Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to define the scales and test the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-H&N35, a questionnaire designed to assess the quality of life of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients in conjunction with the general cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Questionnaires were given to 500 H&N cancer patients from Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands as part of two prospective studies. The patients completed the questionnaires before, during (Norway and Sweden only), and after treatment, yielding a total of 2070 completed questionnaires.

RESULTS

The compliance rate was high, and the questionnaires were well accepted by the patients. Seven scales were constructed (pain, swallowing, senses, speech, social eating, social contact, sexuality). Scales and single items were sensitive to differences between patient subgroups with relation to site, stage, or performance status. Most scales and single items were sensitive to changes, with differences of various magnitudes according to the site in question. The internal consistency, as assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, varied according to assessment point and within subsamples of patients. A low overall alpha value was found for the speech and the senses scales, but values were higher in assessments of patients with laryngeal cancer and in patients with nose, sinus, and salivary gland tumors. Scales and single items in the QLQ-H&N35 seem to be more sensitive to differences between groups and changes over time than do the scales and single items in the core questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The QLQ-H&N35, in conjunction with the QLQ-C30, provides a valuable tool for the assessment of health-related quality of life in clinical studies of H&N cancer patients before, during, and after treatment with radiotherapy, surgery, or chemotherapy.

The Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale. A study of utility and validity

BACKGROUND

The goal of this investigation was to examine the relationship between, and application of, two disease specific quality of life (QL) measures currently being employed for head and neck cancer patients: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale (FACT-H&N) and the Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients (PSS-HN).

METHODS

The FACT-H&N and PSS-HN were administered to 151 head and neck cancer patients with a range of disease sites, treatment status (on vs. off treatment), and treatment modalities (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy).

RESULTS

FACT-H&N subscale and total scores and PSS-HN subscale scores proved sensitive to patients groups (showed significant and clinically meaningful differences) on the basis of treatment status (on vs. off treatment) and global performance status (Karnofsky scores). The pattern of correlations between FACT-H&N and PSS-HN subscales supported the scales' construct (convergent vs. divergent) validity. The strongest and most significant associations were observed between PSS-HN Normalcy of Diet and Eating in Public, and the head and neck subscale (HNS) of FACT-H&N, both of which were designed to measure the unique problems of head and neck cancer patients. More modest associations were observed between subscales measuring physical and functional areas of performance, social functioning, and emotional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

The FACT-HNS was found to be reliable and valid when applied to head and neck cancer patients. It clearly adds information to that collected by the parent (core) instrument. The PSS-HN also provides unique information, independent of that provided by the Karnofsky or the FACT-H&N. This study supported the multidimensional nature of QL for head and neck cancer patients, and thus the importance of assessing disease specific concerns in addition to general health status when assessing functional and QL outcome.

American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline was developed to assist primary care clinicians and other health practitioners with the care of head and neck cancer survivors, including monitoring for recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of long-term and late effects, health promotion, and care coordination. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015, and a multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, dentistry, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, clinical psychology, speech-language pathology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, the patient perspective, and nursing was assembled. While the guideline is based on a systematic review of the current literature, most evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong recommendation. Therefore, recommendations should be viewed as consensus-based management strategies for assisting patients with physical and psychosocial effects of head and neck cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:203-239. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life

The EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life (the Study Group) has adopted a modular approach to quality of life (QOL) assessment in cancer clinical trials. A 'core' instrument-the QLQ-C30-has been designed to cover a range of QOL issues relevant to a broad spectrum of cancer patients. It is intended that this QLQ-C30 be supplemented by more specific subscales ('modules') to assess aspects of QOL of particular importance to specific subgroups of patients. Since individual members of the Study Group were to be involved in module development, guidelines were required to standardize the module development process in order to ensure uniformly high quality across modules. These guidelines are presented in this paper. The term 'module' is defined, the composition of modules is outlined, and the criteria used to develop modules are specified. The module development process, consisting of four phases (generation of relevant QOL issues, operationalization of the QOL issues into a set of items, pretesting the module questionnaire, and large-scale field-testing) is described in detail. Further, issues related to cross-cultural instrument development, and the need for monitoring the module development process from within the Study Group are discussed. Finally, experiences with developing two site-specific modules (i.e., for head and neck, and breast cancer), are presented and the extent to which the guidelines meet practical requirements is discussed. The guidelines appear to provide a practical tool for module construction, that can facilitate the development of a comprehensive system for assessing the QOL of cancer patients internationally.

