Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial

Aims Current follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients' needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This article reports UK clinicians' views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design. Materials and methods Online focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and randomised controlled trial design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers and thoughts about the content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis. Results Eight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up – lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense and lack of evidence – and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals. Conclusions Clinicians supported the evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting and reliable, quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.Members of the PETNECK2 Research Team: A. Karwath; B. Main; C. Gaunt; C. Greaves; D. Moore; E. Watson; G. Gkoutos; G. Ozakinci; J. Wolstenholme; J. Dretzke; J. Brett; J. Duda; L. Matheson; L.-R. Cherrill; M. Calvert; P. Kiely; P. Gaunt; S. Chernbumroong; S. Mittal; S. Thomas; S. Winter; W. Won

Concurrent cisplatin or cetuximab with radiotherapy for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer : Medical resource use, costs, and quality-adjusted survival from the De-ESCALaTE HPV trial

Background The De-ESCALaTE HPV trial confirmed the dominance of cisplatin over cetuximab for tumour control in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Here, we present the analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and health care costs in the trial, as well as complete 2-year survival and recurrence. Materials and methods Resource use and HRQoL data were collected at intervals from the baseline to 24 months post treatment (PT). Health care costs were estimated using UK-based unit costs. Missing data were imputed. Differences in mean EQ-5D-5L utility index and adjusted cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and linear regression, respectively. Mean resource usage and costs were compared through two-sample t-tests. Results 334 patients were randomised to cisplatin (n = 166) or cetuximab (n = 168). Two-year overall survival (97·5% vs 90·0%, HR: 3.268 [95% CI 1·451 to 7·359], p = 0·0251) and recurrence rates (6·4% vs 16·0%, HR: 2·67 [1·38 to 5·15]; p = 0·0024) favoured cisplatin. No significant differences in EQ-5D-5L utility scores were detected at any time point. At 24 months PT, mean difference was 0·107 QALYs in favour of cisplatin (95% CI: 0·186 to 0·029, p = 0·007) driven by the mortality difference. Health care costs were similar across all categories except the procurement cost and delivery of the systemic agent, with cetuximab significantly more expensive than cisplatin (£7779 [P < 0.001]). Consequently, total costs at 24 months PT averaged £13517 (SE: £345) per patient for cisplatin and £21064 (SE: £400) for cetuximab (mean difference £7547 [95% CI: £6512 to £8582]). Conclusions Cisplatin chemoradiotherapy provided more QALYs and was less costly than cetuximab bioradiotherapy, remaining standard of care for nonsurgical treatment of HPV-positive OPSCC

Development of the ‘ACT now & check it out’ intervention to support patient-initiated follow up for Head and Neck cancer patients

Objective: Current Head and Neck cancer (HNC) follow-up models are considered sub-optimal at detecting re currences. We describe the development of a patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) trial intervention support package, to support HNC patients to engage in PIFU self-care behaviors. Methods: An intervention mapping approach, informed by evidence synthesis, theory and stakeholder consul tation, guided intervention development. Data sources included a patient survey (n = 144), patient interviews (n = 30), 7 workshops with patients (n = 25) and caregivers (n = 3) and 5 workshops with health professionals (n = 21). Results: The intervention (‘ACT now & check-it-out’) comprises an education and support session with a health professional and an app and/or a booklet for patients. The main targets for change in patient self-care behaviors

Development of the ‘ACT now & check it out’ intervention to support patient-initiated follow up for Head and Neck cancer patients

Objective: Current Head and Neck cancer (HNC) follow-up models are considered sub-optimal at detecting re currences. We describe the development of a patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) trial intervention support package, to support HNC patients to engage in PIFU self-care behaviors. Methods: An intervention mapping approach, informed by evidence synthesis, theory and stakeholder consul tation, guided intervention development. Data sources included a patient survey (n = 144), patient interviews (n = 30), 7 workshops with patients (n = 25) and caregivers (n = 3) and 5 workshops with health professionals (n = 21). Results: The intervention (‘ACT now & check-it-out’) comprises an education and support session with a health professional and an app and/or a booklet for patients. The main targets for change in patient self-care behaviors

Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV):an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Background The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. Methods We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m(2)). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3-5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. Findings Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3-5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4.8 [95% CI 4.2-5.4] with cisplatin vs 4.8 [4.2-5.4] with cetuximab; p=0.98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29.2 [95% CI 27.3-31.0] with cisplatin vs 30.1 [28.3-31.9] with cetuximab; p=0.49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97.5% vs 89.4%, hazard ratio 5.0 [95% CI 1.7-14.7]; p=0.001) and 2-year recurrence (6.0% vs 16.1%, 3.4 [1.6-7.2]; p=0.0007). Interpretation Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. Funding Cancer Research UK. Copyright (c) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

