Aim:Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) are solid tumors with low overall survival (40–60%). In a move toward personalized medicine, maintenance of tumor biopsies in microfluidic tissue culture devices is being developed.Methodology/results:HNSCC (n = 15) was dissected (5–10 mg) and either analyzed immediately or cultured in a microfluidic device (37°C) for 48 h. No difference was observed in morphology between pre- and postculture specimens. Dissociated samples were analyzed using trypan blue exclusion (viability), propidium iodide flow cytometry (death) and MTS assay (proliferation) with no significant difference observed highlighting tissue maintenance. Computational fluid dynamics showed laminar flow within the system.Conclusion:The microfluidic culture system successfully maintained HNSCC for 48 h, the culture system will allow testing of different treatment modalities with response monitoring.

Development of personalised cancer models to predict response to radiation would benefit patient care; particularly in malignancies where treatment resistance is prevalent. Herein, a robust, easy to use, tumour-on-a-chip platform which maintains precision cut head and neck cancer for the purpose of ex vivo irradiation is described. The device utilises sintered discs to separate the biopsy and medium, mimicking in vivo microvascular flow and diffusion, maintaining tissue viability for 68 h. Integrity of tissues is demonstrated by the low levels of lactate dehydrogenase release and retained histology, accompanied by assessment of cell viability by trypan blue exclusion and flow cytometry; fluid dynamic modelling validates culture conditions. An irradiation jig is described for reproducible delivery of clinically-relevant doses (5 × 2 Gy) to newly-presenting primary tumours (n = 12); the addition of concurrent cisplatin is also investigated (n = 8) with response analysed by immunohistochemistry. Fractionated irradiation reduced proliferation (BrdU, p = 0.0064), increased DNA damage (ƴH2AX, p = 0.0043) and caspase-dependent apoptosis (caspase-cleaved cytokeratin-18) compared to control; caspase-dependent apoptosis was further increased by concurrent cisplatin compared to control (p = 0.0063). This is a proof of principle study showing the response of cancer tissue to irradiation ex vivo in a bespoke system. The novel platform described has the potential to personalise treatment for patients in a cost-effective manner with applicability to any solid tumour.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in surgical capacity for head and neck cancer in the UK between the first wave (March‐June 2020) and the current wave (Jan‐Feb 2021) of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Design REDcap online‐based survey of hospital capacity. Setting UK secondary and tertiary hospitals providing head and neck cancer surgery. Participants One representative per hospital was asked to report the capacity for head and neck cancer surgery in that institution. Main outcome measures The principal measures of interests were new patient referrals, capacity in outpatients, theatres and critical care; therapeutic compromises constituting delay to surgery, de‐escalated surgery and therapeutic migration to non‐surgical primary modality. Results Data were returned from approximately 95% of UK hospitals with a head and neck cancer surgery specialist service. 50% of UK head and neck cancer patients requiring surgery have significantly compromised treatments during the second wave: 28% delayed, 10% have received radiotherapy‐based treatment instead of surgery, and 12% have received de‐escalated surgery. Surgical capacity has been more severely constrained in the second wave (58% of pre‐pandemic level) compared with the first wave (62%) despite the time to prepare. Conclusions Some hospitals are overwhelmed by COVID‐19 and unable to offer essential cancer surgery, but all have neighbouring hospitals in their region retaining good (or even normal) capacity. It is noteworthy that very few patients have been appropriately redirected away from the hospitals most constrained by their burden of COVID‐19. The paucity of an effective central or regional strategic response to this evident mismatch between demand and surgical capacity is to the detriment of our head and neck cancer patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract