Predictors of Quality of Life Change in Head-and-Neck Cancer Survivors during Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Prospective Study

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.

Quality of life in sinonasal tumors: an up-to-date review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the impact of benign and malignant sinonasal tumors and their management on patients' Quality of Life (QOL) as measured by Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Although there is a growing consensus that endoscopic surgical management in carefully selected patients with sinonasal tumors is at least as (and probably more) effective than open resection, it is not clear to what extent this translates to better QOL outcomes. Earlier studies reported better outcomes in the emotional and physical function domains after endoscopic resection, and it seems that postsurgical morbidity is less in endoscopic compared to open approaches. QoL after endoscopic surgery for sinonasal and anterior skull base tumors seems to improve within several months of surgery in both benign and malignant tumor groups. However, patients with benign sinonasal tumors have a higher QOL pre and post operatively compared to those with malignancy mainly due to absence of (neo) - adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Factors that seem to be associated with worse QoL include > 60 years, less than 6 months from surgery, prior and adjuvant chemo and radiotherapy, smoking history, advanced staging and malignancy.

SUMMARY

There is not a universally accepted PROM for use in patients with sinonasal benign and malignant tumors: A variety of different PROMs have been used with different degrees of effectiveness. Most likely a combination of disease-specific (such as SNOT 22 and anterior skull base questionnaire) and generic (such as Short Form health survey questionnaire (SF-36) and Karnofsky Performance Status) health outcome measures provide the most insight into QOL of patients with sinonasal tumors. QOL of these patients appears to undergo a bimodal impact with patients experiencing an initial dip in QOL after surgical treatment followed by a slow improvement over time. However, while patients with benign tumors' return to their status quo ante QOL, this is not the case for patients with malignant tumors who stabilize at a lower than initially QOL. To a large extent this seems to be the effect of (neo) adjuvant chemo radiotherapy.