An elevated pretreatment NLR is a prognostic marker for head and neck cancer. It represents a simple and easily obtained marker that could be used to stratify groups of high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Surveillance is a valid alternative to immediate retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with clinical stage I NSGCTT but should be recommended only under the close supervision of physicians experienced in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular cancer.

An elevated LMR may be an indicator of favorable prognosis in HNC. However, our results should be interpreted with some degree of caution due to the retrospective nature of cohort studies. Further research with high-quality prospective studies is needed to confirm the effect of LMR in HNC prognosis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the prognostic utility of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in head and neck cancer. Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to May 2017 for relevant literature. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to generate the pooled hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The study was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool. The logarithm of the HR with standard error was used as the primary summary statistic. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and Higgins’ I². A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis, combining data from 4,541 patients. The results demonstrated that an elevated PLR was significantly associated with poorer OS [HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35–2.52, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.00001] and DSS [HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.25–1.97, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001]. Significant heterogeneity was detected for the pooled end points. Subgroup analysis demonstrated reduction of heterogeneity by controlling for sample size and cutoff value. 95% prediction intervals showed wide ranges crossing the null threshold.

Background The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Precision Medicine Core (PMC) has recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions above the “TNM” staging system and has recently released a checklist of inclusion and exclusion criteria for evaluating prognostic models. Methods A systematic review of articles in which nomograms were created for head and neck cancer (HNC) was carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. The AJCC PMC criteria were used to score the individual studies. Results Forty‐four studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. The mean number of inclusion criteria met was 9.3 out of 13, and the mean number of exclusion criteria met was 2.1 out of 3. Studies were generally of high quality, but no single study fulfilled all of the AJCC PMC criteria. Conclusion This is the first study to utilize the AJCC checklist to comprehensively evaluate the published prognostic nomograms in HNC. Future studies should attempt to adhere to the AJCC PMC criteria. Recommendations for future research are given. Summary The AJCC recently released a set of criteria to grade the quality of prognostic cancer models. In this study, we grade all published nomograms for head and neck cancer according to the new guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Whether shared decision making (SDM) has been evaluated for end-of-life (EOL) decisions as compared to other forms of decision making has not been studied. Purpose: To summarize the evidence on SDM being associated with better outcomes for EOL decision making, as compared to other forms of decision making. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched through April 2014. Study Selection: Studies were selected that evaluated SDM, compared to any other decision making style, for an EOL decision. Data Extraction: Components of SDM tested, comparators to SDM, EOL decision being assessed, and outcomes measured. Data Synthesis: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (three experimental and four observational studies). Results were analyzed using narrative synthesis. All three experimental studies compared SDM interventions to usual care. The four observational studies compared SDM to doctor-controlled decision making, or reported the correlation between level of SDM and outcomes. Components of SDM specified in each study differed widely, but the component most frequently included was presenting information on the risks/benefits of treatment choices (five of seven studies). The outcome most frequently measured was communication, although with different measurement tools. Other outcomes included decisional conflict, trust, satisfaction, and “quality of dying.” Limitations: We could not analyze the strength of evidence for a given outcome due to heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and measurement tools. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting SDM being associated with improved outcomes for EOL decisions as opposed to other forms of decision making. Future studies should describe which components of SDM are being tested, outline the comparator decision making style, and use validated tools to measure outcomes.