Financial Hardship in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Psychological Factors Related to Treatment Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) often demonstrate stress, distress, anxiety, depression, and are at risk for suicide. These affect their quality of life (QoL) but less attention has been given to psychological variables that may impact response to treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically review publications during 2013-2023 to collate evidence on the effects of psychological variables on HNC treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles that examined psychological factors related to treatment outcomes in patients with HNC.

RESULTS

There were 29 studies (5 before treatment, 2 during, 17 after, and 5 covering the whole management trajectory) including 362,766 patients. The psychological factors were either behavioral (adjustment and coping strategy, unrealistic ideas, self-blame), cognitive (elevated risk of psychiatric co-comorbidity), or emotional (distress, depression, anxiety, nervousness, and fear of disfigurement and complications). It was found that there was a relationship between depression and decreased survival in patients with HNC. Pretreatment pain was an independent predictor of decreased survival in a large sample of patients. The distress level was approximately  54%, emotional problems ranged between 10 and 44%, while financial difficulties were identified in 54% of the patients. Sixty-nine percent of patients were reported to have used at least one cost-coping strategy within 6 months after treatment initiation. During post-treatment period, depression increased from 15% at the baseline to 29%, while the fear of recurrence was found among at least 35% of patients.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Several psychological factors predict QoL and survival among HNC survivors. Distress encompasses depression and anxiety, and physical burden from HNC diagnosis and treatment. Routine screening and early interventions that target distress could improve HNC survivors' QoL. A systematic and standardized measurement approach for QoL is warranted to homogenize these findings and to understand the underlying relationships.

Patient perceptions underlying ctDNA molecular surveillance for HPV(+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Circulating tumor DNA assays have robust potential as molecular surveillance tools. They may also exacerbate patient distress without improving outcomes. We investigate patient acceptability of a validated ctHPVDNA assay (NavDx) during cancer surveillance for HPV(+) oropharyngeal cancer (OPC).

METHODS

Consented HPV(+) OPC participants completed the NCCN Distress Thermometer, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale both (1) before NavDx blood draw, and (2) after results were provided. Patients then completed a series of focused questions related to their perceptions of the assay.

RESULTS

Overall, 55 patients completed the study, with 98.2 % showing no recurrence. For the NCCN Distress Thermometer, median patient distress decreased (2.0 (IQR 1-5) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0-3)) (p < 0.001) in association with NavDx. Using scores ≥ 4 as a cutoff point to define clinically elevated distress, scores also improved (36.4 % vs. 18.2 %, p = 0.031). For HADS, anxiety significantly improved (5.0 (IQR 2.0-7.0) vs. 3.0 (IQR 1.0-6.5)) (p = 0.037), but not depression (3.0 (IQR 1.0-7.0) vs. 3.0 (IQR 1.0-6.5)) (p = 0.870). FACT-G scores showed no substantial differences. On survey questionnaires, 95.5 % of patients believed the test to be helpful, and 100 % felt "somewhat" or "extremely" confident in the assay as a monitoring tool. While 59.1 % felt that it reduced anxiety, 88.4 % concordantly felt that it did not introduce anxiety.

CONCLUSION

ctHPVDNA as a molecular surveillance tool reduced distress levels in HPV(+) OPC patients, with notably high patient confidence in the approach. Further investigation is warranted to judiciously incorporate this emerging modality in surveillance guidelines.

Measuring financial toxicity in head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Objective

The current study systematically reviews the literature about financial toxicity (FT) in head and neck cancer patients. Three databases were reviewed: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.

Methods

Full text English papers published from 2000 to 2022 reporting on quantitative results about FT in head and neck cancer survivors collected through structured questionnaires or interviews were included.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were included. Most of the articles were published after 2015 and from United States. There was a slight prevalence of papers dealing with oropharyngeal cancer, squamous-cell carcinoma and locally advanced head and neck cancer. Measures of FT were obtained through validated questionnaires like COST, FIT and FDQ. Collected data were mostly referrable to financial spending, financial resources, psychosocial aspect, support seeking, coping care and coping lifestyle subdomain. FT scores by COST were found to be worse in the COVID era. Financial counseling and adequate information about the costs of treatment were two effective strategies to mitigate FT.

Conclusions

FT is a relatively new challenge in head and neck cancer treatment, whose expenses are higher than therapies for other cancers. A universal method to assess FT and a unified guideline for the administration of questionnaires are needed to mitigate FT and to improve patient outcomes.

Interventions for head and neck cancer survivors: Systematic review

BACKGROUND

Interventions for head/neck cancer (HNC) survivors may not address their cancer-related and general health needs.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guided this systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2021 of interventions targeting cancer survivors treated with curative-intent, using MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Interventions were categorized into domains of the Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework to characterize the scope and quality of interventions.

RESULTS

We identified 28 studies for inclusion: 13 randomized and 15 non-randomized. Most targeted surveillance/management of physical effects (n = 24) including 13 that also targeted psychosocial effects. Four studies addressed prevention/surveillance for recurrence/new cancers, one addressed health promotion/disease prevention, and one addressed chronic medical conditions. Most studies (n = 27) had medium-high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few high-quality studies addressing HNC survivorship. Future rigorously designed studies should address broader areas of care, including chronic disease management and health promotion/disease prevention.