Prof. Dr. Neerav Goyal is one of the authors of the Editor’s Choice Article entitled “Current and Emerging Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Biomarkers in Head and Neck Cancer” published in Biomedicines (ISSN: 2227-9059).

Neerav Goyal, MD, MPH, is a head and neck surgical oncologist, microvascular reconstructive surgeon and an open and endoscopic skull base surgeon. He is a professor in the Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery at Penn State Health with joint appointments in Neurosurgery, Surgery and Public Health Sciences. He is the Chief of the Division of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery.

He completed his medical school training at Jefferson Medical College, followed by a residency in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. He also completed a fellowship in Head and Neck Surgical Oncology and Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Harvard Medical School.

His clinical focus and expertise are in the surgical management of patients with head and neck cancers, thyroid cancers, salivary gland tumors and skull base tumors. This interest extends to advocating for and evaluating new technologies to make surgery safer, more efficient and with better outcomes. To this end, Prof. Dr. Goyal has additional training in the use of surgical robots to assist with transoral surgery. He also has a strong focus in the reconstructive management of patients with these diseases through the use of local, regional or free tissue to help restore form and function.

Prof. Dr. Goyal also received a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University with specific focuses on biostatistics, epidemiology and health economics. His research interests include translational and clinical research of head and neck and thyroid cancers. He also has specific interests in looking at patient-reported outcomes as they relate to head and neck cancers. He is actively involved in surgical innovation.

Prof. Dr. Goyal has presented nationally and internationally, with more than 90 peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations, as well as several book chapters, and has edited a book on robotic surgery of the head and neck.

We interviewed Prof. Dr. Neerav Goyal about his current research and future directions:

1. Congratulations on your publication! Could you briefly introduce the main research content of your paper?
Our paper titled “Current and Emerging Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Biomarkers in Head and Neck Cancer” focuses on the landscape of molecular biomarkers that have been evaluated with respect to head and neck cancer. Within the last decade, there have been many advances in the use of biomarkers in head and neck cancer, especially as it relates to human papilloma virus (HPV)-related head and neck cancers. While several biomarkers are used in clinical practice, there are many other biomarkers that are being studied in various stages of translational research. This review was meant to highlight the current state and utility of biomarkers that have been evaluated for head and neck cancer.

2. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your current research?
I am a tenured professor in the Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery at Pennsylvania State University and the Penn State College of Medicine, with joint appointments in Neurosurgery and Public Health Sciences. I am fellowship‑trained in head and neck surgical oncology, microvascular reconstruction, and skull base surgery. Clinically, I focus on the removal of head and neck tumors and the reconstruction of associated defects.
My research centers on identifying opportunities to improve patient outcomes after head and neck cancer treatment through the lenses of surgical innovation, medical therapeutics, and influencing health policy using aggregate data analysis.

3. What inspired your research?
In recent years, several assays have emerged to detect circulating tumor DNA and to distinguish HPV‑associated from non‑HPV‑associated oropharyngeal cancers. These tests are beginning to influence both diagnostic pathways and post‑treatment surveillance strategies. Given the clinical availability of some of these assays, our team sought to comprehensively examine the broader biomarker landscape to identify which biomarkers show the most promise for diagnosis, prognosis, and disease monitoring.

4. What was the biggest challenge you faced while writing this paper, and how did you overcome it?
The most significant challenge writing this manuscript was narrowing the number of articles relevant to our review topic. Fortunately, our primary author, Dr. Hanel Eberly, played a key role in refining the literature selection, working closely with the full research team to filter and prioritize studies that best aligned with the goals of the review.

5. How did feedback during your research influence your direction?
As we conducted our literature review, discussions among the research team shaped the direction of the article. This feedback ultimately led to an expansion of the article to include not only prognostic markers but also diagnostic and predictive biomarkers, broadening the impact of the review.

6. What role did you play in your research team, and how did teamwork affect the paper's outcome?
I am the senior author on the research project and helped design the project idea and outline with the co-authors, and played an integral role in the overall organization of the article, with critical editing and final approval of the project. Teamwork was essential to the project, especially with the number of articles that needed to be reviewed and summarized, and to ensure a cohesive direction to the overall paper. Dr. Rettig was integral in helping refine the article.

7. Why did you choose the Biomedicines journal as a platform for publishing your work, and how was your experience working with the journal?
Biomedicines was a natural fit due to the journal’s focus and relevance to our topic. Additionally, I was invited to submit to the special issue by Dr. Raghu Sinha. The publication process was smooth and efficient, from initial submission to navigating reviewer comments and final proofing.

8. What impact do you hope your research will have, and what key innovation do you see in your paper?
We hope this review will be a resource for researchers and clinicians seeking to understand which biomarkers hold the most potential in head and neck cancer care. By clearly outlining the state of current and emerging biomarkers, we aim to guide future scientific inquiry in this rapidly evolving field.

9. What do you think the future directions for your research are?
I think that this review paper highlights the continued need for clinical data to support possible paradigm shifts in how we diagnose and perform surveillance for patients with HPV associated head and neck cancers. Specifically, whether these assays will remain complementary to the current standard of care surveillance or if biomarkers may be able to replace imaging surveillance algorithms. Separately, there is a continued need for clinical data as it relates to the role of PD-L1 expression and its role as a prognostic marker in head and neck cancer.