Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries

Cognitive function and oral health among ageing adults

Objectives: There is inconclusive evidence that cognitive function is associated with oral health in older adults. This study investigated the association between cognitive function and oral health among older adults in England. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study included 4416 dentate participants aged 50 years or older in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing during 2002‐2014. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline in 2002/2003 using a battery of cognitive function tests. The self‐reported number of teeth remaining and self‐rated general oral health status was reported in 2014/2015. Ordinal logistic regression was applied to model the association between cognitive function at baseline and tooth loss or self‐rated oral health. Results: Cognitive function at baseline was negatively associated with the risk of tooth loss (per each 1 standard deviation lower in cognitive function score, OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05‐1.21). When cognitive function score was categorized into quintiles, there was a clear gradient association between cognitive function and tooth loss (P‐trend = 0.003); people in the lowest quintile of cognitive function had higher risk of tooth loss than those in the highest quintile (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.12‐1.74). A similar magnitude and direction of association were evident between cognitive function and self‐rated oral health. Conclusion: This longitudinal study in an English ageing population has demonstrated that poor cognitive function at early stage was associated with poorer oral health and higher risk of tooth loss in later life. The gradient relationship suggests that an improvement in cognitive function could potentially improve oral health and reduce the risk of tooth loss in the ageing population

Remuneration of primary dental care in England: a qualitative framework analysis of perspectives of a new service delivery model incorporating incentives for improved access, quality and health outcomes

Objective: This study aimed to describe stakeholder perspectives of a new service delivery model in primary care dentistry incorporating incentives for access, quality and health outcomes. Design: Data were collected through observations, interviews and focus groups. Setting: This was conducted under six UK primary dental care practices, three working under the incentive-driven contract and three working under the traditional activity-based contract. Participants: Observations were made of 30 dental appointments. Eighteen lay people, 15 dental team staff and a member of a commissioning team took part in the interviews and focus groups. Results: Using a qualitative framework analysis informed by Andersen’s model of access, we found oral health assessments influenced patients’ perceptions of need, which led to changes in preventive behaviour. Dentists responded to the contract, with greater emphasis on prevention, use of the disease risk ratings in treatment planning, adherence to the pathways and the utilisation of skill-mix. Participants identified increases in the capacity of practices to deliver more care as a result. These changes were seen to improve evaluated and perceived health and patient satisfaction. These outcomes fed back to shape people’s predispositions to visit the dentist. Conclusion: The incentive-driven contract was perceived to increase access to dental care, determine dentists’ and patients’ perceptions of need, their behaviours, health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Dentists face challenges in refocusing care, perceptions of preventive dentistry, deployment of skill mix and use of the risk assessments and care pathways. Dentists may need support in these areas and to recognise the differences between caring for individual patients and the patient-base of a practice

Cognitive and sensorimotor function in participants being treated for trigeminal neuralgia pain

Background Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is an orofacial condition defined by reoccurring, spontaneous, short-lived but excruciating stabbing pain. Pharmacological interventions constitute the first-line treatment for TN, with antiepileptic drugs commonly prescribed. People treated for TN pain with antiepileptic drugs describe cognitive and motor difficulties affecting activities of daily living, and report poorer quality of life. We undertook the first comprehensive objective evaluation of sensorimotor and cognitive performance in participants being treated for TN pain with antiepileptic drugs relative to age-matched controls. Methods Participants (43 TN, 41 control) completed a battery of sensorimotor (steering, aiming and tracking) and cognitive (working memory, processing speed, inhibition) tasks. Results The TN group performed significantly worse than controls on the sensorimotor tracking and aiming tasks and across all cognitive measures. Conclusions The data explain why patients treated with antiepileptic drugs report impairment when conducting activities of daily living (given the need for cognitive and motor capability within most of these). The study is an important first step in: (i) ensuring there is adequate information on the impact of pharmacological treatment; (ii) identifying measures to determine optimal medication dosage and track change over time; (iii) creating an evidence base that could allow scientific justification of alternative pain treatment options for TN (e.g. the costs/benefits of surgery)

Identification and appraisal of outcome measures used to evaluate hypodontia care: A systematic review

Introduction: Identification and appraisal of the outcome measures that have been used to evaluate hypodontia treatment and deliver services are essential for improving care. A lack of alignment between outcomes and patient values can limit the scope for patient-centered care. Our objectives were to identify and appraise the outcomes selected to evaluate hypodontia care. Methods: Data sources included 10 electronic databases and grey literature, searched using terms for hypodontia and its treatment methods. Study eligibility included mixed study designs to ensure comprehensive identification of outcomes, excluding case reports and case series with fewer than 10 participants and nonsystematic reviews. Participants and interventions involved people with hypodontia receiving any dental treatment to manage their hypodontia. Simulated treatment, purely laboratory-based interventions, and future treatments still in development were excluded. Research outcomes were identified and synthesised into 4 categories: clinical indicators, and patient-reported, clinician-reported, and lay-reported outcomes. No synthesis of efficacy data was planned, and consequently no methodologic quality appraisal of the studies was undertaken. Results: The search identified 497 abstracts, from which 106 eligible articles were retrieved in full. Fifty-six studies and 8 quality-improvement reports were included. Clinical indicators were reported in 49 studies (88%) including appearance, function, dental health, treatment longevity, treatment success and service delivery. Patient-reported outcomes were given in 22 studies (39%) including oral health-related quality of life, appearance, function, symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction, and patient experience. Clinician-reported outcomes were limited to appearance. Variability was seen in the tools used for measuring outcomes. Conclusions: There is a lack of rationale and consistency in the selection of outcome measures used to evaluate hypodontia care. Outcomes are largely clinician and researcher-driven with little evidence of their relevance to patients. There was a paucity of outcomes measuring access to care, quality of care, and cost. Evidence from hypodontia research is clinician-focused and likely to have limited value to support patients during decision making. Attempts to synthesise the evidence base for translation into practice will be challenging. There is a need for a core outcomes set with a patient-centric approach to drive improvements in health services

Eliciting preferences in dentistry with multiattribute stated preference methods: A systematic review

Background: Preference experiments are used to understand how patients and stakeholders value aspects of health care. These methods are gaining popularity in dentistry, but quality and breadth of use have not been evaluated. Objectives: To describe multiattribute stated preference experiment use in dentistry through illustration and critique of existing studies. Data Sources: Systematic literature search of PubMed, Econlit and Ovid for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, and All EBM Reviews, as well as gray literature. Study Eligibility: Multiattribute stated preference experiments eliciting preferences for dental service delivery, treatments, and oral health states from the perspective of patients, the public, and dental professionals. Outcomes of interest were preference weights and marginal rates of substitution. Study selection was independently performed by 2 reviewers. Appraisal: Ten-point checklist published by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research was used for quality assessment. Synthesis: Descriptive analysis. Results: Searches identified 12 records published between 1999 and 2015, mostly in nondental academic journals. Studies were undertaken in high-income countries in Europe and the United States. The studies aimed to elicit preference for service delivery, treatment, or oral health states from the perspective of the patients, dentists, or the public via discrete choice experiment methods. The quality scores for the studies ranged from 53% to 100%. Limitations: A detailed description and critique of stated preference methods are provided, but it was not possible to provide synthesized preference data. Conclusions: Multiattribute stated preference experiments are increasingly popular, but understanding the methods and outputs is essential for designing and interpreting preference studies to improve patient care. Patient preferences highlight important considerations for decision making during treatment planning. Valuation of health states and estimation of willingness-to-pay are important for resource planning and allocation and economic evaluation. Preference estimates and relative value of attributes for interventions and service delivery inform development and selection of treatments and service