Androgen deprivation therapy for androgen receptor-positive advanced salivary duct carcinoma:A nationwide case series of 35 patients in The Netherlands

Background: Salivary duct carcinoma, an aggressive subtype of salivary gland cancer, is mostly androgen receptor-positive. Only limited data are available on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Methods: Patients with advanced androgen receptor-positive salivary duct carcinoma treated with first-line ADT were retrospectively evaluated for clinical benefit (ie, partial response [PR] and stable disease, progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]). The OS was compared with patients with advanced salivary duct carcinoma who received best supportive care. Results: Thirty-four of 35 patients who were ADT-treated were evaluable: 6 patients had a PR (18%) and 11 had stable disease (32%) leading to a clinical benefit ratio of 50%. The median PFS for the ADT-treated patients was 4 months and the median duration of clinical benefit was 11 months. The median OS was 17 months versus 5 months in 43 patients receiving best supportive care (P=.02). Conclusion: We recommend ADT in advanced androgen receptor-positive salivary duct carcinoma given its response and clinical benefit

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