Communication of prognosis in head and neck cancer patients

Objectives: In shared decision making it is important to adequately, timely and actively involve patients in treatment decisions. Sharing prognostic information can be of key importance. This study describes whether and how prognostic information on life expectancy is included during communication on diagnosis and treatment plans between physicians and head and neck (H&N) oncologic patients in different phases of disease. Methods: A descriptive, qualitative study was performed of n = 23 audiotaped physician-patient conversations in which both palliative and curative treatment options were discussed and questions on prognosis were expected. Verbatim transcribed consultations were systematically analyzed. A distinction was made between prognostic information that was provided (a) quantitatively: by giving numerical probability estimates, such as percentages or years or (b) qualitatively: through the use of words such as ‘most likely’ or ‘highly improbable’. Results: In all consultations, H&N surgeons provided some prognostic inform

Noncompliance to guidelines in head and neck cancer treatment; associated factors for both patient and physician

Background: Decisions on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatment are widely recognized as being difficult, due to high morbidity, often involving vital functions. Some patients may therefore decline standard, curative treatment. In addition doctors may propose alternative, nonstandard treatments. Little attention is devoted, both in literature and in daily practice, to understanding why and when HNSCC patients or their physicians decline standard, curative treatment modalities. Our objective is to determine factors associated with noncompliance in head and neck cancer treatment for both patients and physicians and to assess the influence of patient compliance on prognosis. Methods: We did a retrospective study based on the medical records of 829 patients with primary HNSCC, who were eligible for curative treatment and referred to our hospital between 2010 and 2012. We analyzed treatment choice and reasons for nonstandard treatment decisions, survival, age, gender, social network, tumor site, cTNM classification, and comorbidity (ACE27). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression methods was performed to determine predictive factors associated with non-standard treatment following physician or patient decision. To gain insight in survival of the different groups of patients, we applied a Cox regression analysis. After checking the proportional hazards assumption for each variable, we adjusted the survival analysis for gender, age, tumor site, tumor stage, comorbidity and a history of having a prior tumor. Results: 17 % of all patients with a primary HNSCC did not receive standard curative treatment, either due to nonstandard treatment advice (10 %) or due to the patient choosing an alternative (7 %). A further 3 % of all patients refused any type of therapy, even though they were considered eligible for curative treatment. Elderliness, single marital status, female gender, high tumor stage and severe comorbidity are predictive factors. Patients declining standard treatment have a lower overall 3-year survival (34 % vs. 70 %). Conclusions: Predictive factors for nonstandard treatment decisions in head and neck cancer treatment differed between the treating physician and the patient. Patients who received nonstandard treatment had a lower overall 3-year survival. These findings should be taken into account when counselling patients in whom nonstandard treatment is considered

Head and neck cancer patients' preferences for individualized prognostic information: a focus group study

BACKGROUND: Head and Neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by significant mortality and morbidity. Treatment is often invasive and interferes with vital functions, resulting in a delicate balance between survival benefit and deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Therefore, including prognostic information during patient counseling can be of great importance. The first aim of this study was to explore HNC patients' preferences for receiving prognostic information: both qualitative (general terms like "curable cancer"), and quantitative information (numbers, percentages). The second aim of this study was to explore patients' views on "OncologIQ", a prognostic model developed to estimate overall survival in newly diagnosed HNC patients. METHODS: We conducted a single center qualitative study by organizing five focus groups with HNC patients (n = 21) and their caregivers (n = 19), categorized in: 1) small laryngeal carcinomas treated with radiotherapy or laser, 2) extensive oral cavity procedures, 3) total laryngectomy, 4) chemoradiation, 5) other treatments. The patients' perspective was the main focus. The interview guide consiste

Keys to successful implementation of routine symptom monitoring in head and neck oncology with “Healthcare Monitor” and patients' perspectives of quality of care

Background: Value-based health care is increasingly used to facilitate a systematic approach during follow-up of patients. We developed Healthcare Monitor (HM): a structure of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROs) for the longitudinal follow-up of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. This study shares key lessons from implementation and seeks to provide insight into how patients experience HM. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative data from a nonrandomized retrospective survey of patients who received HM (n = 45) vs standard care (n = 46) and qualitative data from structured interviews (n = 15). Results: Implementation of HM included significant challenges. Finding common ground among clinicians, administrators, and IT staff was most important. Qualitative findings suggest that patients experienced better doctorpatient communication and increased efficiency of the consultation using HM. Patients felt better prepared and experienced more focus on critical issues. Quantitative analysis did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Integration of HM into routine care for HNC patients may have increased patient-centered care and facilitated screening of symptoms. However, future research is needed to analyze the potential benefits more extensively

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care

Background: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. Objective: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. Methods: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes?. Results: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. Conclusions: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders

Prognostic Models and Personalized Counselling: Towards Shared Decision Making in Head and Neck Oncology

Being diagnosed with head and neck cancer has major impact on patients’ lives. Treatment is often invasive and interfere