Feasibility of assessing patient health benefits and incurred costs resulting from early dysphagia intervention during and immediately after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer

The effects of Phoniatric PREhabilitation in Head and Neck Cancer patients on Aspiration and Preservation of Swallowing (PREHAPS): study protocol of a monocentric prospective randomized interventional outcome-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Dysphagia, with its negative impact on life expectancy and quality of life, is a major side effect of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In a typical Head and Neck Cancer Center, more than half of patients are affected. Improving treatment, and ideally prevention respectively prehabilitation, therefore seems more than desirable.

METHODS

The study is planned as a monocentric, prospective, outcome-blinded, randomized interventional study comparing an advanced phoniatric-logopedic prehabilitation with a control (standard of care). Seventy patients (30 control group, 30 intervention group, 10 drop-out rate of 15%) with an initial diagnosis of invasive HNSCC and curative treatment intention will be included over a period of 17 months. In addition to the previous standard, both groups will undergo both detailed subjective assessment of swallowing function and quality of life by means of various questionnaires and objective analyses by bioelectrical impedance measurements and phoniatric endoscopic swallowing examinations. In the intervention group, risk-related nutritional counseling (face-to-face) and phoniatric-logopedic prehabilitation are provided: detailed counseling with video demonstration and exercises to strengthen and improve the range of motion of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal muscles (guided by exercise diary). Controls are performed at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 9 or 12 months after the end of therapy during the regular tumor follow-up. Primary study endpoints are swallowing function and emotional distress at 6 weeks of control visit.

DISCUSSION

Prehabilitation measures have already proven successful in other patient groups, e.g., transplant patients. In the field of head and neck oncology, interest in such concepts has increased significantly in recent years. However, usually, only subgroups, e.g., patients with swallowing problems after radiochemotherapy alone, are in focus. Our study aims to investigate the general benefit of prehabilitation with regard to swallowing function, which is so important for protection of aspiration and quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00029676 . International Clinical Trials Registry Platform DRKS00029676 . Registered on 19 July 2022.

Prehabilitation of dysphagia in the therapy of head and neck cancer- a systematic review of the literature and evidence evaluation

Background

Prehabilitation is becoming increasingly important in oncology because of the significant survival benefits that the reduction of malnutrition provide. Specifically, tumor- and therapy-related dysphagia leads to malnutrition in more than half of head and neck tumor patients. Studies describe the positive effects of an early onset of swallow-specific prehabilitation on the protection of the swallowing function. This paper intents to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy of preventive forms of swallowing therapy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in February 2022 in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials investigating preventive swallowing therapy in head and neck tumor patients. This Procedure complies with the PRISMA statement. The RCTs were evaluated by using the PEDro Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool RoB2.

Results

Five randomized-controlled trials with 423 participants were identified. Four Studies showed moderate to high quality in the PEDro analysis, one showed less. The risk of bias was high in all studies because there was no possibility for blinding and there were high dropout rates. Heterogeneity in interventions, measurement instruments, measurement time points, and outcomes limits a general statement about which swallowing exercises are suitable for the prevention of dysphagia in head and neck tumor patients. Evidence is provided for short-term effects (≤24 months) on functional aspects of swallowing and quality of life. Overall, a decreasing adherence over time was observed in the intervention groups.

Discussion

Initial studies describe swallowing-specific prehabilitation programs in head and neck tumor patients as effective, at least in the short term, whereas long-term effects need to be further investigated. At the current time the evidence base for clear recommendations does not appear to be sufficiently high and studies share a high risk of bias. Further well-designed research, especially considering the conditions in the national health care system, is needed.

Other

There was no funding and no registration.

