A comparison of attitudes to laryngeal cancer treatment outcomes: a time trade-off study

Design: Time trade-off choice experiment. Setting: Two large head and neck cancer centres. Participants: Patients who have received treatment for head and neck cancer and members of the head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team. Main outcome measures: Participants were asked to rank the outcome scenarios, assign utility values using time trade-off and rate the importance of survival on treatment choice. Results: 49 head and neck cancer patients and 73 staff members were recruited. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) optimal outcome was the most preferred health state (34/49, 69% patients and 50/73, 68% staff) and CRT with complications was least preferred (27/49 55% patients and 51/73 70% staff). Using time trade-off, mean utility values were calculated for CRT optimal outcome (0.73 for patients, 0.77 for staff), total laryngectomy (TL) optimal outcome (0.67 for patients, 0.69 for staff), TL outcome with complications (0.46 for patients, 0.51 for staff) and CRT with complications (0.36 for patients, 0.49 for staff). The average survival advantage required for a participant to change their preferred choice was 2.6 years. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that a significant proportion of head and neck cancer patients and staff members would not choose CRT to manage locally advanced laryngeal cancer. Staff members rated the health states associated with laryngeal cancer treatment higher than patients who have experienced them, and this is particularly evident when considering the poorer outcomes. The head and neck cancer community should develop methods of practice and decision making which incorporate elicitation and reporting of patient values as a central principle

What is the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of oral cancer in 2010?

Item does not contain fulltext1 juni 201

Transoral tongue base mucosectomy for the identification of the primary site in the work-up of cancers of unknown origin:systematic review and metaanalysis

The use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and laser microsurgery (TLM) in the diagnosis and identification of the site of the unknown primary has become increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the use and efficacy of TORS and TLM for this indication. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies employing TORS or TLM in diagnosis of the unknown primary tumor site in patients with cervical nodal metastases of squamous cell origin. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL were searched from inception to July 2018 for all studies that used TORS and or TLM in identifying the unknown primary. 251 studies were identified, of which 21 were eligible for inclusion. The primary tumour was identified by TORS/TLM in 78% of patients (433 out of 556). Tongue base mucosectomy (TBM) identified the primary in 222 of 427 cases (53%). In patients with negative physical examination, diagnostic imaging and PETCT, TBM identified the primary in 64% (95% CI 50, 79) cases. In patients who had negative CT/MRI imaging, negative PETCT and negative EUA and tonsillectomy, TBM identified a tongue base primary in 78% (95% CI 41, 92) cases. Haemorrhage, the commonest complication, was reported in 4.9% cases. Mean length of stay varied between 1.4 and 6.3 days. Tongue base mucosectomy, performed by TORS or TLM, is highly efficacious in identifying the unknown primary in the head and neck region

Development and validation of a Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN) in a scarce resource setting: Response to the COVID‐19 pandemic

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163412/2/cncr33114_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163412/1/cncr33114.pd

Ser ou não ser Mãe/Pai? Eis a questão –Motivações para a parentalidade

Background Local and/or regional recurrence and metachronous primary tumor arising in a previously irradiated area are rather frequent events in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Re‐treatment is associated with an increased risk of serious toxicity and impaired quality of life (QOL) with an uncertain survival advantage. Methods We analyzed the literature on the efficacy and toxicity of photon/electron‐based external beam reirradiation for previously irradiated patients with HNSCC of non‐nasopharyngeal origin. Studies were grouped according to the radiotherapy technique used for reirradiation. Patient selection criteria, target volume identification method, tumor dose, fractionation schedule, systemic therapy administration, and toxicities were reviewed. Results In addition to disease‐related factors, current comorbidities and preexisting organ dysfunction must be considered when selecting patients for reirradiation. As morbidity from re‐treatment may be considerable and differ depending on which mode of re‐treatment is used, it is important to give patients information on potential morbidity outcomes so that an informed choice can be made within a shared decision‐making context. With improved dose distribution and adequate imaging support, including positron emission tomography‐CT, modern radiotherapy techniques may improve local control and reduce toxicity of reirradiation. A reirradiation dose of ≥60 Gy and a volume encompassing the gross tumor with up to a 5‐mm margin are recommended. Concomitant administration of systemic therapeutics and reirradiation is likely to be of similar benefit as observed in large randomized studies of upfront therapy. Conclusion Reirradiation, administered either with or without concurrent systemic therapy, is feasible and tolerable in properly selected patients with recurrent or a new primary tumor in a previously irradiated area of the head and neck, offering a meaningful survival (in the range of 10% to 30% at 2 years). Whenever feasible, salvage surgery is the method of choice for curative intent; patients at high‐risk for local recurrence should be advised that postoperative reirradiation is expected to increase locoregional control at the expense of higher toxicity and without survival advantage compared to salvage surgery without reirradiation. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 37 : 134–150, 2015Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110100/1/hed23542.pd

