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

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

Physicians’ clinical prediction of survival in head and neck cancer patients in the palliative phase

Background: The prognosis of patients with incurable head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relevant topic. The mean survival of these patients is 5 months but may vary from weeks to more than 3 years. Discussing the prognosis early in the disease trajectory enables patients to make well-considered end-of-life choices, and contributes to a better quality of life and death. However, physicians often are reluctant to discuss prognosis, partly because of the concern to be inaccurate. This study investigated the accuracy of physicians’ clinical prediction of survival of palliative HNC patients. Methods: This study was part of a prospective cohort study in a tertiary cancer center. Patients with incurable HNC diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 (n = 191), and their treating physician were included. Analyses were conducted between July 2018 and February 2019. Patients’ survival was clinically predicted by their physician ≤3 weeks after disclosure of the palliative diagnosis. The clinical prediction of survival in weeks (CPS) was based on physicians’ clinical assessment of the patient during the outpatient visits. More than 25% difference between the actual survival (AS) and the CPS was regarded as a prediction error. In addition, when the difference between the AS and CPS was 2 weeks or less, this was always considered as correct. Results: In 59% (n = 112) of cases survival was overestimated. These patients lived shorter than predicted by their physician (median AS 6 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). In 18% (n = 35) of the cases survival was correctly predicted. The remaining 23% was underestimated (median AS 35 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). Besides the differences in AS and CPS, no other significant differences were found between the three groups. There was worse accuracy when predicting survival closer to death: out of the 66 patients who survived 6 weeks or shorter, survival was correctly predicted in only eight (12%). Conclusion: Physicians tend to overestimate the survival of pal

Serosal abrasion of bowel ends does not enhance anastomotic healing

Contains fulltext : 153946.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage rates remain unacceptably high, warranting reconsideration of current anastomotic technique. Anastomotic healing may improve by abrading the serosal surface of bowel ends that are invertedly anastomosed, based on the concept that serosal damage evokes inflammatory adherent processes. It is studied if local abrasion leads to stronger anastomoses and reduces leakage. METHODS: Ninety-eight Wistar rats were allocated to six groups. Either a regular anastomosis (RA) or abraded anastomosis (AA) was constructed in the proximal colon. Animals were sacrificed at day 3 (groups RA3 and AA3, n = 2 x 17) or day 5 (groups RA5 and AA5, n = 2 x 17). Groups RA-Dic and AA-Dic (n = 2 x 15) received diclofenac from day 0 until sacrifice on day 3 to impair anastomotic healing. Outcomes were leakage, bursting pressure, breaking strength, adhesions, and histological appearance. RESULTS: Both in abraded (AA3 and AA5) and control (RA3 and RA5) groups without diclofenac, 1 of 17 anastomoses leaked (6%). Leak rate was 9 of 15 (60%) in group AA-Dic and 8 of 15 (53%) in RA-Dic (P = 1.0). The bursting pressure in group RA3 (127 +/- 44 mm Hg) was higher (P = 0.006) compared with group AA3 (82 +/- 34 mm Hg), breaking strength was comparable (P = 0.331). Mechanical strength was similar between groups RA5 and AA5. Abrasion did not increase mechanical strength in the diclofenac groups. Adhesion formation was not different between groups. Histology showed dense interserosal scar formation in abraded groups, compared with loose connective tissue in control anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS: Abrasion of serosal edges of large bowel ends invertedly anastomosed does not improve anastomotic strength, neither does it reduce leakage in anastomoses compromised by diclofenac

Systematic review of experimental studies on intestinal anastomosis

BACKGROUND: The contribution of animal research to a reduction in clinical intestinal anastomotic leakage is unknown, despite numerous experimental studies. In view of the current societal call to replace, reduce and refine animal experiments, this study examined the quality of animal research related to anastomotic healing and leakage. METHODS: Animal studies on intestinal anastomotic healing were retrieved systematically from PubMed and Embase. Study objective, conclusion and animal model were recorded. Reporting quality and internal validity (reporting of randomization and blinding) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1342 studies were identified, with a rising publication rate. The objectives of most studies were therapeutic interventions (64.8 per cent) and identification of risk factors (27.5 per cent). Of 350 articles studying experimental therapies, 298 (85.1 per cent) reported a positive effect on anastomotic healing. On average, 44.7 per cent of relevant study characteristics were not reported, in particular details on anastomotic complications (31.6 per cent), use of antibiotics (75.7 per cent), sterile surgery (83.4 per cent) and postoperative analgesia (91.4 per cent). The proportion of studies with randomization, blinding of surgery and blinding of primary outcome assessment has increased in the past two decades but remains insufficient, being included in only 62.4, 4.9 and 8.5 per cent of publications respectively. Animal models varied widely in terms of species, method to compromise healing, intestinal segment and outcome measures used. CONCLUSION: Animal research on anastomotic leakage is of poor quality and still increasing, contrary to societal aims. Reporting and study quality must improve if results are to impact on patients