Interventions to improve quality of life in patients with head and neck cancers receiving radiation therapy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QOL) is impaired in patients with head and neck cancers (HNC) due to illness and treatment-associated morbidity. Although there is evidence from the studies on interventions' role in improving QOL receiving radiation therapy, these are not systematically synthesised. In this scoping review, we searched and synthesised the evidence on interventions to improve the QOL and its impact among patients with HNCs.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted using the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the extensions suggested by Levac et al. were incorporated. Two reviewers independently searched four electronic databases using key thesaurus and free-text terms, and the data was extracted, tabulated, synthesised and reported as categories.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine papers reported various interventions of diverse nature such as pharmacological, physical, nutritional, complementary and alternative therapies, psychosocial, oral care related, laser and photobiomodulation therapies, rehabilitative, educational, technology-based, surgical, device-related and nurse lead interventions. Most studies reported clinically meaningful impact of interventions on QOL, although the outcome differences were often statistically insignificant. Few studies reported a combination of interventions to address the multidimensional concerns faced by patients with HNCs. None of the studies examined the impact of interventions on QOL among long-term survivors of HNCs.

CONCLUSION

As QOL concerns in patients with HNCs are multifaceted, more extensive studies with complex multi-component interventions and robust research designs are warranted.

Expert Consensus Statement: Management of Dysphagia in Head and Neck Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE

To develop an expert consensus statement (ECS) on the management of dysphagia in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients to address controversies and offer opportunities for quality improvement. Dysphagia in HNC was defined as swallowing impairment in patients with cancers of the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx.

METHODS

Development group members with expertise in dysphagia followed established guidelines for developing ECS. A professional search strategist systematically reviewed the literature, and the best available evidence was used to compose consensus statements targeted at providers managing dysphagia in adult HNC populations. The development group prioritized topics where there was significant practice variation and topics that would improve the quality of HNC patient care if consensus were possible.

RESULTS

The development group identified 60 candidate consensus statements, based on 75 initial proposed topics and questions, that focused on addressing the following high yield topics: (1) risk factors, (2) screening, (3) evaluation, (4) prevention, (5) interventions, and (6) surveillance. After 2 iterations of the Delphi survey and the removal of duplicative statements, 48 statements met the standardized definition for consensus; 12 statements were designated as no consensus.

CONCLUSION

Expert consensus was achieved for 48 statements pertaining to risk factors, screening, evaluation, prevention, intervention, and surveillance for dysphagia in HNC patients. Clinicians can use these statements to improve quality of care, inform policy and protocols, and appreciate areas where there is no consensus. Future research, ideally randomized controlled trials, is warranted to address additional controversies related to dysphagia in HNC patients.

The PRO-ACTIVE trial protocol: a randomized study comparing the effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Swallowing therapy is commonly provided as a treatment to lessen the risk or severity of dysphagia secondary to radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC); however, best practice is not yet established. This trial will compare the effectiveness of prophylactic (high and low intensity) versus reactive interventions for swallowing in patients with HNC undergoing RT.

METHODS

This multi-site, international randomized clinical trial (RCT) will include 952 adult patients receiving radiotherapy for HNC and who are at high risk for post-RT dysphagia. Participants will be randomized to receive one of three interventions for swallowing during RT: RE-ACTIVE, started promptly if/when dysphagia is identified; PRO-ACTIVE EAT, low intensity prophylactic intervention started before RT commences; or, PRO-ACTIVE EAT+EXERCISE, high intensity prophylactic intervention also started before RT commences. We hypothesize that the PRO-ACTIVE therapies are more effective than late RE-ACTIVE therapy; and, that the more intensive PRO-ACTIVE (EAT + EXERCISE) is superior to the low intensive PRO-ACTIVE (EAT). The primary endpoint of effectiveness is duration of feeding tube dependency one year post radiation therapy, selected as a pragmatic outcome valued equally by diverse stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers and clinicians). Secondary outcomes will include objective measures of swallow physiology and function, pneumonia and weight loss, along with various patient-reported swallowing-related outcomes, such as quality of life, symptom burden, and self-efficacy.

DISCUSSION

Dysphagia is a common and potentially life-threatening chronic toxicity of radiotherapy, and a priority issue for HNC survivors. Yet, the optimal timing and intensity of swallowing therapy provided by a speech-language pathologist is not known. With no clearly preferred strategy, current practice is fraught with substantial variation. The pragmatic PRO-ACTIVE trial aims to specifically address the decisional dilemma of when swallowing therapy should begin (i.e., before or after a swallowing problem develops). The critical impact of this dilemma is heightened by the growing number of young HNC patients in healthcare systems that need to allocate resources most effectively. The results of the PRO-ACTIVE trial will address the global uncertainty regarding best practice for dysphagia management in HNC patients receiving radiotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol is registered with the US Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the PRO-ACTIVE trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , under the identifier NCT03455608 ; First posted: Mar 6, 2018; Last verified: Jun 17, 2021. Protocol Version: 1.3 (January 27, 2020).

