Head and Neck Cancer: Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Clinical Practice

Less is more: Exploring neoadjuvant immunotherapy as a de-escalation strategy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) constitutes a significant global cancer burden, given its high prevalence and associated mortality. Despite substantial progress in survival rates due to the enhanced multidisciplinary approach to treatment, these methods often lead to severe tissue damage, compromised function, and potential toxicity. Thus, there is an imperative need for novel, effective, and minimally damaging treatment modalities. Neoadjuvant treatment, an emerging therapeutic strategy, is designed to reduce tumor size and curtail distant metastasis prior to definitive intervention. Currently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has optimized the treatment approach for a subset of HNSCC patients, yet it has not produced a noticeable enhancement in overall survival (OS). In the contemporary cancer therapeutics landscape, immunotherapy is gaining traction at an accelerated pace. Notably, neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAIT) has shown promising radiological and pathological responses, coupled with encouraging efficacy in several clinical trials. This potentially paves the way for a myriad of possibilities in treatment de-escalation of HNSCC, which warrants further exploration. This paper reviews the existing strategies and efficacies of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), along with potential de-escalation strategies. Furthermore, the challenges encountered in the context of the de-escalation strategies of NAIT are explored. The aim is to inform future research directions that strive to improve the quality of life (QoL) for patients battling HNSCC.

A novel smartphone application for the informal caregivers of cancer patients: Usability study

Informal caregivers are a critical source of support for cancer patients. However, their perspectives are not routinely collected, despite health impacts related to the burden of caregiving. We created the TOGETHERCare smartphone application (app) to collect observer-reported outcomes regarding the cancer patient's health and caregiver's perceptions of their own mental and physical health, and to provide tips and resources for self-care and patient care. We enrolled 54 caregivers between October 2020 and March 2021 from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), an integrated healthcare system. Fifty caregivers used the app for approximately 28 days. Usability and acceptability were assessed using questions from the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), the System Usability Scale (SUS), the Net Promoter Score (NPS), and semi-structured interviews. The caregivers' mean age was 54.4 years, 38% were female and 36% were non-White. The SUS total mean score was 83.4 (SD = 14.2), for a percentile rank of 90-95 ("excellent"). Median MARS responses to the functionality questions were also high. The NPS score of 30 at the end of the study indicated that most caregivers would recommend the app. Themes from semi-structured interviews were consistent across the study period and indicated that the app was easy to use and helpful. Caregivers indicated a need for feedback from the app, suggested some changes to the wording of questions, the app's visuals, and timing of notifications. This study demonstrated that caregivers are willing to complete frequent surveys about themselves and their patients. The app is unique because it provides a remote method to collect caregivers' observations about the patient that may be useful for clinical care. To our knowledge, TOGETHERCare is the first mobile app developed specifically to capture adult cancer patient symptoms from the informal caregiver's perspective. Future research will examine whether use of this app can help improve patient outcomes.

Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review

In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives’ quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver’s adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver–patient–physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.

Defining a Standard Set of Health Outcomes for Patients With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck in Spain

Purpose

A systematic, standardized collection of health outcomes during patient treatment and follow-up, relevant from the perspective of all stakeholders, is a crucial step toward effective and efficient disease management. This project aimed to define a standard set of health outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

Methods

The project was led and coordinated by a scientific committee (SC). It comprised: (1) a literature review (to identify variables used during SCCHN management); (2) 1^st-SC meeting (to select the variables for presentation during nominal groups-NG); (3) five NG (n=42 experts) and four interviews with patients (to reach consensus on the variables for inclusion); and (4) final-SC meeting (to review the results of NG ensuring consensus on the variables where consensus was not reached).

Results

Experts agreed to include the following variables in the standard set: treatment-related (treatment intent and type, response to treatment, treatment toxicity/complication, treatment completion), degree of health (performance status, patient-reported health status, pain, dysphonia, feeding and speech limitations, body image alteration, tracheotomy), survival (overall and progression-free survival, cause of death), nutritional (weight, nutritional intervention), other variables (smoking status, alcohol consumption, patient satisfaction with aftermath care, employment status), and case-mix variables (demographic, tumor-related, clinical and nutritional factors).

Conclusions

This project may pave the way to standardizing the collection of health outcomes in SCCHN and promote the incorporation of patients’ perspective in its management. The information provided through the systematic compilation of this standard set may define strategies to achieve high-quality, patient-centered care.

