Routine follow-up care after curative treatment of head and neck cancer: A survey of patients' needs and preferences for healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE: The experience of a cancer diagnosis and receiving treatment can have profound impacts on health and subsequently patients may require significant support. Often, these needs are not identified or addressed. Given that less is known about the follow-up requirements for head and neck cancer patients, this study aimed to describe their follow-up needs and preferences. METHODS: In Ontario, Canada from 2012-2014, 175 patients completed a questionnaire at an appointment one year after treatment. To identify associations between characteristics and follow-up needs, bivariate analyses and ordinal logistic regression models were employed. RESULTS: A diversity of follow-up requirements was found. The most commonly reported follow-up needs were having imaging tests performed (66%), receiving information on treatment side effects (84%) and prognosis details (95%). Many patients experienced an improvement in their health (79%) but notably, not all. Characteristics such as psychosocial and well-being measures (functional status, anxiety, fear of recurrence, quality of life), attitudes towards follow-up (reassurance, communication), demographics (age, sex, marital status), and stage of disease predicted needs and preferences for follow-up care (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: While awaiting top-level evidence, this work demonstrates the variation in needs and supports the identification of patients with higher follow-up requirements by screening for well-being and enquiring about expectations in follow-up care.

Prostate cancer-specific survival differences in patients treated by radical prostatectomy versus curative radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the cause-specific survival of patients who received radiotherapy to those who received surgery for cure of their prostate cancer using a number of design and analytic steps to mitigate confounding by indication. METHODS: This was a case-cohort study of 2213 patients in the Ontario Cancer Registry diagnosed between 1990 and 1998 who were either treatment candidates or received curative radiotherapy or surgery. Cases included patients who died of prostate cancer within 10 years. The study population was restricted to those who were candidates for either treatment (radiotherapy or surgery) based on disease severity (low and intermediate risk using the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada risk groups). The median follow-up was 51 months. Cause-specific survival was analyzed using Cox-proportional hazards regression with case-cohort variance adjustment. Results from intent-to-treat analyses were compared to results by treatment received. RESULTS: Adjusted hazard ratios for risk of prostate cancer death for radiotherapy compared to surgery for the entire study population were 1.62 (95%CI 1.00-2.61) and 2.02 (1.19-3.43) analyzing by intent-to-treat and treatment received, respectively. Intent-to-treat hazard ratios for the low- and intermediate-risk groups were 0.87 (0.28-2.76) and 1.57 (0.95-2.61), respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall results were driven by the finding in the intermediate-risk group, which indicated that radiotherapy was not as effective as surgery in this group. Confirmation was needed with special attention paid to risk stratification and the impact of more contemporary delivery of these treatment options.

Assessing the impact of comorbid illnesses on death within 10 years in prostate cancer treatment candidates.

BACKGROUND: Treatment choice in prostate cancer is influenced by pre-existing comorbid illnesses, but information about their individual prognostic impact is sparse, and only 1 comorbidity index has been developed for this setting. The authors assessed the impact of individual comorbid illnesses on the risk of early, other-cause death in prostate cancer treatment candidates and propose a modification of an existing comorbidity scale. METHODS: A population-based case-cohort study included patients diagnosed from 1990 through 1998 in Ontario, Canada who had planned curative radiotherapy or prostatectomy. The subcohort numbered 1643, and the case sample (those dying of other causes within 10 years) numbered 630. Ontario Cancer Registry data were linked to data from medical charts, including: age, comorbidity using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G), stage, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and treatment. Cox proportional hazards regression assessed the age-adjusted association between CIRS-G and other-cause death. RESULTS: Respiratory and cardiac diseases were the most common comorbidities and most strongly associated with an increased risk of death. Other important comorbidities included vascular disease, renal disease, and diabetes. The modified CIRS-G(pros) score yielded a relative risk (RR) of 1.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.76) for those scoring 1 compared with 0 and RR 1.18 (95% CI, 1.15-1.21) for each increment above 1. Except for those aged >80 years, results were consistent across treatment type and age group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides estimates of the role of individual comorbid illnesses in prostate cancer. The modified CIRS-G(pros) could be useful in the clinic and in future research on this patient population.

A population-based study of factors associated with early versus late stage oral cavity cancer diagnoses.

