Psychosocial interventions for patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of head and neck cancer, like many other cancers, can lead to significant psychosocial distress. Patients with head and neck cancer can have very specific needs, due to both the location of their disease and the impact of treatment, which can interfere with basic day-to-day activities such as eating, speaking and breathing. There is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of the interventions developed to address the psychosocial distress experienced by patients living with head and neck cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and psychosocial well-being for patients with head and neck cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 17 December 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for adults with head and neck cancer. For trials to be included the psychosocial intervention had to involve a supportive relationship between a trained helper and individuals diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Outcomes had to be assessed using a validated quality of life or psychological distress measure, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias, with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, we extracted outcome measures for combining in meta-analyses. We compared continuous outcomes using either mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with a random-effects model. We conducted meta-analyses for the primary outcome measure of quality of life and secondary outcome measures of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression. We subjected the remaining outcome measures (self esteem, coping, adjustment to cancer, body image) to a narrative synthesis, due to the limited number of studies evaluating these specific outcomes and the wide divergence of assessment tools used. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, totaling 542 participants, met the eligibility criteria. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, interventions used and outcome measures reported. From these studies, there was no evidence to suggest that psychosocial intervention promotes global quality of life for patients with head and neck cancer at end of intervention (MD 1.23, 95% CI -5.82 to 8.27) as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). This quality of life tool includes five functional scales, namely cognitive, physical, emotional, social and role. There was no evidence to demonstrate that psychosocial intervention provides an immediate or medium-term improvement on any of these five functional scales. From the data available, there was no significant change in levels of anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.23) or depression following intervention (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19). At present, there is insufficient evidence to refute or support the effectiveness of psychosocial intervention for patients with head and neck cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for psychosocial intervention is limited by the small number of studies, methodological shortcomings such as lack of power, difficulties with comparability between types of interventions and a wide divergence in outcome measures used. Future research should be targeted at patients who screen positive for distress and use validated outcome measures, such as the EORTC scale, as a measure of quality of life. These studies should implement interventions that are theoretically derived. Other shortcomings should be addressed in future studies, including using power calculations that may encourage multi-centred collaboration to ensure adequate sample sizes are recruited

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Locoregional therapy for resectable oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas

BackgroundThere are no level I studies to guide treatment for resectable oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Treatment toxicities influence management recommendations. Ongoing investigations are examining deintensified treatments for human papillomavirus (HPV)‐associated oropharyngeal SCC.MethodsThe Appropriateness Criteria panel, using modified Delphi methodology, produced a literature summary, an assessment of treatment recommendations, and cases to illustrate their use.ResultsA multidisciplinary team produces optimum results. Based on HPV status, smoking history, and staging, patients are divided into groups at low, intermediate, and high‐risk of death. In the future, treatment recommendations may be influenced by HPV status, which has changed the epidemiology of oropharyngeal SCC.ConclusionT1 to T2N0M0 resectable oropharyngeal SCC can be treated with surgery or radiation without chemotherapy. Patients with T1‐2N1‐2aM0 disease can receive radiation, chemoradiation, or transoral surgery with neck dissection and appropriate adjuvant therapy. Patients with T1‐2N2b‐3M0 disease should receive chemoradiation or transoral surgery with neck dissection and appropriate adjuvant therapy. Concurrent chemoradiation is preferred for T3 to T4 disease. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 1299–1309, 2016Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/133590/1/hed24447.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/133590/2/hed24447_am.pd

Cancer cachexia syndrome in head and neck cancer patients: Part I. Diagnosis, impact on quality of life and survival, and treatment

Background. Cancer cachexia is a debilitating, wasting condition that affects many cancer patients, including those with head and neck cancer. The overall incidence of cancer cachexia is quite high for some types of cancer, and cachexia will be the main cause of death for more than 20% of all cancer patients. This syndrome uniquely challenges patients with head and neck cancer. This article outlines the diagnosis of cancer cachexia, reviews its impact on patient quality of life (QOL) and survival, and updates the reader on potential therapies that may suppress it. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed of the National Library of Medicine, which includes more than 15 million citations back to the 1950s. The Cochrane Library and Google search engine were used as well. Results. This syndrome differs significantly from starvation, and thus accurate and timely diagnosis is essential. Nutritional therapy alone is insufficient. Current management strategies include corticosteroids and megesterol acetate, in conjunction with nutritional therapy. Future strategies may include nutraceuticals, omega-3 fatty acids, inflammatory antagonists, and other targeted treatments. Conclusions. Because cancer cachexia differs significantly from starvation, nutritional supplementation must be used in conjunction with other anti-cachexia agents to reverse the chronic systemic inflammatory state and the effects of circulating tumor-derived factors seen in cachexia. Careful identification of patients at risk and those suffering from this syndrome will lead to better outcomes and treatments. Ultimately, more research is needed to better treat this devastating condition