Identification and management of late dysfunction in survivors of head and neck cancer: Implementation and outcomes of an interdisciplinary quality of life (IQOL) clinic

BACKGROUND

Identifying and treating late dysfunction in survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) is important; however, an effective way to do so is not established.

METHODS

A quality improvement initiative altering our HNC survivorship clinic to include surveillance by rehabilitation providers was undertaken. The nature of dysfunction identified, along with the number and type of referrals to ancillary/support services were collected and compared to baseline.

RESULTS

The baseline, single-provider, clinic evaluated 61 patients and referred 2 (3%) to ancillary/support services. Fifty-seven patients were evaluated in the interdisciplinary clinic, with 36 (63%) referred to at least one ancillary/support service for new/progressive dysfunction. Of 59 referrals made, 22 (37%) were for dysphagia, 17(29%) were for neck/shoulder dysfunction, and 28 (47%) were attended by the patient.

CONCLUSION

Many HNC survivors exhibit late dysfunction appropriate for referral to ancillary/support services. A survivorship clinic including surveillance by rehabilitation specialists may optimize identification of dysfunction.

Value and Quality of Care in Head and Neck Oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The concept of value-based health care (VBHC) was articulated more than a decade ago. However, its clinical implementation remains an on-going process and a particularly demanding one for the domain of head and neck cancer (HNC). These cancers often present with fast growing tumors in functionally and cosmetically sensitive sites and afflict patients with differing circumstances and comorbidity. Moreover, the various treatment modalities and protocols have different effects on functional outcomes. Hence, the interpretation of what constitutes VBHC in head and neck oncology remains challenging.

RECENT FINDINGS

This monograph reviews developments in specific aspects of VBHC for HNC patients, including establishment of registries and quality indices (such as infrastructure, process, and outcome indicators). It emphasizes the importance of the multidisciplinary team, "time to treatment intervals," and adherence to guidelines. The discussion addresses major indicators including survival, quality of life and functional outcomes, and adverse events. Also, strengths and weaknesses of nomograms, prognostic and decision models, and variation of care warrant attention. Health care professionals, together with patients, must properly define quality and relevant outcomes, both for the individual patient as well as the HNC population. It is essential to capture and organize the relevant data so that they can be analyzed and the results used to improve both outcomes and value.

Adherence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients to tumor board recommendations

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings or tumor boards (TBs) are fundamental components of cancer treatment. Although their primary function is improved outcomes, this aspect is often underreported. The main objective of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) discussed at TBs, and to compare the effect of adherence and nonadherence to recommended treatment plans on outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective data analysis was conducted of HNSCC patients those who were adherent and nonadherent to TB therapy recommendations during 2008-2009 at a comprehensive cancer center. Fisher's exact test and t test were used for group-wise comparison, and Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression models, for survival analysis and determination of the contributing factors to nonadherence.

RESULTS

Comprehensive Treatment plans were recommended by TBs in 293 HNSCC patients with curative intent. Seventy-two patients were excluded based on the selection criteria. Among the remaining 221 patients, 172 (77.9%) were adherent to TB recommendations, while 49 (22.1%) failed to comply. Patient (n = 36; 73.5%), clinician (n = 2; 4.1%), and disease-related (n = 11; 22.4%) factors were significant contributors to nonadherence. Mean (±standard deviation (SD)) survival time was 55.6 ± 2.32 and 29.1 ± 4 months in the adherent and nonadherent groups, (P < .0001, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed that gender, ethnicity, higher T-stage, and multimodal treatment were associated with nonadherence.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to TB recommendations improved overall survival, reflecting the importance of interdisciplinary expertise in contemporary cancer treatment. Early identification and intervention is crucial in "at risk" patients to prevent subsequent drop-out from optimal cancer care.

[Post-treatment follow-up of head and neck cancer patients]

Post-therapeutic follow-up of patients with head and neck cancer involves numerous professionals. The radiation oncologist should play an active role in this process. His oncological knowledge and technical expertise position him as a cornerstone for the detection of recurrences from the treated tumor, the research of second primary cancers and the screening of potential side-effects induced by the different treatments administered. To improve the benefits/costs ratio and allow good patient-compliance, follow-up programs should be built through close collaboration between the different contributors and planned according to a feasible schedule. Paraclinical exams must be arranged to respond to accurate objectives. Patient-education is essential to ensure the patient's full understanding and active participation. Finally, the transfer of the long-term follow-up of cancer survivors from specialists to primary care physicians is relevant but would require a prospective evaluation of its efficiency for this specific population.