Current Trends in the Follow-up of Head and Neck Cancer Patients in the UK

Algorithms of follow-up in patients with head and neck cancer in relation to primary location and advancement. Consensus of Polish ENT Society Board and Head Neck Experts

Summary

The algorithm of follow-up in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) has been prepared by a board of Polish Head Neck and Oncology Experts. The aim of this research is to focus on the specificity of HNC monitoring, to review the current trends in follow-up, and to adapt the evidence-based medicine international standards to the capabilities of the local healthcare service.

Materials and methods

The first methodological step was to categorize HNCs according to the estimated risk of failure after the adequate first-line treatment and according to the possibility of effective salvage treatment, resulting in improved overall survival. The final method used in this work was to prepare an authors' original monitoring algorithm for HNC groups with a high, moderate, and low risk of recurrence in combination with a high or low probability of using an effective salvage.

Results

Four categories were established: Ia. low risk of recurrence + effective organ preservation feasible; Ib. low risk of recurrence + effective salvage feasible; II. moderate risk of recurrence + effective salvage feasible; III. high risk of recurrence + effective salvage feasible; and IV. high risk of recurrence + no effective salvage feasible. Follow-up visit consisting of 1. ENT examination + neck ultrasound, 2. imaging HN tests, 3. chest imaging, 4. blood tests, and 5. rehabilitation (speech and swallowing) was scheduled with a very different frequency, at the proposed monthly intervals, tailored to the needs of the group. The number of visits for individual groups varies from 1 to 8 in the first 2 years and from 1 to 17 in the entire 5-year monitoring period. Group IV has not been included in regular follow-up, visits on own initiative of the patient if symptomatic, or supportive care needs, having in mind that third-line therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors are available.

Conclusion

Universal monitoring algorithm for HNC four groups with a high, moderate, and low risk of recurrence after the adequate treatment in combination with a high or low probability of using an effective salvage is an innovative approach to redeploying system resources and ensuring maximum benefit for patients with HNC.

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.

Patient perspectives on surveillance after head and neck cancer treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines advise post-treatment surveillance of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients should involve scheduled appointments with a variety of practitioners. Increasing numbers of HNC survivors raise the burden to provide efficient and effective care. With resource limitation, there is growing importance to identify how surveillance can be justified and optimised for survivors. This systematic review presents current evidence on patient perspectives of post-treatment HNC surveillance, aiming to inform future work putting patient priorities at the forefront of surveillance planning.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, NIHR Dissemination Centre, The Kings Fund Library, Clinical Evidence, NHS Evidence and NICE Clinical Evidence were searched to identify publications regarding patient perspectives of HNC post-treatment surveillance. Studies not reporting on both surveillance and patient perspectives were excluded.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred fifty-eight citations were screened and 49 full-text articles reviewed. Sixteen studies were included in the final review. Three authors reviewed all articles prior to final analysis to ensure all met inclusion criteria. Most evidence was low quality. Study models returned included cross-sectional surveys, structured interviews and one systematic review. Overall, positive perceptions of HNC surveillance were mostly related to increased reassurance. Negative perceptions predominantly focused on anxiety and fear of recurrence, but a lack of psychological support and inadequate access to certain aspects of care were also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates that patients' perceptions of surveillance after HNC are mostly positive, feeling it provides reassurance. However, several studies report unmet needs, particularly regarding managing anxiety.

Risk stratified follow up for head and neck cancer patients - An evidence based proposal

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has a significant impact on patients' quality of life and treatment can be associated with severe morbidity. Following completion of treatment, patients are followed up in order to detect potentially salvageable recurrences and to manage long-term toxicities. In recent years, a growing interest has been given to risk stratified follow-up interventions to prevent and detect recurrences and manage treatment toxicities in other tumour sites as well as to transfer some of that care to community services. We review the literature for HNSCC and propose a risk stratified follow up protocol to address these issues and assist clinicians in decision making. A shift in patterns of care is suggested in order to provide a basis to improve care for HNSCC patients after complete response to primary treatment.