Development of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module to be used in quality of life assessments in head and neck cancer patients. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group

A head and neck cancer specific questionnaire module designed to be used in quality of life assessments before, during, and after radiotherapy and surgery, with or without combinations with chemotherapy has been developed in accordance with guidelines given by the EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Relevant issues were generated by means of literature search, and interviews with specialists and patients. Pre-testing of a preliminary questionnaire module was performed in patients from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, United Kingdom and French-speaking Belgium. The resulting head and neck cancer module, the EORTC QLQ-H&N37, includes 37 items concerning disease and treatment related symptoms, social function and sexuality. By using a combination of the general EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N37, health-related quality of life measurements may be compared between studies in different cancer populations, and still be sensitive to changes in the target population.

Health-related quality of life three years after diagnosis of head and neck cancer--a longitudinal study

PURPOSE

To examine health-related quality of life (HRQL) of all head and neck cancer patients from diagnosis until 3 years later and to analyze its dependence on tumor site and other patient characteristics.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Two hundred thirty-two patients (mean age 61 years; 70% men) were included and followed with clinical measures and mailed standardized HRQL questionnaires (The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ-Head and Neck Cancer module (QLQ-H&N35), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

After 3 years 66% of the patients were alive and 88% of these completed the study. The HRQL was worse during treatment and returned slowly thereafter to pretreatment values with few exceptions. After 3 years the best improvement was found for mental distress, followed by a significant global quality of life improvement and reduced pain compared with diagnosis. A significant deterioration was found for problems with dry mouth, senses, and teeth, as well as for opening the mouth wide (ie, they seemed to be related to the treatment given). There were few significant improvements between the 1- and 3-year follow-ups. Depression and physical functioning at diagnosis were independent predictors for global quality of life at 3 years. Patients who died during the study had a worse HRQL at diagnosis compared with patients completing the study. Patients with advanced disease (stage III + IV) scored worse than patients with small tumors for most of the HRQL domains. These differences increased over time. Few differences were found relating to gender and age. The pharyngeal cancer group scored worse compared with the other tumor sites, and these patients would probably benefit from a rehabilitation program right from diagnosis, including treatment for malnutrition and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The largest HRQL changes for head and neck cancer patients are seen within the first year after diagnosis, with a significant deterioration just after finishing treatment. Thereafter, most of the variables return to pretreatment values. The significant problems with dry mouth, senses, and teeth after treatment are constant over time.

Psychometric validation of the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients

A cancer-specific self-reporting quality of life questionnaire has been validated. The questionnaire is designed to assess physical functioning, role functioning, cognitive functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, emesis and quality of life by means of multi-item scales, and other disease- and treatment-related symptoms by means of single items. The questionnaire was completed by 126 head and neck cancer patients with a mean age of 67 years. The internal consistency (scale reliability) was satisfactory for all scales but one. Correlations between scales and items assessing the same underlying dimension were also satisfactory. The questionnaire discriminates between patient subgroups and between acute, subacute and late toxicity. Patient compliance was high. The questionnaire provided valuable information, and most of the scales/items functioned well. A few problems were found, especially with the modified visual analogue scales, and minor modifications will be made.