Long term survival following the detection of circulating tumour cells in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Background Techniques for detecting circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood of patients with head and neck cancers may identify individuals likely to benefit from early systemic treatment. Methods Reconstruction experiments were used to optimise immunomagnetic enrichment and RT-PCR detection of circulating tumor cells using four markers (ELF3, CK19, EGFR and EphB4). This method was then tested in a pilot study using samples from 16 patients with advanced head and neck carcinomas. Results Seven patients were positive for circulating tumour cells both prior to and after surgery, 4 patients were positive prior to but not after surgery, 3 patients were positive after but not prior to surgery and 2 patients were negative. Two patients tested positive for circulating cells but there was no other evidence of tumor spread. Given this patient cohort had mostly advanced disease, as expected the detection of circulating tumour cells was not associated with significant differences in overall or disease free survival. Conclusion For the first time, we show that almost all patients with advanced head and neck cancers have circulating cells at the time of surgery. The clinical application of techniques for detection of spreading disease, such as the immunomagnetic enrichment RT-PCR analysis used in this study, should be explored further

Establishing a large prospective clinical cohort in people with head and neck cancer as a biomedical resource: head and neck 5000

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer is an important cause of ill health. Survival appears to be improving but the reasons for this are unclear. They could include evolving aetiology, modifications in care, improvements in treatment or changes in lifestyle behaviour. Observational studies are required to explore survival trends and identify outcome predictors. METHODS: We are identifying people with a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer. We obtain consent that includes agreement to collect longitudinal data, store samples and record linkage. Prior to treatment we give participants three questionnaires on health and lifestyle, quality of life and sexual history. We collect blood and saliva samples, complete a clinical data capture form and request a formalin fixed tissue sample. At four and twelve months we complete further data capture forms and send participants further quality of life questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This large clinical cohort of people with head and neck cancer brings together clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biological samples in a single co-ordinated resource for translational and prognostic research

Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis

Objective Clinical Cancer Decision Tools (CCDTs) aim to alert general practitioners (GPs) to signs and symptoms of cancer, supporting prompt investigation and onward referral. CCDTs are available in primary care in the UK but are not widely utilised. Qualitative research has highlighted the complexities and mechanisms surrounding their implementation and use; this has focused on specific cancer types, formats, systems or settings. This study aims to synthesise qualitative data of GPs’ attitudes to and experience with a range of CCDTs to gain better understanding of the factors shaping their implementation and use.Design A systematic search of the published (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) and grey literature (July 2020). Following screening, selection and assessment of suitability, the data were analysed and synthesised using normalisation process theory.Results Six studies (2011 to 2019), exploring the views of GPs were included for analysis. Studies focused on the use of several different types of CCDTs (Risk Assessment Tools (RAT) or electronic version of RAT (eRAT), QCancer and the 7-point checklist). GPs agreed CCDTs were useful to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of undiagnosed cancer. They had concerns about the impact on trust in their own clinical acumen, whether secondary care clinicians would consider referrals generated by CCDT as valid and whether integration of the CCDTs within existing systems was achievable.Conclusions CCDTs might be a helpful adjunct to clinical work in primary care, but without careful development to legitimise their use GPs are likely to give precedence to clinical acumen and gut instinct. Stakeholder consultation with secondary care clinicians and consideration of how the CCDTs fit into a GP consultation are crucial to successful uptake. The role and responsibilities of a GP as a clinician, gatekeeper, health promoter and resource manager affect the interaction with and implementation of innovations such as CCDTs