Key Aspects of Prognostic Model Development and Interpretation From a Clinical Perspective

IMPORTANCE Prognostication is an important aspect of clinical decision-making, but it is often challenging. Previous studies show that both patients and physicians tend to overestimate survival chances. Prediction models may assist in estimating and quantifying prognosis. However, insufficient understanding of the development, possibilities, and limitations of such models can lead to misinterpretations. Although many excellent books and comprehensive methodological articles on prognostic model research are published, they may not be accessible enough for the clinical audience. Our aim is to provide an overview on the main issues regarding prediction research for health care professionals to achieve better interpretation and increase the use of prognostic models in daily clinical practice.OBSERVATIONS The first steps of model development include coding of predictors, model specification, and estimation. Next, we discuss the assessment of the performance of a prediction model, including discrimination and calibration aspects, followed by approaches to internal and external validation and updating. Finally, model reporting, presentation, and steps toward clinical implementation are presented.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE After thorough consideration of the research question, data inspection, and coding of predictors, one can start with the specification of a prediction model. The number of candidate predictors should be kept limited, in view of the number of events in the data, to prevent overfitting. Calibration and discrimination are 2 aspects of model performance that complement each other and should be assessed preferably at external validation. Model development should be accompanied by qualitative research among patients and physicians to facilitate the development of a valuable tool and maximize possibilities for successful implementation. After model presentation is optimized, impact studies are required to assess the clinical value of a prediction model.Analysis and support of clinical decision makingDevelopment and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc

Prognostic model for overall survival of head and neck cancer patients in the palliative phase

Background: Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) enter the palliative phase when cure is no longer possible or when they refuse curative treatment. The mean survival is five months, with a range of days until years. Realistic prognostic counseling enables patients to make well-considered end-of-life choices. However, physicians tend to overestimate survival. The aim of this study was to develop a prognostic model that calculates the overall survival (OS) probability of palliative HNSCC patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with incurable HNSCC or patients who refused curative treatment for HNSCC between January 1st 2006 and June 3rd 2019 were included (n = 659). Three patients were lost to follow-up. Patients were considered to have incurable HNSCC due to tumor factors (e.g. inoperability with no other curative treatment options, distant metastasis) or patient factors (e.g. the presence of severe comorbidity and/or poor performance status).Tumor and patients factors accounted for 574 patients. An additional 82 patients refused curative treatment and were also considered palliative. The effect of 17 candidate predictors was estimated in the univariable cox proportional hazard regression model. Using backwards selection with a cut-off P-value &lt; 0.10 resulted in a final multivariable prediction model. The C-statistic was calculated to determine the discriminative performance of the model. The final model was internally validated using bootstrapping techniques. Results: A total of 647 patients (98.6%) died during follow-up. Median OS time was 15.0 weeks (95% CI: 13.5;16.6). Of the 17 candidate predictors, seven were included in the final model: the reason for entering the palliative phase, the number of previous HNSCC, cT, cN, cM, weight loss in the 6 months before diagnosis, and the WHO performance status. The internally validated C-statistic was 0.66 indicating moderate discriminative ability. The model showed some optimism, with a shrinkage factor of 0.89. Conclusion: This study enabled the development and internal validation of a prognostic model that predicts the OS probability in HNSCC patients in the palliative phase. This model facilitates personalized prognostic counseling in the palliative phase. External validation and qualitative research are necessary before widespread use in patient counseling and end-of-life care.</p

Impact of a prognostic model for overall survival on the decision-making process in a head and neck cancer multidisciplinary consultation meeting

Background: Multidisciplinary decision-making in head and neck cancer care is complex and requires a tradeoff between prolonging survival and optimizing quality of life. To support prognostication and decision-making in head and neck cancer care, an individualized prognostic model for overall survival (OncologIQ) is available. Methods: By quantitative and qualitative research we have studied user value of OncologIQ and its impact on the decision-making process in a multidisciplinary consultation meeting. Results: Healthcare professionals experienced added value upon using prognostic estimates of survival from OncologIQ in half (47.5%) of the measurements. Significant impact on the decision making process was seen when OncologIQ was used for older patients, patients having a WHO performance score ≥ 2, or high tumor stage. Conclusions: The prognostic model OncologIQ enables patient-centered decision-making in a multidisciplinary consultation meeting and was mostly valued in complex patients