Quality of life in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers

The long-term survival of cancer patients has risen dramatically during the last few decades, yet little is known about the quality of life experienced by these survivors. This paper reviews research on the quality of life in long-term cancer survivors to identify quality-of-life concerns in this population, to provide a critical evaluation of the literature, and to suggest areas for future research. Searches of computerized literature databases were conducted to identify all studies of quality of life in cancer survivors that were published in English language journals during the period from January 1, 1980, through February 12, 1998, and that were based on responses from individuals who have survived 5 or more years after the diagnosis of adult-onset cancers. Thirty-four papers were identified. Most studies utilized self-report questionnaires to measure quality of life. Although methodologies and cancer patient populations varied greatly, most studies showed that many survivors continue to experience negative effects of cancer and/or treatment on their daily lives well beyond the completion of therapy. Sexual functioning and/or satisfaction and psychological functioning were found to be concerns for many survivors. Several reports documented positive coping strategies and enhanced quality of life in long-term cancer survivors, supporting the need to measure positive aspects of quality of life as well as problems in this population. Study designs that more accurately measure quality of life among survivors of cancer by adjusting for the effects of aging and long-term therapy and the impact of second cancers should be utilized. Additional data are needed to understand the needs of long-term survivors, especially of those in groups underrepresented in published quality-of-life studies, and to determine what kinds of support survivors want.

Quality of life in patients treated for head and neck cancer: a follow-up study 7 to 11 years after radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare health-related quality of life factors in 845 head and neck cancer patients randomized to receive either conventional radiotherapy (2 Gy, 5 days-a-week) or a hypofractionated regimen (2.35 Gy, 4 days-a-week), a follow-up study was carried out 7 to 11 years after treatment in the surviving patients, representing 30% of the original patient number.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The cancer-specific EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (30 item version; the EORTC QLQ-C30) and a 19 item head and neck cancer-specific questionnaire were mailed to the 245 surviving patients of the trial. The EORTC QLQ-C30 is comprised of six multi-item function scales, three symptom scales, and six single items which assess both symptoms and economic consequences of the disease. Two hundred and four patients (83%) completed the questionnaire. The two groups of patients (N = 103 and N = 101) treated by different fractionating schedules, were comparable with regard to sociodemographic variables, tumor site, treatment variables (including different types of surgical treatment), and secondary primary cancers. Patients in the conventional group had more advanced disease and a higher recurrence rate compared to patients in the hypofractionated group.

RESULTS

Unexpectedly, patients in the hypofractionated group, reported similar or better quality of life compared to patients in the conventional fractionated group. Patients in both groups described a high level of symptoms, like dryness in the mouth and mucus production. Clinical and sociodemographic variables did not explain variance in social function, emotional function or fatigue, except for the type of surgery performed, which significantly influenced the patients' emotional function.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survivors of head and neck cancer reported a high level of disease and treatment related symptoms. Emotional function was significantly influenced by the type of surgical procedure. Strategies for future trials in head and neck cancer should continue to attempt to stress conservative surgical approaches and coordinated adjuvant therapy to maximize local regional control and quality of life. Functional and emotional outcome are important parameters which should prospectively be evaluated in future clinical trials in head and neck cancer.

Measuring head and neck cancer symptom burden: The development and validation of the M. D. Anderson symptom inventory, head and neck module

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a symptom inventory for patients with head and neck cancer and to assess the occurrence and severity of symptoms, the overall symptom burden, and the interference the symptoms cause in daily life.

METHODS

Items were generated from a comprehensive literature review, our prior work, and focus groups with head and neck cancer patients, symptom researchers, and a multidisciplinary group of head and neck cancer health care workers. We selected 11 provisional head and neck cancer-specific items for addition to the core M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), and conducted a cross-sectional validation study among patients with head and neck cancer.

