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

Individualized Dynamic Prediction Model for Patient-Reported Voice Quality in Early-Stage Glottic Cancer

Objective: Early-stage glottic cancer (ESGC) is a malignancy of the head and neck. Besides disease control, preservation and improvement of voice quality are essential. To enable expectation management and well-informed decision-making, patients should be sufficiently counseled with individualized information on expected voice quality. This study aims to develop an individualized dynamic prediction model for patient-reported voice quality. This model should be able to provide individualized predictions at every time point from intake to the end of follow-up. Study Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Tertiary cancer center. Methods: Patients treated for ESGC were included in this study (N = 294). The Voice Handicap Index was obtained prospectively. The framework of mixed and joint models was used. The prognostic factors used are treatment, age, gender, comorbidity, performance score, smoking, T-stage, and involvement of the anterior commissure. The overall performance of these models was assessed during an internal cross-validation procedure and presentation of absolute errors using box plots. Results: The mean age in this cohort was 67 years and 81.3% are male. Patients were treated with transoral CO2 laser microsurgery (57.8%), single vocal cord irradiation up to (24.5), or local radiotherapy (17.5%). The mean follow-up was 43.4 months (SD 21.5). Including more measurements during prediction improves predictive performance. Including more clinical and demographic variables did not provide better predictions. Little differences in predictive performance between models were found. Conclusion: We developed a dynamic individualized prediction model for patient-reported voice quality. This model has the potential to empower patients and professionals in making well-informed decisions and enables tailor-made counseling.</p

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

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

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

Causes and Ways of Death in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

IMPORTANCE There is limited literature on the exact causes and ways of death in patients with head and neck cancer. To provide optimal care, especially in the palliative phase, more information on this is needed. OBJECTIVE To provide insights into the causes and ways of death among patients with head and neck cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective cohort study included a consecutive population of patients who received a diagnosis of primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck between January 2006 and December 2013 who were treated in the Erasmus MC. Patient data were merged with nonpublic microdata from Statistics Netherlands. Follow-up time was specified as the date of diagnosis until death or December 3, 2019, whichever came first. The data were checked and reanalyzed in November 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Causes (eg, head and neck cancer, other cancer) and ways (eg, natural death, suicide) of death. RESULTS A total of 1291 patients (59.2%; 342 women [26.5%]) died during follow-up (median [IQR] follow-up, 2.7 [1.2-5.6] years). The main cause of death was head and neck cancer (557 [43.1%]), followed by the competing cause of other cancers (344 [26.6%]). In total, 240 patients (18.6%) received palliative sedation and 70 patients (5.4%) euthanasia. Compared with patients with head and neck cancer as the underlying cause of death, lower odds ratios (ORs) were observed for receiving palliative sedation (OR, 0.32 vs 0.07; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46 vs 0.03-0.12) and euthanasia (OR, 0.22 vs 0.01; 95% CI, 0.11-0.41 vs 0-0.107) in patients with other causes of death. Patients with a middle and high income had higher ORs for receiving palliative sedation (OR, 1.46 vs 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-2.04 vs 1.22-2.85) or euthanasia (OR, 2.25 vs 3.37; 95% CI, 1.18-4.3, 1.6-7.12) compared with low-income patients. Retired patients had lower ORs for receiving palliative sedation or euthanasia compared with employed patients (OR, 0.56 vs 0.44; 95% CI, 0.39-0.8 vs 0.24-0.82). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The results of this cohort study suggest that more than half of the patients died of competing causes and palliative sedation and euthanasia were more common in patients with head and neck cancer as the underlying cause of death. Patients with a higher socioeconomic status had higher odds of receiving palliative sedation and euthanasia. These insights may support health care professionals in providing patient-centered care, especially for patients in the palliative phase.</p

Causes and Ways of Death in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

IMPORTANCE There is limited literature on the exact causes and ways of death in patients with head and neck cancer. To provide optimal care, especially in the palliative phase, more information on this is needed. OBJECTIVE To provide insights into the causes and ways of death among patients with head and neck cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective cohort study included a consecutive population of patients who received a diagnosis of primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck between January 2006 and December 2013 who were treated in the Erasmus MC. Patient data were merged with nonpublic microdata from Statistics Netherlands. Follow-up time was specified as the date of diagnosis until death or December 3, 2019, whichever came first. The data were checked and reanalyzed in November 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Causes (eg, head and neck cancer, other cancer) and ways (eg, natural death, suicide) of death. RESULTS A total of 1291 patients (59.2%; 342 women [26.5%]) died during follow-up (median [IQR] follow-up, 2.7 [1.2-5.6] years). The main cause of death was head and neck cancer (557 [43.1%]), followed by the competing cause of other cancers (344 [26.6%]). In total, 240 patients (18.6%) received palliative sedation and 70 patients (5.4%) euthanasia. Compared with patients with head and neck cancer as the underlying cause of death, lower odds ratios (ORs) were observed for receiving palliative sedation (OR, 0.32 vs 0.07; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46 vs 0.03-0.12) and euthanasia (OR, 0.22 vs 0.01; 95% CI, 0.11-0.41 vs 0-0.107) in patients with other causes of death. Patients with a middle and high income had higher ORs for receiving palliative sedation (OR, 1.46 vs 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-2.04 vs 1.22-2.85) or euthanasia (OR, 2.25 vs 3.37; 95% CI, 1.18-4.3, 1.6-7.12) compared with low-income patients. Retired patients had lower ORs for receiving palliative sedation or euthanasia compared with employed patients (OR, 0.56 vs 0.44; 95% CI, 0.39-0.8 vs 0.24-0.82). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The results of this cohort study suggest that more than half of the patients died of competing causes and palliative sedation and euthanasia were more common in patients with head and neck cancer as the underlying cause of death. Patients with a higher socioeconomic status had higher odds of receiving palliative sedation and euthanasia. These insights may support health care professionals in providing patient-centered care, especially for patients in the palliative phase.</p