History of dysplasia and primary site associated with recurrence in T1N0 oral squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent disease occurs in a significant proportion of early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) despite removal of the entire tumor with clear surgical margins. Our study sought to identify clinicopathologic factors that increase the risk of locoregional recurrence in T1N0 OSCC.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an observational retrospective analysis of 65 cases of T1N0 OSCC over a period of 13 years. For each case, we examined the clinical presentation, histopathologic appearance, and treatment characteristics of interest to evaluate the association between these variables and locoregional recurrence.

RESULTS

The 5-year and 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were 29.2% and 33.8%, respectively. Individuals with prior oral dysplasia had significantly higher odds for locoregional recurrence (P < .01) and reduced 5-year disease-free survival rates (P < .01). OSCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth had lower recurrence odds than carcinomas of the gingiva, buccal mucosa, and palate (P < .05). Histologic grade (P = .80), depth of invasion (P = .82), and elective neck dissection (P = .80) did not appear to influence locoregional recurrence for T1N0 tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the morbidity and mortality associated with OSCC, understanding of the clinicopathologic factors associated with recurrent disease may lead to improved treatment and follow-up protocols for a subset of early-stage patients.

Surveillance of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer with an Intensive Clinical and Radiologic Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus on the follow-up modalities in patients with head and neck cancer. This study aims to describe the pattern and survival outcomes of recurrences/second primary cancers in patients undergoing an intensive radiologic and clinical follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

SETTING

Single academic tertiary care center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

All patients with stage III-IV head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy at our institution between 1998 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Persistent/recurrent disease within 6 months since the curative treatment and second primary cancers outside the upper aerodigestive tract were excluded. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. Surveillance was planned every 3 months in the first year, then with increasing intervals till the fifth year.

RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were included. Out of all detected cancer recurrences (n = 106, 32%), 38 (36%) were locoregional, 44 (41%) were distant, and 24 (23%) were second primary cancers. Approximately 70% of recurrences were clinically and/or radiologically discovered, while 30% were diagnosed due to the patients' symptoms. Of all clinically and/or radiologically discovered recurrences/second primary cancers (n = 74), 26 (35%) were curatively treated, with respect to 9 of the 32 (28%) diagnosed by symptoms. Median overall survival of recurrent curable cases did not significantly differ according to the detection modality (89 months by clinical/radiologic examination vs 85 by symptoms).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and radiologic follow-up identified more recurrences/second primary cancers than the symptom-driven monitoring, but the curability of cancer recurrence was similar regardless of detection modality. Prospective trials are needed to define the most effective follow-up strategy in head and neck cancer.

Value of patient-reported symptoms in the follow up of patients potentially cured of laryngeal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the significance of patients' ability to recognise symptoms that signify recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted in Norway of demographic, clinical and follow-up data for patients with laryngeal carcinoma considered free of disease following treatment. The study included clinical data from 732 patients with glottic tumours and 249 patients with supraglottic tumours who were considered cured of disease. Data on the site, time and type of recurrence (symptomatic or asymptomatic) were retrieved.

RESULTS

Recurrence was observed in 127 patients with glottic tumours and 71 with supraglottic tumours. A total of 103 glottic recurrences and 53 supraglottic recurrences were symptomatic. For patients with glottic carcinoma, recurrence detection through symptoms was associated with a favourable post-salvage survival rate compared with asymptomatic recurrences (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

A patient's ability to self-detect 'red flag' symptoms and self-initiate visits represents a previously ignored prognostic factor, and may rationalise follow up and improve survival.

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Oral Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery appointed a Task Force to provide guidance on the implementation of a surgical treatment of oral cancer. MEDLINE databases were searched for articles on subjects related to “surgical management of oral cancer” published in English. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. The quality of evidence was rated with use RoBANS (Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Evidence-based recommendations for practice were ranked according to the American College of Physicians grading system. Additional directives are provided as expert opinions and Delphi questionnaire when insufficient evidence existed. The Committee developed 68 evidence-based recommendations in 34 categories intended to assist clinicians and patients and counselors, and health policy-makers. Proper surgical treatment selection for oral cancer, which is directed by patient- and subsite-specific factors, remains the greatest predictor of successful treatment outcomes. These guidelines are intended for use in conjunction with the individual patient’s treatment goals.