RESULTS

Construct validity was established using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation, and tests of concurrent and known-groups validity were conducted. Two items were dropped because of low severity scores and low frequency of complaint, leaving 9 final head and neck cancer-specific items. The coefficient alpha reliabilities were 0.88, 0.83, and 0.92 for the 13 core MDASI items, the 9 head and neck cancer-specific items, and the 6 interference items, respectively. The most prevalent severe symptoms were problems with mucus, mouth/throat sores, tasting food, difficulty with chewing or swallowing, dry mouth, pain, and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

The M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) is a reliable and valid instrument to measure head and neck cancer symptom burden, and the interference symptoms cause in the major aspects of a patient's daily life. A subset of specifically distressing symptoms was identified, many of which are not included in commonly used head and neck cancer quality of life instruments.

Health-related quality of life in long-term head and neck cancer survivors: a comparison with general population norms

To examine the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in long-term head and neck (H&N) cancer survivors compared with general population norms. HRQL was assessed with three standardized questionnaires: the SF-36 Health Survey (Short Form 36) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, -Core 30 and -Head and Neck 35 cancer module). Altogether 135 H&N cancer patients (mean age 62 years, 31% females) of 151 survivors (89% acceptance) from a longitudinal HRQL study (n = 232) were included 3 years after diagnosis. The H&N cancer patients' SF-36 scores did not differ significantly from those of an age- and sex-matched sample (n = 871) from the Swedish normative population, except on the role-physical functioning scale. On the other hand, treatment-related side-effects and disease-specific problems (e.g., swallowing, local pain and dry mouth) measured by the H&N cancer module were, with few exceptions, significantly worse than norm values. Gender comparisons revealed that female H&N cancer patients generally scored better than the norms on both the SF-36 and the EORTC QLQ-C30, while the male patients scored significantly worse on most SF-36 scales. Patients > or =65 years more often scored worse than the norm than did patients <65. Clinically relevant differences were found on the majority of SF-36 scales in comparison of tumour sites, however, comparisons of patients with small (stage I+II) versus advanced (stage III+IV) tumours revealed few differences. Three years after diagnosis H&N cancer patients still suffer significant functional limitations/problems related to their disease and its treatment but these problems do not generally affect their overall HRQL. Tumour stage no longer differentiates HRQL at 3 years, however, factors related to the patients' age, gender and location of the tumour appear to have bearing on their reported health status.

Quality of life research in head and neck cancer: a review of the current state of the science

Quality of life (QOL) has become an increasingly important outcome measure for patient's undergoing treatment for a wide array of illnesses. QOL is a global construct that reflects a patient's general sense of well being. It is by definition multi-dimensional and reflective of the patient's point of view. Health related issues are among the many factors that may influence QOL. Since head and neck cancer (HNC) affects structures that are critical for normal functions such as speech and swallowing, and treatment may lead to deformities that adversely impact psychosocial functioning, there is particular interest in assessing QOL in this cohort of patients. In order to interpret the HN QOL literature, it is important to have an understanding of the significance and limitations of QOL assessments in the head and neck patient population as well as an appreciation for the currently available measurement tools. Unfortunately, the HNC QOL literature has many limitations including: small sample size, lack of prospective data and poor study design. None-the-less, important insights can be obtained by review of the current literature. First, it is important that QOL studies be reported in such a way as to provide clinically meaningful data to clinicians. Linking measurements with clinical benchmarks is one way to accomplish this goal. In addition, both general and HNC specific measures are needed in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of global health and tumor specific issues. In general, QOL declines immediately after therapy and returns toward baseline by 1 year. Several factors have been identified that may predict for worse QOL outcomes including: the presence of a feeding tube, co-morbid disease, tracheotomy, site and stage. Data correlating QOL with functional outcome and symptom burden fails to demonstrate a consistent relationship. This may be attributed to methodological issues in study design or the patient's ability to adapt to functional and symptom control problems. Whether routine use of QOL measures in the clinical setting is beneficial to patients has yet to be determined. Further studies are warranted as currently available instruments may not be valid for repeated clinical use.

Prevalence, predictive factors, and screening for psychologic distress in patients with newly diagnosed head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

High levels of distress are a concern regarding patients with head and neck cancer. Early detection of and intervention for such distress are needed to predict patients' adaptation to treatment or rehabilitation, but few studies have investigated the detection of their distress in a patient population of significant size.

METHODS

The authors examined 107 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer to assess their psychologic distress (adjustment disorders or major depression) or other psychiatric problems by structured psychiatric interview before the initial cancer treatment. They also evaluated predictive factors for psychologic distress and assessed the ability of a self-rating questionnaire (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS) to screen for distress.

RESULTS

Of 107 subjects, 18 (16.8%) had an adjustment disorder or major depression. Thirty-six (33.6%), 7 (6. 5%), and 35 (32.7%) met criteria for alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, and nicotine dependence, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed that having advanced stage cancer (odds ratio, 5. 77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-39.7; P = 0.03) and living alone (odds ratio, 4.83; 95% CI, 1.04-22.2; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with having psychologic distress. The optimal cutoff point for the HADS screening for psychologic distress was 15. This cutoff point gave 72.2% sensitivity and 81.4% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Head and neck cancer patients who have advanced disease or live alone should be assessed so that psychologic distress can be detected and intervention made. HADS is a useful clinical instrument to screen for their distress.

Screening for depression in head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to identify the prevalence of depression and the accuracy of depression screening instruments in ambulatory head and neck cancer patients who have received radiation. This population is at risk for depression because of the life-threatening nature of the illness, and treatment-induced oral morbidity.

METHODS

Sixty subjects were evaluated for Major and Minor Depression according to Research Diagnostic Criteria using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS). Screening instruments examined were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. Accuracy was assessed by calculating the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV) and areas under curve (AUC) from Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

The prevalence of Major and Minor Depression was 20%. All of the screening instruments tested were found to be highly accurate. Statistically significant differences between the instruments were not observed but the HADS demonstrated the highest absolute levels of sensitivity, specificity and PPV. No cases of Major Depression were missed by any of the instruments tested.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that a significant minority of head and neck cancer patients are depressed in the post radiation period, and that accurate screening for clinically significant depression is possible using any of the three instruments evaluated here.

Long-term quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVES

To describe prospectively the long-term changes of quality of life and mood in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred seven patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Questionnaire, the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Module, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale before treatment, and 6, 12, 24, and 36 months later.

RESULTS

There was limited deterioration of physical and role functioning and of many head and neck symptoms at 6 months, with improvement thereafter. After 36 months only physical functioning, taste/ smell, dry mouth, and sticky saliva were significantly worse, compared with baseline. Female sex, higher cancer stage, and combination treatment were associated with more symptoms and worse functioning. Despite physical deterioration, there was a gradual improvement of depressive symptomatology and global quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Treatment for head and neck cancer results in short-term morbidity, most of which resolves within 1 year. Despite an initially high level of depressive symptomatology, there is gradual improvement of psychological functioning and global quality of life over the course of 3 years. In this prospective study, the impact of the disease and its treatment in long-term survivors seems to be less severe than it is often assumed to be.

A structured review and theme analysis of papers published on ‘quality of life’ in head and neck cancer: 2000–2005

