Treatment priorities and regret in older adults with head and neck cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnoses are seen in people aged 70 and older; these numbers are set to increase. Greater understanding of treatment needs of older patients with HNC is essential. These older patients often have co-existing health conditions, are prone to frailty and may not prioritise survival when considering treatment options. This systematic review examines the current research with regard to priorities and factors influencing treatment regret in older people with HNC. METHODS: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (i) reported data from patients with a mean age of 65 years or older who had a confirmed diagnosis of HNC and had been treated using surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with either palliative or curative intent, (ii) considered patient's priorities or preferences or examined treatment regret as one of the primary outcomes of the study (iii) were published in English. RESULTS: Pilot search identified n = 7222 articles; however, following screening, only four papers met the inclusion criteria. Narrative synthesis was indicated to analyse quantitative and qualitative evidence in parallel, as meta-analyses were not possible. DISCUSSION: There is a paucity in the literature examining older adults with HNC. There is an indication that older adults prioritise maintaining independence when making treatment decisions and treatment regret is seen in those with high levels of depression with level of frailty also a contributing factor. Clinicians should consider patient's social circumstances, premorbid status and priorities in maintaining independence and managing symptoms when making treatment decisions in this cohort.

A review of unplanned admissions in head and neck cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment.

AIM: Non-surgical treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) often results in severe toxicities, which are detrimental to a patient's health and quality of life. There is limited published UK data on unplanned hospital admissions and reasons associated with admission. We aim to identify frequencies and reasons for unplanned hospital admissions, highlighting those patient groups who are most vulnerable. METHODS: A retrospective study of unplanned hospital admissions of HNC patients receiving non-surgical treatment was completed. An inpatient admission was defined as ≥ 1 night spent in the hospital. To test potential demographic and treatment predictors of inpatient admission, a multiple regression model was constructed using the endpoint measure (unplanned admission), as the dependent variable. RESULTS: A cohort of 216 patients was identified over a 7-month period, and 38 of these patients (17%) required an unplanned admission. Treatment type was the only statistically significant predictor of in-patient admission. The majority of admissions were patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (58%) with predominant reasons for admission being nausea and vomiting (25.5%) and decreased oral intake/dehydration (30%). Of the patients admitted, 12 had a prophylactic PEG placed pre-treatment, and 18 of 26 admitted without prophylactic PEG required nasogastric tube feeding during their admission. DISCUSSION: Almost one-fifth of HNC patients over this time period required hospital admission; the majority of which can be attributed to treatment toxicities when receiving CRT. This is concurrent with other studies which review the impact of radiotherapy versus CRT. Increased support and monitoring, particularly focused on nutrition, are required for patients with HNC who receive CRT. KEY MESSAGE: This article describes a retrospective review of a patient undergoing non-surgical treatment for head and neck cancer. These patients frequently require unplanned hospital admission. The results indicate that patients undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy are most vulnerable to deterioration and additional support focused on nutrition for these patients is indicated.

Nutritional prehabilitation in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Prehabilitation affords an opportunity to support the management of malnutrition that is strongly associated with head and neck cancer. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the components of nutritional prehabilitation interventions and their effects on nutritional and health outcomes in head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search was completed within Medline (including PubMed), CINHAL, Cochrane database, EMBASE, PRoQUEST, clinical trials registries, and grey literature to identify studies involving a nutritional intervention pre-treatment in head and neck cancer patients receiving any form of curative therapy. Nutritional intervention was defined as a specified period pre-treatment and outcome measures had to include assessment of nutritional status or body composition. Quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2. RESULTS: From 557 identified studies, two met the inclusion criteria. Due to the low number of studies, a meta-analysis was not indicated. Both studies conducted a nutritional intervention using an "enriched formula" in malnourished patients prior to surgery. Neither study reported the intervention was effective for reducing weight loss, physical function, surgical complications, or length of stay versus the comparison. CONCLUSION: There is limited nutritional prehabilitation research within head and neck cancer. An "enriched formula" provided in the prehabilitation period appears no more advantageous than routine standard nutritional formula in mitigating against the weight loss experienced in malnourished head and neck patient. Due to the malnutrition risks on diagnosis and the negative impact of poor nutritional status on clinical and functional outcomes, robust nutritional prehabilitation research is required to inform clinical practice.