Objective: To evaluate the newborn hearing screening program in the University of Santo Tomas Hospital based on the quality indicators set by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) 2019 position statement. Methods: Design: Cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Private Training Hospital Participants: All newborns delivered in 2019 at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Hospital were considered for inclusion Results: The UST Hospital had 778 newborns in 2019, of which 687 (88.3%) completed newborn hearing screening by 1 month of age. There were 81 (10.4%) who failed initial hospitalbased screening and required outpatient re-screening while 11 (1.4%) of those who failed initial screening also failed subsequent rescreening. Forty-five (5.7%) newborns failed initial screening and subsequently passed re-screening. None of the eleven (0/11) patients completed comprehensive audiologic evaluation thus, patients necessitating referral for intervention were not identified. There were a total of 67 (8.6%) dropouts throughout the hearing evaluation process. Fifteen (15) infants were not screened due to unavailability of trained personnel at time of referral, four (4) infants were advised third screening while two (2) were advised observation instead of proceeding to confirmatory test. Conclusion The University of Santo Tomas Hospital newborn hearing screening program has yet to reach the quality indicators set by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 2019 for screening and confirmation of hearing loss. Among identified areas for improvement are the availability of trained personnel, insufficient means to ensure compliance, reluctance to pursue further testing and practices among healthcare providers.
otoacoustic emission ; diagnostics ; quality indicators

Background and Objective: Epidemiological studies have shown that Filipinos have a higher prevalence of welldifferentiated thyroid cancer and a higher rate of recurrence. The BRAF V600E mutation has been proposed as a potential prognostic marker in aggressive papillary thyroid cancers. In this study, we determined whether this mutation is a risk factor for tumor recurrence in papillary thyroid cancer among Filipinos. Methods: We conducted an age and sex-matched case-control study of patients with papillary thyroid cancer; we had two groups – with and without tumor recurrence – of 14 patients each, with at least a 5-year follow-up. We extracted the DNA samples from the patients’ (paraffin-embedded) tumor biopsy tissue blocks from thyroidectomy specimens, then detected the BRAF V600E mutation using polymerase chain reaction. The McNemar’s test for difference of proportions in paired data was used to determine the association of BRAF V600E mutation with recurrence. Results: The BRAF V600E mutation was found in 57.14% of all cases. We found a prevalence of 64.29% among those with recurrence and 50.00% among those without recurrence, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.688). Conclusion Our study showed the BRAF V600E mutation was not associated with recurrence. We encountered several limitations: we had limited data regarding molecular methodologies in the Philippine setting, we had a small sample size, and therefore we could not study other parameters (e.g., tumor characteristics, lymph node metastasis, stage of disease). We hope that this paves the way for future studies and collaborations to establish the role of BRAF V600E in Filipinos with papillary thyroid tumor recurrence.
papillary thyroid cancer ; molecular diagnostics ; tumor recurrence