Benchmarking Survival Outcomes Following Surgical Management of pT3 and pT4 Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

First Phase Development of a Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Midface Oncology

Background

Facial cancer surgery involving the midface (comprising the lower eyelids, nose, cheeks, and upper lip) can have debilitating life-changing functional, social, and psychological impacts on the patient. Midface symptoms are inadequately captured by existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are increasingly used for individual patient care, quality improvement, and standardized reporting of treatment outcomes. This study aimed to present our findings from the first phase of the development of a midface, specifically periocular and nasal, PROM.

Methods

After international guidance for PROM development, the first phase comprised identification of salient issues and item generation. Fifteen patients who had midface surgery and 10 clinicians from various specialties with more than 5 years' experience treating these patients were recruited. Semi-structured interviews explored aesthetic, functional, social, and psychological outcomes, with specific attention to deficiencies in current PROMs. Thematic analysis was used to develop an item pool, and group interviews with clinicians were carried out to create and refine PROM scales.

Results

Qualitative data from patient interviews were grouped into aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial domains for the eyelids and nose. Ninety-nine draft items were generated across these domains. Following focus group discussions, the final version of the midface-specific PROM contained 31 items (13 eye-specific, 10-nose-specific, eight general midface items).

Conclusions

This midface-specific PROM is valuable in assessing and comparing patient-reported outcomes in those who have undergone complex resection and reconstruction of the midface. This PROM is currently undergoing field testing.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Part 2. Treatment-Update 2023

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics.

Implementing structured pathology reporting protocol for non-melanocytic skin cancers: practical considerations

Non-melanocytic skin cancers (NMSCs) account for five times the incidence of all other cancers combined and cost US $6 billion annually. These are the most frequent specimens encountered in community pathology practice in many Western countries. Lack of standardised structured pathology reporting protocols (SPRPs) can result in omission of critical information or miscommunication leading to suboptimal patient management. The lack of standardised data has significant downstream public health implications, including insufficient data for reliable development of prognostic tools and health-economy planning. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia has developed an NMSC SPRP. A multidisciplinary expert committee including pathologists, surgeons, dermatologists, and radiation and medical oncologists from high volume cancer centres was convened. A systematic literature review was performed to identify evidence for including elements as mandatory standards or best practice guidelines. The SPRP and accompanying commentary of evidence, definitions and criteria was peer reviewed by external stakeholders. Finally, the protocol was revised following feedback and trialled in multiple centres prior to implementation. Some parameters utilised clinically for determining management and prognosis including tumour depth, lymphovascular invasion or distance to the margins lack high level evidence in NMSC. Dermatologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists welcomed the SPRP. Pathologists indicated that the variety of NMSC specimens ranging from curettes to radical resections as well as significant differences in the biological behaviour of different tumours covered by the NMSC umbrella made use of a single protocol difficult. The feedback included that using a SPRP for low risk NMSC was neither clinically justified nor compensated adequately by the Australian Medicare Reimbursement Schedule. Following stakeholder feedback, the SPRP implementation was restricted to excision specimens of head and neck NMSC; and low-risk NMSC, such as superficial basal cell carcinoma, were excluded. Implementing NMSC SPRP fulfils an unmet clinical need. Unlike other cancers, NMSCs generate a range of specimen types and are reported in a wide range of pathology practices. Limiting use of SPRP to NMSC at higher risk of progression and providing formatted templates for easy incorporation into laboratory information systems were essential to successful deployment. In the future, further consideration should be given to implementing the SPRP to include all relevant specimens, including non-head and neck and low-risk NMSC specimens.