying bilateral END. Patients with T1/2 OPSCC present with occult metastases ipsilaterally in >20% of cases; however, the risk for contralateral occult metastasis is <10%. Hence, in strictly lateralized cT1/2CN0 tumors, omission of contralateral END may be considered., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.