The effectiveness of the follow-up of patients after surgery due to cancer of the head and neck

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the follow-up (FU) of patients after head and neck cancer treatment. Materials & methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study and concerns the analysis of outpatient records of 85 women and 355 men who reported at FU visits between 2011 and 2016 in ENT Department in the University Of Medical Sciences in Poznan, Poland. Results: The value of the FU scheme was confirmed by a high rate of recurrence detected in a medical examination (60%) and routine imaging studies (27%), as opposed to only 13% in spontaneous reports. Conclusion: The FU therapeutic profit in the form of high percentages of preclinical relapse at a reasonable cost is justified medically and socially.

Posttreatment surveillance for sinonasal malignancy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sinonasal neoplasms have a high rate of recurrence following treatment, and clinicians utilize a variety of surveillance techniques. Generally, surveillance modality and frequency of follow-up are determined by the guidelines for head and neck cancer as a broad category. However, recent studies have demonstrated that a more tailored approach to follow-up may be necessary.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endoscopy has low sensitivity in recurrence detection, especially in the asymptomatic patient. However, it is able to identify superficial recurrences that may be more amenable to repeat resection. Conversely, imaging [computed tomography (CT), MRI, and F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT] is useful in ruling out disease, but the inflammatory environment of the posttreatment sinonasal cavity leads to a high number of false positives. This is especially notable in PET/CT, which has worse specificity and positive predictive value in sinonasal malignancy than in head and neck malignancy overall, especially in the early posttreatment period. Little data are available on optimal timing and duration of follow-up, but tumor histology and aggressiveness should be considered when choosing a surveillance approach.

SUMMARY

Sinonasal malignancy surveillance strategies may warrant modifications of current protocols used for head and neck malignancy. This is due to a number of factors, including a greater diversity of sinonasal disorder and increased duration of posttreatment sinonasal inflammation. Clinicians should be aware of the performance parameters of commonly used surveillance techniques and adjust follow-up regimens based on this information.

Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Laryngeal Cancer: Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery

Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery appointed a Task Force to develop clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of laryngeal cancer. This Task Force conducted a systematic search of the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed databases to identify relevant articles, using search terms selected according to the key questions. Evidence-based recommendations were then created on the basis of these articles. An external expert review and Delphi questionnaire were applied to reach consensus regarding the recommendations. The resulting guidelines focus on the surgical treatment of laryngeal cancer with the assumption that surgery is the selected treatment modality after a multidisciplinary discussion in any context. These guidelines do not, therefore, address non-surgical treatment such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The committee developed 62 evidence-based recommendations in 32 categories intended to assist clinicians during management of patients with laryngeal cancer and patients with laryngeal cancer, and counselors and health policy-makers.

Tumor regression patterns by follow-up duration in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy

The aim of this study was to describe the patterns of tumor regression with respect to follow-up duration after chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A total of 27 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma were included and received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Patterns of primary tumor regression and development of locoregional recurrences were evaluated by imaging studies every 1 to 2 months. Primary tumors gradually regressed over the period of follow-up. The median time to full regression was 4.9 months (range, 1.5-19.4). In 61.5% of patients, the primary tumor continued to regress for >4 months after completion of chemoradiotherapy. Six patients experienced locoregional recurrence during follow-up, all of which occurred after full regression of the primary tumor. A patient group with delayed regression did not have poorer prognosis than a patient group with early regression. Older age, non-current-smoker status, advanced T stage, and higher daily radiation dose were significantly associated with delayed primary tumor regression. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma continued to regress for >4 months after chemoradiotherapy in a considerable number of patients. We recommend waiting for >4 months for full regression of nasopharyngeal carcinomas after chemoradiotherapy, if signs of persistent or recurrent disease are not evident on follow-up examination.

Follow-up after treatment for head and neck cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. In the absence of high-level evidence base for follow-up practices, the duration and frequency are often at the discretion of local centres. By reviewing the existing literature and collating experience from varying practices across the UK, this paper provides recommendations on the work up and management of lateral skull base cancer based on the existing evidence base for this rare condition.

Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: Do More Does It Mean Do Better? A Systematic Review and Our Proposal Based on Our Experience

As the patients population ages, cancer screening increases, and cancer treatments improve, millions more head and neck carcinoma (HNC) patients will be classified as cancer survivors in the future. Change in epidemiology with human papillomavirus related HNC leads to a number of young treated patients. After treatment for HNC intensive surveillance, including ear, nose and throat (ENT) endoscopy, imaging, and serology, confers a survival benefit that became less evident in unresectable recurrence. We performed a comprehensive revision of literature and analyzed the experience of our centre. We revised publications on this topic and added data derived from the interdisciplinary work of experts within medical oncology, ENT, and radiation oncology scientific societies. We retrospectively collected local and distant recurrence of chemoradiation treated patients at Santa Croce and Carle University Hospital. A HNC follow-up program is not already codified and worldwide accepted. There is a need of scheduled follow-up. We suggest adopting a standardized follow-up guideline, although a multidisciplinary approach is frequently requested to tailor surveillance program and treatment on each patient.

Tumor Regression Patterns Based on Follow-up Duration in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy

Objectives

We describe patterns of tumor regression based on follow-up duration after radiotherapy (RT) or chemo-RT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods

Thirty-one patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were included in this study and received definitive RT or chemo-RT. The pattern of primary tumor regression after treatment was evaluated every 1 to 2 months. Predictive factors for the length of time to full regression were also analyzed.

Results

Among all patients, 27 patients showed regression of the primary tumor, 24 patients showed >50% regression, and 15 patients showed total regression. The primary tumor gradually regressed during the course of follow-up. The median time to full regression was 5.2 months (range, 1.3 to 17.9 months). In the 24 patients who showed >50% regression, the rate of >50% regression increased over time as follows: 25.0% at 1 month, 62.5% at 2 months, 75.0% at 3 months, 91.7% at 4 months, and 95.8% at 5 months. Higher total RT dose and shorter RT duration were associated with longer time to full regression.

Conclusion

A substantial number of patients showed continuous regression of the primary tumor for more than 2 months after treatment. The timing for evaluation of tumor regression must be greater than 2 months from the completion of RT or chemo-RT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Follow-up in patients treated for head and neck cancer

Principles of follow-up management in patients treated for head and neck tumors are not very strictly defined, and practice varies between countries, centers, and specialists. Details of follow-up procedures, including timing of outpatient visits and diagnostic imaging, are specific for tumor types and localizations but also depend on treatment modalities used, availability of diagnostic procedures, and socioeconomic factors. The authors describe general principles of follow-up in head and neck cancer patients. Clinical observation and laboratory and imaging studies in patients who had received radical treatment should focus on early identification of recurrent or second primary tumors to allow for a salvage radical therapy. In patients who initially had received a palliative care, the follow-up should focus on proper management of symptoms.

European Laryngological Society: ELS recommendations for the follow-up of patients treated for laryngeal cancer

It is accepted that the follow-up of patients who had treatment for laryngeal cancer is a fundamental part of their care. The reasons of post-treatment follow-up include evaluation of treatment response, early identification of recurrence, early detection of new primary tumours, monitoring and management of complications, optimisation of rehabilitation, promotion smoking and excessive alcohol cessation, provision of support to patients and their families, patient counselling and education. Controversies exist in how these aims are achieved. Increasing efforts are being made to rationalise the structure and timing of head and neck cancer follow-up clinics. The aim of this document is to analyse the current evidence for the need to follow up patients who have been treated for LC and provide an up to date, evidence-based statement which is meaningful and applicable to all European Health Care Systems. A working group of the Head and Neck Cancer Committee of the ELS was constituted in 2009. A review of the current published literature on the management and follow-up of laryngeal cancer was undertaken and statements are made based on critical appraisal of the literature and best current evidence. Category recommendations were based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Statements include: length, frequency, setting, type of health professional, clinical assessment, screening investigations, patient's education, second primary tumours, and mode of treatment considerations including radiotherapy, chemo-radiation therapy, transoral surgery and open surgery. It also addresses specific recommendations regarding patients with persistent pain, new imaging techniques, tumour markers and narrow band imaging.

Can head and neck cancer patients be discharged after three years?

