scholarly journals Head and Neck Cancer During Covid-19 Pandemic: Was there a Diagnostic Delay?

Author(s):  
Daniela Lucidi ◽  
Sara Valerini ◽  
Gaia Federici ◽  
Matteo Miglio ◽  
Carla Cantaffa ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1673-1678
Author(s):  
Sivaraman Ganesan ◽  
Sivanesan Sivagnanganesan ◽  
Mahalakshmy Thulasingam ◽  
Gunaseelan Karunanithi ◽  
Kalaiarasi R ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 342-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Moorhouse ◽  
Daniel Edwards

Head and neck cancer is a rare, but significantly life-changing diagnosis. Mortality is still high in advanced disease and treatment carries significant morbidity (both physical and psychological). Patients who suffer with the disease have often experienced diagnostic delay and uncertainty with harmful physical and psychological consequences. This experience can be frustrating for patients and with delay they may feel that their needs are not being met, and that they are not being taken seriously. This article aims to detail appropriate referral of patients and recent developments in the treatment and management of head and neck cancer.


2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (8) ◽  
pp. 680-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Warner ◽  
D W Scholfield ◽  
A Adams ◽  
P Richards ◽  
S Ali ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic requires urgent modification to existing head and neck cancer diagnosis and management practices. A protocol was established that utilises risk stratification, early investigation prior to clinical review and a reduction in aerosol generating procedures to lessen the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 spread.MethodsTwo-week wait referrals were stratified into low, intermediate and high risk. Low risk patients were referred back to primary care with advice; intermediate and high risk patients underwent investigation. Clinical encounters and aerosol generating procedures were minimised. A combined diagnostic and therapeutic surgical approach was undertaken where possible.ResultsForty-one patients were used to assess feasibility. Thirty-one per cent were low risk, 35 per cent were intermediate and 33 per cent were high risk. Thirty-three per cent were discharged with no imaging.ConclusionImplementing this protocol reduces the future burden on tertiary services, by empowering primary care physicians to re-refer low risk patients. The protocol is applicable across the UK and avoids diagnostic delay.


2005 ◽  
Vol 125 (5) ◽  
pp. 552-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Brouha ◽  
Debbie Tromp ◽  
Gert-Jan Hordijk ◽  
Jacques Winnubst ◽  
Rob De Leeuw

2009 ◽  
Vol 119 (5) ◽  
pp. 889-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Goy ◽  
Stephen F. Hall ◽  
Deb Feldman-Stewart ◽  
Patti A. Groome

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 376-376
Author(s):  
Quak ◽  
Van Bokhorst ◽  
Klop ◽  
Van Leeuwen ◽  
Snow

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document