Identifying Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Routine Surveillance of Physical and Emotional Symptoms in Head and Neck Cancer Populations: A Systematic Review

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.

The effects of art therapy on quality of life and psychosomatic symptoms in adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related psychological and physical disorders can mean stressful and painful experiences for patients. Art therapy, a form of complementary and alternative medicine, is an increasingly popular way to decrease emotional stress, alleviate somatic symptoms, and improve quality of life in patients with cancer. However, current systematic reviews have not explored the beneficial effects of art therapy. Moreover, there have been inconsistent findings on the effect of this therapy, and there is insufficient evidence to confirm the effects in adults with cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of art therapy in improving quality of life and psychosomatic symptoms in adults with cancer.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included adults with all kinds of cancer. Six English-language and three large Chinese-language databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies. Gray literature and references were also checked. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

Eight eligible randomized controlled trials conducted in four countries were included. Art therapy improved overall quality of life, but had no significant effect on psychological health or physical health sub-dimensions in women with cancer. Moreover, art therapy alleviated anxiety and depression, but had only a tendency toward an effect on somatic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows that art therapy is beneficial for women with cancer in terms of improving the overall quality of life and alleviating emotional symptoms (anxiety and depression). However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy of this therapy on somatic symptoms.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Facial Reconstruction Case Series Following the Implementation of an Integrated Craniofacial Multidisciplinary Team Clinic, Three-Dimensional Photography, and Computer Modeling

Background

Facial reconstruction surgery is often a complex and staged process, leading to lengthy reconstructive journeys for patients. The integration of a clinical pathway can give patients a clearer understanding of what to expect at each stage of their reconstructive journey.

Objectives

The authors demonstrate how the incorporation of multidisciplinary team clinics, three-dimensional (3D) photography, and 3D modeling into an integrated pathway can streamline the process for patients undergoing facial reconstructive surgeries and aid their understanding of their surgeries.

Methods

A novel clinical pathway was developed for patients undergoing facial reconstructive surgery at a tertiary reconstructive unit in London. A case series was collated of 35 patients who had been through the integrated pathway. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed using FACE-Q scales, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, Self-Perception of Age score, and Ordinal Rank change in facial aesthetic appearance, determined subjectively and objectively. Statistical analysis was performed to calculate mean averages for each scale and PROM.

Results

High patient satisfaction with overall facial appearance, aging appearance, and the decision-making process was demonstrated. The average perceived improvement in age-related facial appearance was -7.7 years postreconstruction compared with prereconstruction. The Ordinal Rank improvement on facial aesthetic appearance showed considerable improvement, both subjectively and objectively.

Conclusions

The authors advocate the implementation of an integrated clinical pathway for facial reconstruction, with positive impacts observed in terms of patient satisfaction and objective assessments of facial appearance. Similar principles can be extrapolated to other aspects of reconstructive surgery.

Level of Evidence 3

Oral Mucosa in Cancer Patients-Putting the Pieces Together: A Narrative Review and New Perspectives

The oral mucosa is a key player in cancer patients and during cancer treatment. The increasing prevalence of cancer and cancer-therapy-associated side effects are behind the major role that oral mucosa plays in oncological patients. Oral mucositis is a debilitating severe complication caused by the early toxicity of chemo and/or radiotherapy that can restrict treatment outcome possibilities, even challenging a patient's survival. It has been referred to as the most feared cancer treatment complication. Predictive variables as to who will be affected, and to what extent, are still unclear. Additionally, oral mucositis is one of the sources of the increasing economic burden of cancer, not only for patients and their families but also for institutions and governments. All efforts should be implemented in the search for new approaches to minimize the apparently ineluctable outburst of oral mucositis during cancer treatment. New perspectives derived from different approaches to explaining the interrelation between oral mucositis and the oral microbiome or the similarities with genitourinary mucosa may help elucidate the biomolecular pathways and mechanisms behind oral mucosa cancer-therapy-related toxicity, and what is more important is its management in order to minimize treatment side effects and provide enhanced cancer support.

Strategies to Mitigate Chemotherapy and Radiation Toxicities That Affect Eating

Background: Cancer and its therapy is commonly associated with a variety of side effects that impact eating behaviors that reduce nutritional intake. This review will outline potential causes of chemotherapy and radiation damage as well as approaches for the amelioration of the side effects of cancer during therapy. Methods: Information for clinicians, patients, and their caregivers about toxicity mitigation including nausea reduction, damage to epithelial structures such as skin and mucosa, organ toxicity, and education is reviewed. Results: How to anticipate, reduce, and prevent some toxicities encountered during chemotherapy and radiation is detailed with the goal to improve eating behaviors. Strategies for health care professionals, caregivers, and patients to consider include (a) the reduction in nausea and vomiting, (b) decreasing damage to the mucosa, (c) avoiding a catabolic state and muscle wasting (sarcopenia), and (d) developing therapeutic alliances with patients, caregivers, and oncologists. Conclusions: Although the reduction of side effects involves anticipatory guidance and proactive team effort (e.g., forward observation, electronic interactions, patient reported outcomes), toxicity reduction can be satisfying for not only the patient, but everyone involved in cancer care.