Review of prophylactic swallowing interventions for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Head and neck cancer treatment destroys nerves and/or organs associated with swallowing. Previous studies have investigated the efficacy of exercises for muscles used in swallowing before treatment in reducing disuse atrophy and delaying the occurrence of muscle fibrosis. However, the rehabilitation effects of training and the optimal intervention strategy are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To establish evidence for the efficacy of prophylactic swallowing interventions in reducing aspiration and restoring oral intake in patients with head and neck cancer with dysphagia.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and MEDLINE) for studies published up to June 2021 reporting outcomes following prophylactic swallowing interventions in patients with head and neck cancer with dysphagia and the related influencing factors. The methodological quality of the literature was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

The search identified 1468 articles, and 13 studies were eventually included. Four categories involving 12 different swallowing interventions were classified. Regarding the descriptive analysis of the rehabilitation effects across all studies, in terms of oropharyngeal safety, five studies showed that swallowing interventions reduced the risk of aspiration, penetration or residue. In terms of oral intake and tube feeding dependence, four studies demonstrated reduced time to return to oral intake in the intervention group compared with the control group. In terms of intervention adherence, three studies showed that speech-language pathologist- and nurse-supervised training was a potential promoter of adherence, and five studies showed that the negative factors affecting adherence included pain, fatigue, forgetting, smoking, decreased exercise motivation, side effects of radiotherapy and distance to the rehabilitation site.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive swallowing interventions may be effective at reducing aspiration, improving swallowing function, and restoring oral intake. However, due to the lack of standardization and consistency of interventions and measurement results, which prevented the production of a best practice guide, future rigorous methodological trials will be needed to determine the most effective interventions for maximizing exercise adherence over the long term.

Trends in, and predictors of, swallowing and social eating outcomes in head and neck cancer survivors: A longitudinal analysis of head and neck 5000

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the recovery trajectory and predictors of outcome for swallowing difficulties following head and neck cancer treatment in a large prospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 5404 participants of the Head and Neck 5000 study were collected from 2011 to 2014. Patient-reported swallowing was measured using the EORTC HN35, recorded at baseline (pre-treatment) and 4 and 12 months post-baseline. Mixed-effects linear multivariable regression was used to investigate time trends, compare cancer sites, and identify associations between clinical, socio-demographic and lifestyle variables.

RESULTS

2458 participants with non-recurrent oral (29%) oropharyngeal (46%) and laryngeal (25%) cancer were included in the analysis. There was a clinically significant deterioration in scores between baseline and four months for swallowing (11.7 points; 95% CI 10.7-12.8) and trouble with social eating (17.9 points; 95% CI 16.7-19.2), but minimal difference between baseline and 12 months. Predictors of better swallowing and social eating were participants with larynx cancer, early-stage disease, treatment type, age, gender, co-morbidity, socio-economic status, smoking behaviour and cohabitation.

CONCLUSION

Swallowing problems persist up to a year after head and neck cancer treatment. These findings identify disease and demographic characteristics for particularly vulnerable groups, supporting the need for holistic interventions to help improve swallowing outcomes. People diagnosed with head and neck cancer at risk of severe eating and drinking problems following treatment can be identified earlier in the pathway, receive more accurate information about early and late post-treatment side-effects, which can inform shared decision-making discussions.