Oral cavity cancers can be detected early yet many are diagnosed with advanced disease. We assessed risk factors for advanced stage disease in a population-based study. Study population was all Ontario patients with anterior tongue or floor of mouth cancers diagnosed between 1991 and 2000 (n=2033). Data are from a retrospective chart review. Risk factors included: demographic characteristics, co-morbidity, precancerous lesions, dental status, smoking, alcohol use, and social marginalization. Multivariate regression analyses assessed independent associations while controlling for disease grade and site. Forty percent had advanced disease. Eighty-nine percent presented with symptoms and 66% were referred by a family physician. Risk factors in the tongue group were being: age ≥80 (RR 1.47), widowed (RR 1.34), social marginalized (RR 1.69), a current smoker (RR 1.26), or a smoker-heavy drinker (RR 1.73). Risk factors in the floor of mouth group were being: age ≥70 (70-79: RR 1.24 and ≥80: RR 1.43), and socially marginalized (RR 1.22). Having a pre-cancerous lesion (RR 0.44) or a regular dentist (RR 0.84) was protective in the floor of mouth group. Risk factors for those with co-morbid illnesses were being: age ≥70 (70-79: RR 1.28 and ≥80: RR 1.55), separated/divorced (RR 1.26), socially marginalized (RR 1.37), or a smoker-heavy drinker (RR 1.44); while having a regular dentist was protective (RR 0.83). Targeted education to alert those at risk about oral cancer warning signs and better training coupled with opportunistic oral cavity exams by family physicians could reduce the burden of this disease.

Effects of non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the aggressiveness of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory mediators have a role in the initiation and progression of prostate cancer. Observed anti-cancer effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have consisted largely of those that inhibit inflammatory mechanisms thought to promote an aggressive disease phenotype. Epidemiologic studies have supported a chemopreventive effect but there is little research on a possible protective role against prostate cancer aggressiveness and progression to advanced disease. METHODS: We conducted a population-based exploratory study, using cross-sectional and case-cohort approaches to assess, the effect of NSAIDs on indicators of prostate cancer aggressiveness. The study population consisted of 1,619 randomly selected patients with a further over-sampling of 453 prostate cancer mortality cases. All had been curatively treated by radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiotherapy and were sampled using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Aggressiveness of disease at diagnosis, represented by Gleason score, and risk of prostate cancer death were compared across NSAID exposure groups. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of a total Gleason score of 8-10 versus 2-6 indicated a non-significant protective effect of NSAIDs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.17). We did not observe an association with risk of prostate cancer death overall (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.79-1.34), but a secondary analysis indicated that NSAID users surviving five years may be protected from early prostate cancer death (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.26-1.13). CONCLUSION: Although estimates were not statistically significant, this exploratory study indicates a possible negative association between NSAID use and disease aggressiveness. Larger investigations with more precise exposure measurements are recommended.

Predictive validity of five comorbidity indices in prostate carcinoma patients treated with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is important to consider in clinical research on curative prostate carcinoma because of the role of competing risks. Five chart-based comorbidity indices were assessed for their ability to predict survival. METHODS: This was a case-cohort study of prostate carcinoma patient cohort treated with curative intent in Toronto and Southeast Cancer Care Ontario regions between 1990 and 1996; the subcohort was drawn from these men, whereas cases were cohort members who died from causes other than prostate carcinoma. Comorbidity data were obtained from medical charts (269 subjects). Vital status, age, area of residence, and socioeconomic status information were available. Predictive validity was quantified by the percent variance explained (PVE) over and above age using proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: The Chronic Disease Score (CDS) (PVE = 11.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.5-22.8%), Index of Coexistent Disease (ICED) (PVE = 9.0%; 95% CI, 2.9-17.9%), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (PVE = 7.2%; 95% CI, 1.4-17.1%), Kaplan-Feinstein Index (PVE = 4.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-12.8%), and Charlson Index (PVE = 3.8%; 95% CI, 0.3-10.9%) each explained some outcome variability beyond age. PVE differences among indices were not statistically significant. A comorbidity identified at the time of cancer diagnosis was the cause of death in 59.2% of cases (75% for cardiac or vascular causes). CONCLUSIONS: The better-performing, more comprehensive indices (CDS, ICED, and CIRS) would be useful in measuring and controlling for comorbidity in this setting. The CDS was easiest to apply and explained the most outcome variability.

Measuring comorbidity in patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are diseases or conditions that coexist with a disease of interest. The importance of comorbidities is that they can alter treatment decisions, change resource utilization, and confound the results of survival analysis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the best comorbidity index to use in survival analysis of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHOD: Four validated indexes, with very different methodologies (i.e., the Charlson Index, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, the Kaplan-Feinstein Classification, the Index of Co-existent Disease), were tested using data from 379 unselected consecutive patients with complete 3-year follow-up from the Kingston Regional Cancer Center. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox Proportional Hazards Regression were used to stratify patients into three levels of increasing severity of comorbidity for each index. The Proportion of Variance Explained and Receiver Operating Characteristics curves were used to compare the performance of the indexes. CONCLUSION: The Kaplan-Feinstein Classification was the most successful in stratifying patients in this population.