Cancer-related pain in head and neck cancer survivors: longitudinal findings from the Head and Neck 5000 clinical cohort

\ua9 The Author(s) 2024.Purpose: Reports suggest pain is common in head and neck cancer (HNC). However, past studies are limited by small sample sizes and design and measurement heterogeneity. Using data from the Head and Neck 5000 longitudinal cohort, we investigated pain over a year post-diagnosis. We assessed: temporal trends; compared pain across HNC treatments, stages, sites and by HPV status; and identified subgroups of patients at increased risk of pain. Methods: Sociodemographic and clinical data and patient-reported pain (measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35) were collected at baseline (pre-treatment), 4- and 12- months. Using mixed effects multivariable regression, we investigated time trends and identified associations between (i) clinically-important general pain and (ii) HN-specific pain and clinical, socio-economic, and demographic variables. Results: 2,870 patients were included. At baseline, 40.9% had clinically-important general pain, rising to 47.6% at 4-months and declining to 35.5% at 12-months. HN-specific pain followed a similar pattern (mean score (sd): baseline 26.4 (25.10); 4-months. 28.9 (26.55); 12-months, 17.2 (19.83)). Across time, general and HN-specific pain levels were increased in: younger patients, smokers, and those with depression and comorbidities at baseline, and more advanced, oral cavity and HPV negative cancers. Conclusions: There is high prevalence of general pain in people living with HNC. We identified subgroups more often reporting general and HN-specific pain towards whom interventions could be targeted. Implications for cancer survivors: Greater emphasis should be placed on identifying and treating pain in HNC. Systematic pain screening could help identify those who could benefit from an early pain management plan

Characteristics and components of self-management interventions for improving quality of life in cancer survivors: a systematic review

Self-management can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors. Which intervention characteristics and components are beneficial is unclear, hindering implementation into practice. We systematically searched six databases from inception to 17 November 2021 for studies evaluating self-management interventions for adult cancer survivors post-treatment. Independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Data extraction included population and study characteristics, intervention characteristics (TIDieR) and components (PRISMS), (associations with) quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy, and economic outcomes. Study quality was appraised, and narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified 53 papers reporting 32 interventions. Studies had varying quality. They were most often randomised controlled trials (n = 20), targeted at survivors of breast (n = 10), prostate (n = 7), or mixed cancers (n = 11). Intervention characteristics (e.g., provider, location) varied considerably. On average, five (range 1–10) self-management components were delivered, mostly “Information about condition and its management” (n = 26). Twenty-two studies reported significant QoL improvements (6 also reported significant self-efficacy improvements); these were associated most consistently with combined individual and group delivery. Economic evaluations were limited and inconclusive. Self-management interventions showed promise for improving QoL, but study quality was variable, with substantial heterogeneity in intervention characteristics and components. By identifying what to adapt from existing interventions, these findings can inform development and implementation of self-management interventions in cancer