Prognostic implications of p16 and HPV discordance in oropharyngeal cancer (HNCIG-EPIC-OPC): a multicentre, multinational, individual patient data analysis

Background p16(INK4a) (p16) immunohistochemistry is the most widely used biomarker assay for inferring HPV causation in oropharyngeal cancer in clinical and trial settings. However, discordance exists between p16 and HPV DNA or RNA status in some patients with oropharyngeal cancer. We aimed to clearly quantify the extent of discordance, and its prognostic implications. Methods In this multicentre, multinational individual patient data analysis, we did a literature search in PubMed and Cochrane database for systematic reviews and original studies published in English between Jan 1, 1970, and Sept 30, 2022. We included retrospective series and prospective cohorts of consecutively recruited patients previously analysed in individual studies with minimum cohort size of 100 patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Patient inclusion criteria were diagnosis with a primary squamous cell carcinoma of oropharyngeal cancer; data on p16 immunohistochemistry and on HPV testing; information on age, sex, tobacco, and alcohol use; staging by TNM 7th edition; information on treatments received; and data on clinical outcomes and follow-up (date of last follow-up if alive, date of recurrence or metastasis, and date and cause of death). There were no limits on age or performance status. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients of the overall cohort who showed the different p16 and HPV result combinations, as well as 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival. Patients with recurrent or metastatic disease or who were treated palliatively were excluded from overall survival and disease-free survival analyses. Multivariable analysis models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for different p16 and HPV testing methods for overall survival, adjusted for prespecified confounding factors. Findings Our search returned 13 eligible studies that provided individual data for 13 cohorts of patients with oropharyngeal cancer from the UK, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain. 7895 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were assessed for eligibility. 241 were excluded before analysis, and 7654 were eligible for p16 and HPV analysis. 5714 (74middot7%) of 7654 patients were male and 1940 (25middot3%) were female. Ethnicity data were not reported. 3805 patients were p16-positive, 415 (10middot9%) of whom were HPV-negative. This proportion differed significantly by geographical region and was highest in the areas with lowest HPV-attributable fractions (r=-0middot744, p=0middot0035). The proportion of patients with p16+/HPV- oropharyngeal cancer was highest in subsites outside the tonsil and base of tongue (29middot7% vs 9middot0%, p<0middot0001). 5-year overall survival was 81middot1% (95% CI 79middot5-82middot7) for p16+/HPV+, 40middot4% (38middot6-42middot4) for p16-/HPV-, 53middot2% (46middot6-60middot8) for p16-/HPV+, and 54middot7% (49middot2-60middot9) for p16+/HPV-. 5-year disease-free survival was 84middot3% (95% CI 82middot9-85middot7) for p16+/HPV+, 60middot8% (58middot8-62middot9) for p16-/HPV-; 71middot1% (64middot7-78middot2) for p16-/HPV+, and 67middot9% (62middot5-73middot7) for p16+/HPV-. Results were similar across all European sub-regions, but there were insufficient numbers of discordant patients from North America to draw conclusions in this cohort. Interpretation Patients with discordant oropharyngeal cancer (p16-/HPV+ or p16+/HPV-) had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with p16+/HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer, and a significantly better prognosis than patients with p16-/HPV- oropharyngeal cancer. Along with routine p16 immunohistochemistry, HPV testing should be mandated for clinical trials for all patients (or at least following a positive p16 test), and is recommended where HPV status might influence patient care, especially in areas with low HPV-attributable fractions. Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Exploring the views of patients' and their family about patient-initiated follow-up in head and neck cancer: a mixed methods study

Objective The objective of this work was to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' and their family members' views on acceptability and feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), including concerns and anticipated benefits. Methods Patients were recruited from UK HNC clinics, support groups and advocacy groups. They completed a survey (n = 144) and/or qualitative interview (n = 30), three with a family member. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, quantitative data using descriptive statistics. Results Preference for follow-up care in HNC was complex and individual. Many patients thought PIFU could beneficially reallocate health care resources and encourage self-management. Patients' main concerns with PIFU were losing the reassurance of regular clinic appointments and addressing mental well-being needs within PIFU, possibly using peer support. Patients were concerned about their ability to detect recurrence due to lack of expertise and information. They emphasised the importance of a reliable, direct and easy urgent appointment service and of feeling supported and heard by clinicians. Patients believed family and friends need support. Conclusion PIFU may be feasible and acceptable for certain HNC patients, providing it addresses support for mental well-being, provides quick, reliable and direct clinician access and information on “red flag” symptoms, and ensures patients and their caregivers feel supported.Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Onlin