INTRODUCTION: Although examination under anaesthesia and panendoscopy (EUAP) has traditionally been used in the assessment of patients presenting with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), the era of modern medicine with its advanced imaging techniques has meant that the indications for this technique have potentially reduced. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In an attempt to quantify the current use of EUAP in the UK, a structured telephone questionnaire was undertaken of 50 maxillofacial units. Information was gathered regarding whether the technique was adopted on a routine or selective basis. Likewise perceived disadvantages were sought. RESULTS: Twenty-two units (44%) carried out EUAP on all patients presenting with oral cavity and oropharyngeal SCC. Of the remaining 28 units, all employed EUAP on a selective basis, the most commonly for the assessment of the primary tumour. The most common perceived disadvantage of carrying out EUAP routinely was its potential to increase the waiting time to definitive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a gradual move towards the selective use of EUAP in patients presenting with oral cavity and oropharyngeal SCC.
INTRODUCTION: Although examination under anaesthesia and panendoscopy (EUAP) has traditionally been used in the assessment of patients presenting with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), the era of modern medicine with its advanced imaging techniques has meant that the indications for this technique have potentially reduced. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In an attempt to quantify the current use of EUAP in the UK, a structured telephone questionnaire was undertaken of 50 maxillofacial units. Information was gathered regarding whether the technique was adopted on a routine or selective basis. Likewise perceived disadvantages were sought. RESULTS: Twenty-two units (44%) carried out EUAP on all patients presenting with oral cavity and oropharyngeal SCC. Of the remaining 28 units, all employed EUAP on a selective basis, the most commonly for the assessment of the primary tumour. The most common perceived disadvantage of carrying out EUAP routinely was its potential to increase the waiting time to definitive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a gradual move towards the selective use of EUAP in patients presenting with oral cavity and oropharyngeal SCC.
Authors: M van Agthoven; B M van Ineveld; M F de Boer; C R Leemans; P P Knegt; G B Snow; C A Uyl-de Groot Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Daniel T Schmid; Sandro J Stoeckli; Florian Bandhauer; Pia Huguenin; Stephan Schmid; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.325