Experimental studies suggest that the regenerating liver provides a "fertile field" for the growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, clinical studies report conflicting results comparing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC. Thus, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared after LDLT and DDLT for HCC in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for DFS, including 633 LDLT and 1232 DDLT. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for OS, including 637 LDLT and 1050 DDLT. Altogether, there were 16 unique studies; 1, 2, and 13 of these were rated as high, medium, and low quality, respectively. Studies were heterogeneous, non-randomized, and mostly retrospective. The combined hazard ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.49; I 2 = 50.07%) for DFS after LDLT vs. DDLT for HCC, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.73-1.27; I 2 = 5.68%) for OS. This analysis provides evidence of lower DFS after LDLT compared with DDLT for HCC. Improved study design and reporting is required in future research to ascribe the observed difference in DFS to study bias or biological risk specifically associated with LDLT.

Among patients with CUP, p16-positive status is an independent predictor of DFS but not overall survival (OS). © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2016 © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 1347-1353, 2016.

IMPORTANCE Utility is a single-value, preference-based measure of health-related quality of life that represents the desirability of a health state relative to being dead or in perfect health. Clinical, funding, and policy decisions rely on measured changes in utility. The benefit of hearing loss treatments may be underestimated because existing utility measures fail to capture important changes in quality of life associated with hearing loss.OBJECTIVE To develop a comprehensive profile of items that describe how quality of life is associated with hearing loss and its treatments that can be used to generate hearing-related quality of life measures, including a novel utility measure.

IMPORTANCEThe cancer disease label may lead to overtreatment of low-risk malignant neoplasms owing to a patient's emotional response or misunderstanding of prognosis. Decision making should be driven by risks and benefits of treatment and prognosis rather than disease label. OBJECTIVE To determine whether disease label plays a role in patient decision making in the setting of low-risk malignant neoplasms and to determine how the magnitude of the disease-label effect compares with preferences for treatment and prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA discrete choice experiment conducted using an online survey of 1314 US residents in which participants indicated their preferences between a series of 2 hypothetical vignettes describing the incidental discovery of a small thyroid lesion. Vignettes varied on 3 attributes: disease label (cancer, tumor, or nodule); treatment (active surveillance or hemithyroidectomy); and risk of progression or recurrence (0%, 1%, 2%, or 5%). The independent associations of each attribute with likelihood of vignette selection was estimated with a Bayesian mixed logit model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe preference weight of the cancer disease label was compared with preference weights for other attributes. RESULTSIn 1068 predominantly healthy respondents (605 women and 463 men) with a median age of 35 years (range, 18-78 years), the cancer disease label played a considerable role in respondent decision making independent of treatment offered and risk of progression or recurrence. Participants accepted a 4-percentage-point increase in risk of progression or recurrence (from 1% to 5%) to avoid labeling their disease as cancer in favor of nodule (marginal rate of substitution [MRS], 1.0; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.9-1.1). Preference for the nodule label instead of cancer was similar in magnitude to the preference for active surveillance over surgery (MRS, 1.0; 95% CrI, 0.9-1.1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEDisease label plays a role in patient preference independent of treatment risks or prognosis. Raising the threshold for biopsy or removing the word cancer from the disease label may mitigate patient preference for aggressive treatment of low-risk lesions. Health care professionals should emphasize treatment risks and benefits and natural disease history when supporting treatment decisions for potentially innocuous epithelial malignant neoplasms.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for CUP site or T1-category BOT carcinoma had similar clinical outcomes. Identifying hidden BOT primary carcinoma with novel approaches (eg, transoral robotic surgery and transoral laser microsurgery) may lead to changes in the radiotherapy target volume and dose prescription. Studies are needed to investigate the effect of these differences on quality of life and functional outcomes.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cause of non-tobacco-related cancer deaths in Canadian men and women, accounting for 10% of all cancer deaths. An estimated 7800 men and women will be diagnosed with CRC, and 3250 will die from the disease in Ontario in 2007. Given that CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world, the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease would be through screening. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Colonoscopy Standards Expert Panel, which was convened in March 2006 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The recommendations will form the basis of the quality assurance program for colonoscopy delivered in support of Ontario's CRC screening program.