Over the past 10 years, quality of life (QOL) has been increasingly recognised as an important outcome parameter in head and neck cancer. Validated questionnaires have emerged and there has been an increase in the number of papers published each year. The aim of this article is to review the literature over the past five years (2000-2005 inclusive), to identify papers reporting outcomes using patient self-competed questionnaires and group these into themes. The tabulated summary allows for the areas of health related quality of life research to be identified and to explore issues that are perhaps deficit in the literature. The three authors independently searched the literature published in the English language using the ISI search engine with cross-reference using Pub Med and Ovid. The search terms were; quality of life, questionnaire, and head and neck cancer. Studies were placed in to one of five themes. There were 165 studies identified. The numbers in each theme were predictors of QOL [Hassanein KA, Musgrove BT, Bradbury E. Functional status of patients with oral cancer and its relation to style of coping, social support and psychological status. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;39:340-5.], functional outcome [Klug C, Neuburg J, Glaser C, Schwarz B, Kermer C, Millesi W. Quality of life 2-10 years after combined treatment for advanced oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:664-9.], questionnaire development [Hanna E, Sherman A, Cash D, Adams D, Vural E, Fan CY, et al. Quality of life for patients following total laryngectomy vs chemoradiation for laryngeal preservation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:875-9.], randomised clinical trials [Kanatas AN, Rogers SN. A national survey of health-related quality of life questionnaires in head and neck oncology. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:6-10.], and reviews [Kanatas AN, Rogers SN. A national survey of health-related quality of life questionnaires in head and neck oncology. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:6-10.]. Although many facets of HRQOL following head and neck cancer have been explored over the last five years the paper identifies issues where research is still lacking.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Oral Cancer: A Review

PURPOSE

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has now become an important outcome measure in the assessment of patients treated for oral cancer. We summarize the influence of various factors in the treatment of oral cancer on HRQOL after surgery.

METHODS

A review of the current literature was carried out.

RESULTS

Site-specific assessment of HRQOL should be encouraged, rather than assessment of head and neck cancer as a whole. In general the long-term HRQOL of oral cancer patients seems good with HRQOL at 1 year being equivalent to long-term HRQOL. A number of different patient and treatment factors were identified that affect HRQOL. These include age, gender, site, stage, emotional status, smoking and alcohol, marital status and income, performance status, method of reconstruction, access, mandibular resection, neck dissection, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and post-operative radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQOL should be considered as part of the overall process of care for oral cancer patients.

Psychosocial adjustment in head and neck cancer: the impact of disfigurement, gender and social support

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychosocial impact of disfigurement, gender, and social support after surgical treatment of head and neck cancer.

METHOD

Eighty-two ambulatory head and neck cancer patients, 6 months or more after treatment and free of active disease were assessed. Ratings of disfigurement were obtained using a valid and reliable 9-point scale developed for the study. Standardized measures of social support, depressive symptoms, well-being, and life happiness were used.

RESULTS

The sample as a whole displayed high levels of life happiness, low levels of depression, and positive feelings of well-being. Women demonstrated higher levels of depression and lower life happiness; subjects with greater disfigurement were more depressed. Social support seemed to buffer the impact of greater levels of disfigurement on well-being for women but not for men.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that women with head and neck cancer who experience low social support and face disfiguring treatment are at greatest risk for psychosocial dysfunction.

Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer Patients After Treatment With High-Dose Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Cetuximab

Purpose

In this randomized, phase III study, quality of life (QoL) was assessed in patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) after high-dose radiotherapy alone or in combination with cetuximab.

Patients and Methods

Patients with stage III or IV nonmetastatic and measurable squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx were eligible. QoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC QLQ Head and Neck Cancer–Specific Module at baseline, week 4, and at months 4, 8, and 12 postbaseline.

Results

In this study, one of the largest conducted in a population of patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN, 424 patients received radiotherapy alone (213 patients) or radiotherapy plus cetuximab (211 patients). Radiotherapy/cetuximab significantly improved locoregional control (P = .005) and overall survival (P = .03) compared with radiotherapy alone, without significantly increasing radiotherapy-associated adverse events. The current analysis focused on the impact of cetuximab on the QoL. Compliance with completion of QoL questionnaires was high in both arms. QoL worsened during treatment and improved after cessation of treatment, reaching baseline levels at 12 months. There were no significant differences in QoL scores between the treatment arms. This was particularly notable for global health status/QoL, social functioning, social eating, and social contact. Pretreatment global health status/QoL was identified as a significant prognostic variable in these patients.

Conclusion

The addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy significantly improved locoregional control and increased overall survival without adversely affecting QoL.

Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck module (QLQ-H&N35)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reliability and validity of a new, disease-specific quality-of-life measure for patients with head and neck cancer: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire--QLQ-H&N35.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using questionnaire data and medical chart review.

SETTING

Academic tertiary care otolaryngology clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty ambulatory patients, including 30 patients with advanced head and neck cancer in each of the following stages of treatment: (1) prior to treatment, (2) during active treatment, (3) within 6 months of completing treatment, and (4) more than 6 months after completing treatment. In addition, (5) a comparison group of 40 patients without malignant disease was included (total sample, N = 160).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Scores on EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and head and neck module (QLQ-H&N35), Profile of Mood States, and Impact of Events Scale.

RESULTS

The QLQ-H&N35 demonstrated acceptable reliability (internal consistency). It successfully discriminated between cancer patients and the comparison group, and among subgroups of cancer patients at different phases of treatment (construct validity). The instrument was sensitive to the effects of radiation treatment and to site of disease. Its low-to-moderate correlations with the EORTC core questionnaire indicated that the QLQ-H&N35 provided unique information (discriminant validity). Scores were significantly associated with a number of demographic variables.

CONCLUSION

Results support the use of this disease-specific measure to assess quality of life among patients with advanced head and neck cancer.

A prospective multicentre study in Sweden and Norway of mental distress and psychiatric morbidity in head and neck cancer patients

A Swedish/Norwegian head and neck cancer study was designed to assess prospectively the levels of mental distress and psychiatric morbidity in a heterogeneous sample of newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients. A total of 357 patients were included. The mean age was 63 years, and 72% were males. The patients were asked to answer the HAD scale (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale) six times during 1 year. The number of possible or probable cases of anxiety or depression disorder was calculated according to standardized cut-offs. Approximately one-third of the patients scored as a possible or probable case of a major mood disorder at each measurement point during the study year. There were new cases of anxiety or depression at each time point. The anxiety level was highest at diagnosis, while depression was most common during treatment. Females were more anxious than males at diagnosis, and patients under 65 years of age scored higher than those over 65. Patients with lower performance status and more advanced disease reported higher levels of mental distress and more often scored as a probable or possible cases of psychiatric disorder. Our psychometric analyses supported the two-dimensional structure and stability of the HAD scale. The HAD scale seems to be the method of choice for getting valid information about the probability of mood disorder in head and neck cancer populations. The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity found in this study emphasizes the importance of improved diagnosis and treatment.

Analysis of the performance characteristics of the University of Washington Quality of Life instrument and its modification (UW-QOL-R)

BACKGROUND

During a 5-year period, we analyzed 3 patient subsets from the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) Registry and published the results. In each instance, editorial review has raised legitimate concerns regarding the UW-QOL instrument that deserve public comment. We present our response to these criticisms. Since our original publication (1993), we have added domains to the original UW-QOL instrument. These additions reflected our concern that we might be missing important elements in the spectrum of disease-specific response to treatment. Using the data we have accumulated in the last 5 years, we present an analysis of the internal consistency of the UW-QOL. We have identified those domains that are responsive (or not responsive) to treatment effect and have revised the UW-QOL accordingly to create the UW-QOL-R, which is recommended for future use.

DESIGN

The project began January 1, 1993, after approval by the UW Human Subjects Committee. Critical comments offered by external review were collated and responded to. Internal consistency was evaluated by interitem correlation matrix (Cronbach alpha) testing.

SUBJECTS

All new patients presenting to the UW Medical Center (Seattle) with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer were asked to participate in a prospective analysis of QOL changes during and after treatment.

INTERVENTION

Patients completed the pretreatment QOL questionnaire on the day of their initial workup. The format for the pretreatment test was an interviewer-supervised self-administered test; the subsequent tests were self-administered and were completed at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Other data entered for each patient included site, stage, treatment, histologic classification, reconstruction, and current status. A QOL registrar was responsible for patient follow-up, data collection, and collation. All data were entered into the departmental relational database.

