Follow-up after treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: Current maxillofacial practice in the United Kingdom

Tumor Recurrence and Follow-Up Intervals in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Tumor recurrence in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is frequent. However, no consensus about follow-up interval is available. The aim of this study was to analyze the recurrence pattern, detection method and associated parameters for possible risk stratification. Histopathological and epidemiological features were obtained retrospectively and correlated with tumor recurrence and overall survival, distant and lymph node metastases. A total of 760 patients were included, of which 216 patients showed tumor recurrence (mean after 24 ± 26 months). Within the first 12 months, 24% of the recurrences were detected. The primary detection method was clinical examination (n = 123, 57%). Tumor recurrence significantly correlated with advanced histopathological grading (G2/3 vs. G1, p < 0.000) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.004). Tumor recurrence was frequent. Clinical examination was the primary detection method and manifestation within the first 6−12 months was high. The degree of histopathological grading may be useful for risk stratification.

Post-acute health care needs of people with head and neck cancer: Mapping health care services, experiences, and the impact of rurality

BACKGROUND

People with head and neck cancer (HNC) have complex health care needs; however, limited evidence exists regarding the nature or patterns of service access and use. This study explored the post-discharge health care needs and experiences of individuals with HNC from metropolitan and rural areas.

METHODS

Health care appointments and services accessed by people with HNC were collated for 6-month post-treatment. Data analysis of the whole cohort examined patterns of access while journey mapping integrated participants' experiences of recovery.

RESULTS

The 6-month service access journey was mapped for 11 people. Rural participants attended a significantly greater number of appointments (p = 0.012), higher canceled/missed appointments (p = 0.013), and saw more professionals (p = 0.007). Rural participants reported higher stress and burden due to service access barriers and unmet needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple challenges and inequities exist for rural people with HNC. Findings inform opportunities to enhance the post-treatment recovery of people with HNC in rural areas.

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.

Follow-up after oral cancer treatment-Transition to a personalized approach

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for follow-up after oral cancer treatment are not site-specific and encompass the entire head and neck area rather than the oral cavity alone. This one-size-fits-all protocol disregards the differences in aetiology, treatment and differential distribution of new disease between the subsites. With the effectiveness of follow-up in early detection of new disease being put into question, the focus of follow-up programmes might shift to other aspects of survivorship care. Personalization of follow-up is important, considering patient-specific features and needs. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic urges us to rethink our follow-up practice.

FINDINGS

This paper discusses ways in which routine follow-up in patients treated for oral cancer can be optimized. Patients with a high risk of new disease might benefit from an intensified follow-up regimen, whilst patients with a low risk of new disease, a low chance of cure or limited life expectancy could benefit from a de-intensified follow-up regimen. The latter could include a shorter follow-up period and focus on goals other than early detection of new disease. Education of patients to report new symptoms early is of vital importance as the majority of new disease presents symptomatically. Other health care professionals such as specialist nurses and dentists need to play an important leading role in survivorship care. Remote consultations may be useful to perform more efficient and patient-centred follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

Routine follow-up needs to be seen as an integrated part of an individualized survivorship plan that is provided by the entire multidisciplinary team.

Outpatient follow-up appointments for patients having curative treatment for cancer of the head and neck: are the current arrangements in need of change?

Although there are recommendations, there is little evidence about the rationale for the frequency and duration of review appointments for patients with cancer of the head and neck. We have recorded the pattern of follow-up in a tertiary cancer centre and its association with survival and recurrent disease. We used clinical letters and a prospectively maintained database to obtain details on 297 patients who were treated curatively for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity between 2005 and 2008. Mean (SD) age was 63 (12) years and 58% (n = 171) were male. Most patients were seen about 6 times in year one, 3 times in year 2, twice in year 3, twice in year 4, once or twice in year 5, and once yearly beyond year 5. Fewer clinics were scheduled for and attended by patients over 75 years of age, those with overall clinical grades 0-1, and those treated by operation alone in contrast to those who also had adjuvant radiotherapy. Patients were usually seen about 15 times over the 5 years. Taking into account the stage of the tumour and overall mortality, the number and timing of follow-up visits is adequate for the needs of patients with stage II-IV disease. Those with stage I disease may be considered for discharge after the third year if they are told about the risk factors, and signs and symptoms of recurrent disease, and surveillance in primary care.