Quality of Life in Patients With Recurrent and Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer

Patterns of failure after salvage head and neck surgery

BACKGROUND

Advancements in immunotherapy for recurrent head and neck cancer have necessitated a better understanding of salvage surgical outcomes. This study aimed to determine patterns of failure following salvage head and neck surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 280 patients who underwent salvage surgery for recurrent mucosal squamous cell carcinoma from 1997 to 2018. Cumulative incidence was calculated using the nonparametric Aalen-Johansen estimator. Time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate associated factors.

RESULTS

The 2 and 5-year cumulative incidence rates of second recurrence were 48.3 % (95 % CI 42.4-54.3) and 54.9 % (95 % CI 48.9-60.8), respectively. At 5 years, second locoregional recurrence was twice as common as distant recurrence (41.5 % [95 % CI 35.6-47.4] vs. 21.7 % [95 % CI 16.8-26.6]). The median TTR was 21.1 months (95 % CI 4.4-34.8), which varied by site (38.2 larynx/hypopharynx, 13.9 oral cavity, 8.3 sinonasal, and 7.8 oropharynx, P=.0001). The median OS was 32.1 months (95 % CI 24.1-47.6) and was worse for patients who were Black (hazard ratio [HR] 2.15, 95 % CI 1.19-3.9), current smokers (HR 2.73, 95 % CI 1.53-4.88), former smokers (HR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.19-3.35), ≥ 60 years of age (HR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.01-1.97), or received multimodal primary therapy (HR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.26-3.13).

CONCLUSION

Rates of recurrence and mortality after salvage surgery were poor but worse for patients who were Black, older, smoked, had initial multimodal therapy, or had sinonasal or oropharyngeal cancers.

Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy Setting on Quality-of-Life in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To determine differences in post-treatment QoL across treatment settings in patients receiving adjuvant radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients with HNSCC initially evaluated in a head and neck surgical oncologic and reconstructive clinic at an academic medical center (AMC). Participants were enrolled prior to treatment in a prospective registry collecting demographic, social, and clinical data. Physical and social-emotional QoL (phys-QoL and soc-QoL, respectively) was measured using the University of Washington-QoL questionnaire at pre-treatment and post-treatment visits.

RESULTS

A cohort of 177 patients, primarily male and White with an average age of 61.2 ± 11.2 years, met inclusion criteria. Most patients presented with oral cavity tumors (n = 132, 74.6%), had non-HPV-mediated disease (n = 97, 61.8%), and were classified as Stage IVa (n = 72, 42.8%). After controlling for covariates, patients treated at community medical centers (CMCs) reported a 7.15-point lower phys-QoL compared with those treated at AMCs (95% CI: -13.96 to -0.35, p = 0.040) up to 12 months post-treatment. Additionally, patients who were treated at CMCs had a 5.77-point (-11.86-0.31, p = 0.063) lower soc-QoL score compared with those treated at an AMC, which was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that HNSCC patients treated with radiation at AMCs reported significantly greater phys-QoL in their first-year post-treatment compared to those treated at CMCs, but soc-QoL did not differ significantly. Further observational studies are needed to explore potential factors, including treatment planning and cancer resource engagement, behind disparities between AMCs and CMCs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:3645-3655, 2024.

Neck management in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with parotid metastasis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to assess the oncologic outcomes of observation, elective neck dissection (END), and elective neck irradiation (ENI) in the neck management of head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNcSCC) with parotid metastasis (P+) and to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of patients who received END or ENI.

METHODS

Patients with P+ HNcSCC were retrospectively enrolled. The impact of observation, END, and ENI on regional control (RC) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model with presentation via hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). QoL was evaluated using the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were included in our analysis. In the Cox model for RC, both END and ENI had decreased HRs of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.15-0.69) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.18-0.86), respectively, in comparison with observation. In the Cox model for OS, both END (p = 0.001, HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.72) and ENI (p = 0.006, HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.83) were superior to observation. In patients with three or more positive parotid lymph nodes, END resulted in significantly better RC (p < 0.001) and OS (p = 0.001) compared with ENI. The two groups were found to be comparable in all 12 domains of the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

In the neck management of P+ HNcSCC, observation is not recommended. END is the preferred option, but ENI is an alternative method without compromise to survival or QoL, except in cases with three or more metastatic parotid lymph nodes.

Understanding the Quality of Life Among Patients With Cancer in Saudi Arabia: Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients' quality of life (QoL) significantly influences treatment response and mortality rates. Understanding QoL domains among patients with cancer and what affects it can help create interventions that improve QoL and ease patients' experience. This study measures the OoL among patients with cancer and influencing factors.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional questionnaire-based study included cancer patients aged >18 currently receiving treatment. The questionnaire collected social and economic data, followed by the validated Arabic version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30). Means and standard deviations for described numeric variables and frequencies and percentages described categorical variables. Analysis of variance, F-tests, and P-values were reported.

RESULTS

Among 182 cancer patients, 60% were female. Younger patients exhibited higher QoL in physical and role functioning (P = .016 and .03) and experienced more significant financial impact (P = .0144). Females reported more adverse effects from cancer symptoms, including fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and pain (36.7% vs 25.5%, P = .005; 20.6% vs 11.5%, P = .0186; 34.7% vs 25.1%, P = .0281). Single patients had superior QoL in physical functioning compared to others (P = .0127). Patients traveling long distances were more likely to face adverse financial consequences (P = .007). Asthmatic patients exhibited lower QoL in physical, role, and cognitive functioning (72.3 vs 37.8, P = .0147; 76.4 vs 22.2, P = .0024; 84.7 vs 44.4, P = .0038) and reported increased dyspnea and appetite loss (16 vs 55.6 and 26.1 vs 66.7, both P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Factors influencing QoL in Saudi cancer patients include age, marital status, gender, hospital distance, and chronic conditions. Thus emphasizing the necessity for personalized care strategies to enhance outcomes and alleviate the overall burden of cancer care.