RESULTS

Criticisms by external review included the following: "it is improper to call it [UW-QOL] a measure of quality of life"; "the summary scale is problematic because it implies that each of the subscales are weighted or 'valued' equally"; "some domain questions relate to surgery specific issues. while others are specific to radiation"; "we were confused by the scoring"; and "the UW-QOL index does not specifically address the psychological impact of the disease and its treatment." After evaluation of internal consistency, the UW-QOL was modified by removing 2 domains that correlated poorly with the others. This resulted in a 10-item instrument (UW-QOL-R) with an overall internal consistency score of 0.85.

CONCLUSIONS

The UW-QOL can be effectively and accurately used to compare treatment effects in the management of head and neck cancer. With this revised instrument, the 10 items appear to measure the domains of overall QOL in a highly consistent and reliable fashion over time.

A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment outcome for head and neck cancer. Our purpose was to critically review published disease-specific QOL instruments.

METHODS

Medline and Cancerlit were searched from 1966-1999. Eight disease-specific QOL instruments were identified, described, and appraised for development, sensibility, reliability, validity and responsiveness to change.

RESULTS

Several of the available instruments have been well-developed and characterized. No one instrument is ideal for all purposes. When selecting a disease-specific QOL instrument for head and neck cancer patients, careful consideration must be given to disease subsite, treatment, timing of assessment, clinical setting, study purpose and research question.

CONCLUSION

Validation of QOL instruments is an ongoing process. Direct comparisons of different instruments may help to establish the most appropriate questionnaire for each situation. Efforts should be focused on the evaluation of existing instruments, rather than the development of new questionnaires.

Psychological distress in head and neck cancer patients 7-11 years after curative treatment

Long-term survivors of head and neck cancer may suffer from psychological distress and reduced quality of life because of late side-effects of the treatment. In a follow-up study of patients randomised to two different radiation fractionating regimens, 204 patients filled in a mailed questionnaire 7-11 years after treatment. The questionnaire consisted of the General Health Questionnaire, 20-item version (GHQ-20), and the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). There were no differences in psychological distress between patients receiving conventional radiotherapy and those receiving a slightly hypofractionated regimen. A high prevalence of psychological distress was found in both treatment groups (30% of 'cases' according to the GHQ-20), especially in patients with impaired cognitive or social function, or with pain. Clinicians need to be aware of this morbidity, and their ability to detect patients with psychological problems needs to be improved. The GHQ-20 can facilitate the communication process in a clinical setting. With an increased awareness of these problems and by using valid instruments for identification of patients at risk, the clinicians may intervene and help the patients to reduce their psychological distress.

Quality of Life and Head and Neck Cancer: A 5 Year Prospective Study

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in head and neck cancer patients from diagnosis to 5 years after start of treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, descriptive study

METHODS

three hundred fifty-seven patients from Norway and Sweden filled in HRQL questionnaires, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H and N35, six times during the first year and then after 5 years. At 5 years, 167 (87%) of the 192 living patients filled in questionnaires.

RESULTS

Group data: clinical significant improvements in HRQL were not found between 1 and 5 years. Problems with teeth, opening of the mouth, dryness in the mouth, and sticky saliva were persistent or worsening. Similar findings were found regardless of sex, age, stage, or site when clinical significant changes are considered. Patients who died between 1 and 5 years reported reduced HRQL on 15 of 28 scales at 1 year compared with the survivors. Individual data: 40% of patients reported improved global HRQL from diagnosis to 5 years after start of treatment. In addition, 11% had "top scores" at both assessment points. The pattern in global HRQL scores also applies for most of the other function and symptom scales.

CONCLUSION

After the first year after treatment, recovery of the persisting side effects of treatment cannot be expected for the group as a whole. Patients must be prepared for this. Some individual patients experience improvement in global HRQL. HRQL assessments in daily clinical practice can identify patients who are in need of additional support and symptom relief.