The Case Volume Issue in Head and Neck Oncology

Current aspects of the quality of head and neck cancer care - survey of the Scandinavian Society for Head and Neck Oncology

BACKGROUND

All Nordic countries have national cancer registries collecting data on head and neck cancer (HNC) incidence and survival. However, there is a lack of consensus on how other quality aspects should be monitored.

AIMS

We conducted a web-based survey to find opportunities for quality control and improvement.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to one otorhinolaryngology - head and neck (ORL-HN) surgeon, and one oncologist at each Nordic university hospital treating HNC. In total, 42 responses from all 21 university hospitals were included.

RESULTS

In over half of the university hospitals, an oncologist, an ORL-HN surgeon, a pathologist, a radiologist, and a specialized nurse was always present at the multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meeting. Of 42 respondents 35 (83%) agreed that treatment delays were systematically recorded for each patient. Eleven of 21 (52%) oncologists agreed that side-effects of (chemo)radiotherapy were systematically recorded. Less than half of the respondents agreed that complications of surgery, and post-treatment quality of life (QOL) were systematically recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Nordic countries, the importance of HNC treatment timelines is well acknowledged. There is a lack of consensus on the composition of MTB meeting, and how treatment-related morbidity should be monitored outside clinical trials.

Hospital volume and 5-year survival in head and neck cancer patients in Osaka, Japan

BACKGROUND

Few previous studies have examined the relationship between hospital volume and hazard of death for head and neck cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between hospital volume and 5-year survival from diagnosis among head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

Using data from the population-based Osaka Cancer Registry, hospital volume was divided into three volume groups according to the number of head and neck cancer treatments identified between 2009 and 2011. We analysed the association between hospital volume and 5-year survival among 3069 patients aged 0-79 using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for characteristics of patients.

RESULTS

Compared with head and neck cancer patients in high-hospital volume, patients treated in middle- and low-hospital volume were found to have a higher risk of death (middle-hospital volume: hazard ratio = 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.46, low-hospital volume: hazard ratio = 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significantly higher risk of hazard of death in middle- and low-hospital volume than in high-hospital volume for head and neck cancer.

Standardization for oncologic head and neck surgery

The inherent variability in performing specific surgical procedures for head and neck cancer remains a barrier for accurately assessing treatment outcomes, particularly in clinical trials. While non-surgical modalities for cancer therapeutics have evolved to become far more uniform, there remains the challenge to standardize surgery. The purpose of this review is to identify the barriers in achieving uniformity and to highlight efforts by surgical groups to standardize selected operations and nomenclature. While further improvements in standardization will remain a challenge, we must encourage surgical groups to focus on strategies that provide such a level.

Quality of Care Indicators for Head and Neck Cancers: The Experience of the European Project RARECAREnet

Background: Monitoring and improving quality of cancer care has become pivotal today. This is especially relevant for head and neck cancers since the disease is complex, it needs multi therapy, patients tend to be older, they tend to have comorbidities and limited social support. However, information on quality of care for head and neck cancers is scarce. In the context of the project "Information Network on Rare Cancers" we aimed to identify indicators of quality of care specific for the head and neck cancers management and to measure the quality of care for head and neck cancers in different EU Member States. Methods: We defined indicators of quality of care for head and neck cancers based on a multidisciplinary and expert-based consensus process at a European level. To test the proposed indicators, we performed an observational population-based retrospective study in four countries (Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and Slovenia) in the years 2009-2011. Results: The main quality indicators identified are: availability of formalized multidisciplinary team, participation in clinical and translational research; timeliness of care, high quality of surgery and radiotherapy, and of pathological reporting. For head and neck cancers, the quality of care did not reach the optimal standards in most of the countries analyzed. A high proportion of patients was diagnosed at an advanced disease stage, showed delays in starting treatment (especially for radiotherapy), and there was only a very limited use of multi therapy. Conclusions: According to the achieved consensus, indicators of quality of care for head and neck cancers have to cover the patient journey (i.e., diagnosis and treatment). Our results, showed suboptimal quality of care across countries and call for solutions for ensuring good quality of care for head and neck cancer patients in all EU countries. One possible option might be to refer head and neck cancer patients to specialized centers or to networks including specialized centers.