Returning to work after head and neck cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a lack of evidence worldwide on return to work (RTW) in head and neck cancer (HNC), possibly because traditionally those suffering with it were typically at retirement age and survival rates were low. However, in the last 30 years, HNC survival rates have increased, resulting in more people living with the after-effects of treatment for longer, and many are of working-age. The HNC population is also changing because of a 20% increased incidence of oral and pharyngeal HNCs especially in the under 65 years of age, likely accounted for by the surge in human papilloma virus positive related HNCs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature suggests that people who have had treatment for HNC return to work less than other cancers. The knowledge base on RTW after HNC is emergent and conclusions are currently difficult to draw. The process of returning and remaining in work is complex, affected by multiple factors and interactions. There is little evidence about work-related experiences from the perspectives of HNC survivors.

SUMMARY

There is an urgent need for more in-depth exploration of the needs and concerns of HNC survivors returning to work after treatment, with the ultimate aim of work-related intervention development.

[Outcome of Phoniatric Rehabilitation of Dysphagia in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer]

Surgical and nonsurgical management options for head and neck cancer frequently lead to impaired swallowing. Swallowing outcome can be assessed using subjective measures like inventories or applying clinical assessments concerning food selection, eating duration or the necessity of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and instrumental assessments like fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES).The objective of this study was to investigate the outcomes of an in-patient rehabilitation in patients with dysphagia after the treatment of head and neck cancer. At the begin and after completion of this treatment 219 participants (138 male) aged 62.8 ± 10.2 years completed the German version of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). Integrating anamnestic and clinical assessment data a rating following the Bogenhausener Dysphagiescore (BODS) was conducted at both times.Swallowing function improved significantly in both assessments, but both parameters were only moderately correlated. Improvements in both parameters were not correlated.Both dimensions of dysphagia, expert assessment and subjective measures should be used complementary.

Swallowing Screening: Purposefully Different From an Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity Related to Clinical Yield, Interprofessional Roles, and Patient Selection

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to summarize the goal and process by which identification of individuals at risk for having feeding problems or dysphagia is clinically screened across the life span by speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The topic of this clinical focus article was presented at the Charleston Swallowing Conference in Chicago, Illinois, in July 2018. The contents of this clinical focus article offer an expanded summary of information discussed at this meeting with focus on critical considerations to guide clinical decisions by SLPs regarding the optimal feeding and dysphagia screening approach and process. Conclusion Screening is a critical first step in the identification of individuals at risk for feeding problems and dysphagia across the life span. Understanding the difference between screening and assessment objectives as well as having the knowledge, skills, and clinical competency to implement psychometrically sound screening approaches is a recommended clinical practice standard for SLPs working with these clinical populations. This clinical focus article summarizes critical considerations for identifying individuals at risk for feeding problems and dysphagia across the life span to guide clinicians working with dysphagia populations.

Measuring financial toxicity incurred after treatment of head and neck cancer: Development and validation of the Financial Index of Toxicity questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) may cause significant financial toxicity to patients. Herein, the authors have presented the development and validation of the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) instrument.

METHODS

Items were generated using literature review and were based on expert opinion. In item reduction, items with factor loadings of a magnitude <0.3 in exploratory factor analysis and inverse correlations (r < 0) in test-retest analysis were eliminated. Retained items constituted the FIT. Reliability tests included internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation). Validity was tested using the Spearman rho by comparing FIT scores with baseline income, posttreatment lost income, and the Financial Concerns subscale of the Social Difficulties Inventory. Responsiveness analysis compared change in income and change in FIT between 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

A total of 14 items were generated and subsequently reduced to 9 items comprising 3 domains identified on exploratory factor analysis: financial stress, financial strain, and lost productivity. The FIT was administered to 430 patients with HNC at 12 to 24 months after treatment. Internal consistency was good (α = .77). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory (intraclass correlation, 0.70). Concurrent validation demonstrated mild to strong correlations between the FIT and Social Difficulties Inventory Money Matters subscale (Spearman rho, 0.26-0.61; P < .05). FIT scores were found to be inversely correlated with baseline household income (Spearman rho, -0.34; P < .001) and positively correlated with lost income (Spearman rho, 0.24; P < .001). Change in income was negatively correlated with change in FIT over time (Spearman rho, -0.25; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The 9-item FIT demonstrated internal and test-retest reliability as well as concurrent and construct validity. Prospective testing in patients with HNC who were treated at other facilities is needed to further establish its responsiveness and generalizability.