IMPORTANCE Transcanal totally endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) improves tympanic cavity visibility during cholesteatoma resection but does not readily permit 2-handed surgery, which is possible with a postauricular approach and use of an operating microscope. Improved visibility and 2-handed access may reduce rates of incomplete surgical clearance and residual cholesteatoma.OBJECTIVE To compare rates of residual cholesteatoma after TEES vs those after open surgery with a postauricular approach for initial disease limited to the middle ear and/or attic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis propensity score-matched cohort study considered a consecutive sample of 209 pediatric cases of cholesteatomas resected at a tertiary referral center between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, by either TEES or postauricular approach. The 177 cases (84.7%) in 172 patients that were eligible for inclusion in the study had undergone at least 1 of the following assessments: second-look tympanoplasty, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, or in-clinic follow-up examination at least 2 years after the operation. Ears were matched on the basis of the propensity score, a function of age, sex, comorbid diagnoses, etiology, disease extent, ossicular chain condition, presence or absence of tympanic membrane perforation, and otorrhea status at the time of surgery.EXPOSURES Transcanal totally endoscopic ear surgery was defined as a transcanal approach with surgeon-reported use of an endoscope for resection of cholesteatoma. Use of an operating microscope was permitted in the TEES group for graft placement during tympanoplasty. The postauricular approach was characterized by a postauricular incision and use of an operative microscope with or without adjunct use of an endoscope. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Residual cholesteatoma.RESULTS Of 177 cases included in the study, the unmatched cohort consisted of 65 ears that had undergone TEES (mean [SD] age, 9.9 [3.6] years; 33 [50.8%] female) and 112 ears of patients who had undergone surgery with a postauricular approach (mean [SD] age, 9.9 [3.5] years; 72 [64.3%] male). Propensity score matching was accomplished for a total of 128 cases, with 64 in each group. After matching, standardized differences between TEES and postauricular approaches were less than 0.20 for all measured baseline characteristics, indicating balanced groups. The TEES group had a residual disease incidence of 4 of 64 (6.3%) compared with 7 of 64 (10.9%) in the propensity score-matched postauricular approach group (absolute risk difference, -4.7%; 95% CI, -14.8% to 5.4%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study's findings suggest that there was no apparent advantage of the 2-handed postauricular microscopic approach with respect to surgical clearance of cholesteatoma limited to the middle ear and/or attic. Transcanal totally endoscopic ear surgery may be an effective alternative to a postauricular approach for removal of limited cholesteatoma in children.

Sarah Donegan is a biostatistician specializing in metaanalysis SUMMARY Objective: Topiramate (TPM) is an antiepileptic drug that is also used for other indications (e.g., migraine). Adverse event (AE) data from epilepsy trials could be supplemented by data from trials in other indications. Combining data across trials and indications is a novel method for evaluating AEs. We conducted a multiple-indications review by systematically reviewing randomized placebo-controlled trials of TPM, to compare the nervous system AEs of TPM in epilepsy with those in other indications. Methods: Randomized placebo-controlled trials of TPM including patients with any indication were included. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2012) and MEDLINE (1966( -February 2012. Two authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. For each reported nervous system AE, we extracted event rates, applied random-effects inverse-variance meta-analysis (pooling within-indications then across-indications), and assessed within-and across-indication heterogeneity. Results: Ninety trials, including 16 epilepsy trials, were included. A difference was detected between TPM and placebo for three events (i.e., drooling, dysgeusia, and hypoesthesia) that were not reported in epilepsy trials but were reported by other trials. A difference between TPM and placebo was detected for speech disorder using epilepsy trials but not when combining all trials. For two events (i.e., cognitive disorder and "language problems"), no difference was detected between TPM and placebo when using epilepsy trials alone, but a difference was identified using all trials. A difference was detected between TPM and placebo for six events (i.e., ataxia, disturbance in attention, dizziness, memory impairment, paraesthesia, and somnolence) when using epilepsy trials alone, and using all trials. Significance: Including trials of any indication enabled detection of differences that would have been missed using epilepsy trials alone. Multiple-indications reviews can improve the synthesis of AEs for antiepileptic drugs.