Background Head-and-neck cancers (hncs) often present at an advanced stage, leading to poor outcomes. Late presentation might be attributable to patient delays (reluctance to seek treatment, for instance) or provider delays (misdiagnosis, prolonged wait time for consultation, for example). The objective of the present study was to examine the length and cause of such delays in a Canadian universal health care setting. Methods Patients presenting for the first time to the hnc multidisciplinary team (mdt) with a biopsy-proven hnc were recruited to this study. Patients completed a survey querying initial symptom presentation, their previous medical appointments, and length of time between appointments. Clinical and demographic data were collected for all patients. Results The average time for patients to have their first appointment at the mdt clinic was 15.1 months, consisting of 3.9 months for patients to see a health care provider (hcp) for the first time since symptom onset and 10.7 months from first hcp appointment to the mdt clinic. Patients saw an average of 3 hcps before the mdt clinic visit (range: 1–7). No significant differences in time to presentation were found based on stage at presentation or anatomic site. Conclusions At our tertiary care cancer centre, a patient’s clinical pathway to being seen at the mdt clinic shows significant delays, particularly in the time from the first hcp visit to mdt referral. Possible methods to mitigate delay include education about hnc for patients and providers alike, and a more streamlined referral system.

BackgroundPleural fluid cytology is an important diagnostic test used for the investigation of pleural effusions. There is considerable variability in the reported sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) in the literature.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to determine the diagnostic sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology for MPE, both overall and by tumour type, to better inform the decision-making process when investigating pleural effusions.Data sourcesA literature search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was performed by four reviewers. Articles satisfying inclusion criteria were evaluated for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool.Data extractionFor quantitative analysis, we performed a metaanalysis using a binary random-effects model to determine pooled sensitivity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on primary cancer site and meta-regression by year of publication.SynthesisThirty-six studies with 6057 patients with MPE were included in the meta-analysis. The overall diagnostic sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology for MPE was 58.2% (95% CI 52.5% to 63.9%; range 20.5%–86.0%). There was substantial heterogeneity present among studies (I2 95.5%). For primary thoracic malignancies, sensitivity was highest in lung adenocarcinoma (83.6%; 95% CI 77.7% to 89.6%) and lowest in lung squamous cell carcinoma (24.2%; 95% CI 17.0% to 31.5%) and mesothelioma (28.9%; 95% CI 16.2% to 41.5%). For malignancies with extrathoracic origin, sensitivity was high for ovarian cancer (85.2%; 95% CI 74.2% to 96.1%) and modest for breast cancer (65.3%; 95% CI 49.8% to 80.8%).ConclusionsPleural fluid cytology has an overall sensitivity of 58.2% for the diagnosis of MPE. Clinicians should be aware of the high variability in diagnostic sensitivity by primary tumour type as well as the potential reasons for false-negative cytology results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021231473.

No abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a serious illness with significant morbidity and mortality, characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure most commonly due to pneumonia, sepsis, and aspiration. Early and accurate diagnosis of ARDS depends upon clinical suspicion and chest imaging. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an important novel cause of ARDS with a distinct time course, imaging and laboratory features from the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection to hypoxemic respiratory failure, which may allow diagnosis and management prior to or at earlier stages of ARDS. Treatment of ARDS remains largely supportive, and consists of incremental respiratory support (high flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive respiratory support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), and avoidance of iatrogenic complications, all of which improve clinical outcomes. COVID-19-associated ARDS is largely similar to other causes of ARDS with respect to pathology and respiratory physiology, and as such, COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure should typically be managed as other patients with ARDS. Non-invasive respiratory support may be beneficial in avoiding intubation in COVID-19 respiratory failure including mild ARDS, especially under conditions of resource constraints or to avoid overwhelming critical care resources. Compared to other causes of ARDS, medical therapies may improve outcomes in COVID-19-associated ARDS, such as dexamethasone and remdesivir. Future improved clinical outcomes in ARDS of all causes depends upon individual patient physiological and biological endotyping in order to improve accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis as well as optimal targeting of future therapies in the right patient at the right time in their disease.