Background:

Follow-up surveillance of head and neck cancer patients varies throughout the UK. The heterogeneity of these patients limits the applicability of a standardised protocol. Improvements in our understanding of the natural history of the disease may assist in the tailoring of resources to patients.

Method:

Prospective data collected at the Cumberland Infirmary over a 13-year period were analysed, primarily focusing upon recurrence rates and time to recurrence.

Results:

In keeping with other studies, recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma was found to be maximal within the first three years of treatment, regardless of subsite.

Conclusion:

Hospital-based surveillance may be safely discontinued after three years for some patients. Laryngeal carcinoma may require further surveillance due to possible delayed recurrence of a second primary formation. Emphasis must be placed on patient education, accessibility to head and neck services, and the existence of a robust system to facilitate urgent referrals.

Incidence of second primary malignancies in patients with treated head and neck cancer: a comprehensive review of literature

BACKGROUND

Increased incidence of a second primary aero-digestive malignancy after an index head and neck cancer (HNC) is well-documented. Furthermore, a clear set of surveillance strategies for second primary aero-digestive cancers in these patients exists.

METHODS

The goal of this article is to review the published literature on risk of second primary malignancies (SPMs) (including aero-digestive malignancies) after a treated index HNC as well as its associated predictors, prognosis and surveillance. Most relevant publications were identified through searching the PubMed database for articles published up to July 2012; epidemiologic evidence was synthesized and thoroughly analyzed.

FINDINGS

Data from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, population-based and cohort group studies, prior reviews, and case reports indicate an increased incidence of various SPMs after occurrence of a HNC. These cancers are not limited to upper aero-digestive sites. Common risk factors including environmental, genetic and immune factors may explain the increased incidence of second cancers in this patient population. In addition, site of the index HNC may predict the site of a future SPM.

CONCLUSIONS

As a general rule, oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers are associated more with head and neck region SPM, while laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers - with that of the lung. As these cancers confer dismal prognosis and shorter survival in patients with HNCs, several literature sources recommend close surveillance for and an aggressive therapy of SPM. Notwithstanding, their optimal management and follow-up schedule remains to be established.

Evidence-based practice: management of glottic cancer

The main issue in the management of glottic squamous cell carcinoma, as for all cancers, is adequate disease control while optimizing functional outcomes and minimizing morbidity. This is true for early-stage disease as for advanced tumors. This article evaluates the current evidence for the diagnostic and pretherapeutic workup for glottic squamous cell carcinoma and the evidence concerning different treatment options for glottic carcinoma, from early-stage to advanced-stage disease.

Economic burden of resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in an incident cohort of patients in the UK

BACKGROUND

SCCHN is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Locally advanced SCCHN continues to be a therapeutic challenge with high rates of morbidity and mortality and a low cure rate. Despite the apparent impact of SCCHN on patients and presumably society, the economic burden of the treatment of resected SCCHN patients in the UK has not been investigated.

METHODS

This retrospective data analysis was based on in- and outpatient care records extracted from Hospital Episode Statistic database and linked to mortality data in the UK. SCCHN patients with resection of lip, tongue, oral cavity, pharynx or larynx were followed for at least one year (max. of 5 years) from the date of first resection.

RESULTS

A total of 11,403 patients (mean age 63.2 years, 69.8% males) who met study criteria were followed for an average of 31 months. 32.3% of patients died in the follow-up period and the mean time to death was 16.9 months. In the first year, mean number of days of hospitalization and number of outpatient visits was 21.6 and 4.2, respectively; mean number of reconstructive and secondary surgeries was 0.32 and 0.14 per patient, respectively; 4.7% of the patients received radiotherapy and 12.2% received chemotherapy. From the second to fifth year healthcare utilizations rates were lower. Mean cost of post-operative healthcare utilization was £23,212 over 5 years (£19,778 for the first year and £1477, £847, £653 and £455 for years 2-5). Total cost of post-operative healthcare utilisation was estimated to be £255.5 million over the 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In the UK, SCCHN patients after surgical resection needed considerable healthcare resources and incurred substantial costs. Study findings might provide a useful source for clinicians and decision makers in understanding the economic burden of managing SCCHN in the UK and also suggests a need for new therapies that could improve outcomes and reduce the disease burden.