Prognostic factors associated with a restricted mouth opening (trismus) in patients with head and neck cancer: Systematic review

BACKGROUND: To prescribe early trismus therapy, prognostic factors influencing the restricted mouth opening should be identified first. Our aim is to present an overview of these factors in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched using terms related to head and neck cancer and mouth opening. Risk of bias was assessed using the "Quality in Prognosis Studies" tool. A best evidence synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of the identified 1418 studies, 53 were included. Three studies contained a prognostic multivariate model for a restricted mouth opening. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with head and neck cancer will most likely develop a restricted mouth opening when they have a large tumor near the masticatory muscles that requires extensive cancer treatment. A restricted mouth opening most likely occurs within 6 months after cancer treatment. Further research is necessary on factors related to healing tendency or pain intensity

Reasons for low uptake of a psychological intervention offered to cancer survivors with elevated depressive symptoms

Objective: In line with screening guidelines, cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms (as part of standard care), with those reporting elevated levels of symptoms offered psychological care as part of a trial. Because of the low uptake, no conclusions could be drawn about the interventions' efficacy. Given the trial set-up (following screening guidelines and strict methodological quality criteria), we believe that this observational study reporting the flow of participation, reasons for and characteristics associated with nonparticipation, adds to the debate about the feasibility and efficiency of screening guidelines. Methods: Two thousand six hundred eight medium- to long-term cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Those with moderate depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) were contacted and informed about the trial. Patient flow and reasons for nonparticipation were carefully monitored. Results: One thousand thirty seven survivors (74.3%) returned the questionnaire, with 147 (7.6%) reporting moderate depressive symptoms. Of this group, 49 survivors (33.3%) were ineligible, including 26 survivors (17.7%) already receiving treatment and another 44 survivors (30.0%) reporting no need for treatment. Only 25 survivors (1.0%) participated in the trial. Conclusion: Of the approached survivors for screening, only 1% was eligible and interested in receiving psychological care as part of our trial. Four reasons for nonparticipation were: nonresponse to screening, low levels of depressive symptoms, no need, or already receiving care. Our findings question whether to spend the limited resources in psycho-oncological care on following screening guidelines and the efficiency of using consecutive screening for trial recruitment in cancer survivors

Predictive modelling for swallowing dysfunction after primary (chemo)radiation: Results of a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this large multicentre prospective cohort study was to identify which dose volume histogram parameters and pre-treatment factors are most important to predict physician-rated and patient-rated radiation-induced swallowing dysfunction (RISD) in order to develop predictive models for RISD after curative (chemo) radiotherapy ((CH) RT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 354 consecutive head and neck cancer patients treated with (CH) RT. The primary endpoint was grade 2 or more swallowing dysfunction according to the RTOG/EORTC late radiation morbidity scoring criteria at 6months after (CH) RT. The secondary endpoints were patient-rated swallowing complaints as assessed with the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaire. To select the most predictive variables a multivariate logistic regression analysis with bootstrapping was used. RESULTS: At 6months after (CH) RT the bootstrapping procedure revealed that a model based on the mean dose to the superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM) and mean dose to the supraglottic larynx was most predictive. For the secondary endpoints different predictive models were found: for problems with swallowing liquids the most predictive factors were the mean dose to the supraglottic larynx and radiation technique (3D-CRT versus IMRT). For problems with swallowing soft food the mean dose to the middle PCM, age (18-65 versus >65years), tumour site (naso/oropharynx versus other sites) and radiation technique (3D-CRT versus IMRT) were the most predictive factors. For problems with swallowing solid food the most predictive factors were the mean dose to the superior PCM, the mean dose to the supraglottic larynx and age (18-65 versus >65years). And for choking when swallowing the V60 of the oesophageal inlet muscle and the mean dose to the supraglottic larynx were the most predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Physician-rated and patient-rated RISD in head and neck cancer patients treated with (CH) RT cannot be predicted with univariate relationships between the dose distribution in a single organ at risk and an endpoint. Separate predictive models are needed for different endpoints and factors other than dose volume histogram parameters are important as well