Effectiveness of a Home‐based Head and Neck Lymphedema Management Program: A Pilot Study

Limited consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema after head and neck cancer: results from an International Delphi study

PURPOSE

To explore current practice variation and degree of consensus among international clinical experts regarding the diagnosis, classification, measurement, and treatment of head and neck lymphedema (HNL) after head and neck cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an online Delphi study. Eligible participants were clinical researchers who had (co)authored at least one publication on HNL and healthcare professionals who had treated at least five patients with HNL the last two years. The first round was to collect views about current best practices. The second and third rounds delved deeper into these topics using statements with 7-point adjective rating scales.

RESULTS

An expert panel of seventeen participants (7 clinicians, 8 researchers, and 2 others) from 8 countries completed all rounds. Regarding diagnosis, there was limited consensus on most subjects, with palpation being most endorsed. No consensus was reached on the need to use standardized classification systems. As a treatment method, complex decongestive therapy (CDT) was the most commonly used in practice and investigated in the literature. However, no consensus was reached on the importance of aspects of CDT.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial intra- and international practice variation in the management of HNL. This calls for more robust evidence and guidelines.

Evaluating the effects of lymphoedema management strategies on functional status and health-related quality of life following treatment for head and neck cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patients living with head and neck lymphoedema (HNL) after completion of head and neck cancer (HNC) often can experience long-term functional challenges and overall poorer health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This systematic review aims to explore components of effective HNL interventions through identification and synthesising literature on existing HNL management interventions.

METHODS

Five electronic databases (MEDLINE via Ovid and PubMed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Scopus) were systematically searched using Medical Subject Headings and free text, as well as citation tracking and Google Scholar for grey literature.

RESULTS

A total of 1910 studies were screened, with 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Findings indicated vast heterogeneity within HNL interventions. Patients' adherence to intervention strategies was reported as low and partially adhered to, particularly at home. This impacted on function domains and overall HRQOL during the post-treatment HNC phase, as well as further increasing the demands placed on healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Synthesis of the research findings highlighted a need to provide and educate patients with individualised HNL self-management intervention strategies. Promoting adherence was reported as being essential, with self-efficacy and behaviour change techniques being emphasised as a critical element to enhance motivation and therefore effective intervention delivery. Further work is important to address barriers to adherence and promote both motivation and behaviour change, to develop individualised self-management interventions for this cancer population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The findings from this systematic review will provide guidance in the development and delivery of individualised self-management HNL interventions for patients who have completed HNC treatment.

Head and neck cancer survivorship consensus statement from the American Head and Neck Society

OBJECTIVES

To provide a consensus statement describing best practices and evidence regarding head and neck cancer survivorship.

METHODS

Key topics regarding head and neck cancer survivorship were identified by the multidisciplinary membership of the American Head and Neck Society Survivorship, Supportive Care & Rehabilitation Service. Guidelines were generated by combining expert opinion and a review of the literature and categorized by level of evidence.

RESULTS

Several areas regarding survivorship including dysphonia, dysphagia, fatigue, chronic pain, intimacy, the ability to return to work, financial toxicity, lymphedema, psycho-oncology, physical activity, and substance abuse were identified and discussed. Additionally, the group identified and described the role of key clinicians in survivorship including surgical, medical and radiation oncologists; dentists; primary care physicians; psychotherapists; as well as physical, occupational, speech, and respiratory therapists.

CONCLUSION

Head and neck cancer survivorship is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach centered around patients and their caregivers. As survival related to head and neck cancer treatment improves, addressing post-treatment concerns appropriately is critically important to our patient's quality of life. There continues to be a need to define effective and efficient programs that can coordinate this multidisciplinary effort toward survivorship.

Refinement and Validation of the Head and Neck Lymphedema and Fibrosis Symptom Inventory

PURPOSE

Lymphedema and fibrosis (LEF) are common yet overlooked late effects of head and neck cancer and its therapy. Lack of reliable and valid measures of head and neck LEF is a critical barrier to the timely identification and management of head and neck LEF. To fill this gap, we developed and pilot tested a 64-item patient-reported outcome measure ( Lymphedema Symptom Intensity and Distress Survey-Head and Neck, LSIDS-H&N). This article aims to report the process of further validation and refinement of the tool.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A prospective, longitudinal study was conducted, and 120 patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer were recruited. Participants completed the LSIDS-H&N at pretreatment, end of treatment, and every 3 months up to 12 months after treatment. SAS PROC VARCLUS was used to generate preliminary clusters of item responses. Internal consistency of the item responses within each cluster was assessed using Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients completed the study. The participants reported that the LSIDS-H&N was easy to understand and captured their symptoms and medical conditions. However, >50% of participants indicated that the survey was burdensome due to length. Thus, we proceeded with item reduction, and the shortened tool (33-item) was named Head and Neck Lymphedema and Fibrosis Symptom Inventory (HN-LEF Symptom Inventory). The subsequent exploration of symptom clusters identified 7 symptom domain clusters (eg, soft tissue and neurologic toxicity), all of which demonstrated good internal consistency.

CONCLUSIONS

The HN-LEF Symptom Inventory has been carefully developed and refined to allow clinicians and researchers to capture LEF-associated symptom burden and function impairments. Additional rigorous psychometric testing of the tool is ongoing to further validate the strength and internal validity of this tool.

Advanced pneumatic compression for treatment of lymphedema of the head and neck: a randomized wait-list controlled trial

PURPOSE

Lymphedema associated with head and neck cancer (HNC) therapy causes adverse clinical outcomes. Standard treatment includes professionally administered complete decongestive therapy (CDT). Cost and availability of trained therapists are known barriers to therapy. Advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCD) may address these issues. A randomized, wait-list controlled trial was undertaken to evaluate an APCD in post-treatment HNC patients with lymphedema.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eligible patients had completed treatment for HNC, were disease free, and had lymphedema at enrollment. Participants were randomized to wait-list lymphedema self-management (standard of care) or lymphedema self-management plus the use of the APCD bid. Safety (CTCAE V4.0) and feasibility were primary endpoints; secondary endpoints included efficacy measure by objective examination and patient reported outcomes (symptoms, quality of life, function), adherence barriers, and satisfaction. Assessments were conducted at baseline and weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were enrolled (wait-list n = 25; intervention n = 24). In total, forty-three patients completed the study. No device-related Serious Adverse Events were reported. Most patients used the APCD once per day, instead of the prescribed twice per day, citing time related factors as barriers to use. APCD use was associated with significant improvement in perceived ability to control lymphedema (p = 0.003) and visible external swelling (front view p < 0.001, right view p = 0.004, left p = 0.005), as well as less reported pain.

CONCLUSION

This trial supports the safety and feasibility of the APCD for the treatment of secondary lymphedema in head and neck cancer patients. In addition, preliminary data supports efficacy.