Importance of patient, tumour and treatment related factors on quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after definitive treatment.

The purpose of this study is to assess patient, tumour and treatment related factors on quality of life (QoL) outcomes of patients who received definitive or postoperative radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy for head and neck (H&N) cancer. In this cross-sectional study, 110 H&N cancer patients were evaluated in follow-up visit and were asked to fill out the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C-30) and H&N Module (QLQ-H&N35). Patients were also graded for their late side effects using EORTC/RTOG scoring system. The QLQ C-30 and QLQ-H&N35 mean scores were compared using ANOVA analysis for these variables: age, gender, occupation, educational status, social security status, place of residence, tumour localization, clinical stage, comorbidity, Karnofsky performance score, treatment modality and side effects. Median follow-up was 29 (4-155) months. Tumour localization was significant factor affecting physical (P = 0.03), social (P = 0.01), cognitive (P = 0.002) functioning. Treatment modality had significant impact on the physical (P = 0.02) and cognitive scores (P = 0.008). Global QoL was affected significantly by disease stage (P = 0.01) and occupation (P = 0.01). The QLQ-H&N35 scores were found significantly higher in patients with moderate/severe late morbidity. Tumour localization and the treatment modality are the most important factors affecting the QoL of H&N cancer patients treated definitively.

The impact of treatment center on the outcome of patients with laryngeal cancer treated with surgery and radiotherapy.

For laryngeal cancer, surgical excision of the primary tumor should be undertaken with the aim of achieving tumor-free margins. Adequate pathological assessment of the specimen and the competency of the treatment center play a crucial role in achieving cure. The present study aimed to analyze the significance of place of surgery on the outcome of patients with laryngeal cancer who underwent surgical operation in other centers and were subsequently referred to Doküz Eylul University Head and Neck Tumour Group (DEHNTG) for postoperative irradiation. Patients were divided into three groups according to their place of surgery. The first group (Group I) consisted of patients who had their surgical operation at DEUH. Patients in the second group (Group II) were referred from centers with oncological surgical experience. The third group (Group III) consisted of patients referred from hospitals with no surgical teams experienced in head and neck cancer treatment. The clinical and pathological features of patients in these three groups were analyzed to assess the impact of place of surgery on clinical outcome as well as the prognostic factors for survival. The study population consisted of 253 patients who were treated between 1991 and 2006 with locally advanced laryngeal cancer according to the protocol of DEHNTG. The median follow-up was 48 (3-181) months. The 5 years overall, loco-regional disease-free and distant disease-free survivals were 66, 88 and 91%, respectively. When patients' clinical and histopathological features were analyzed for the impact of place of surgery, surgical margin positivity rates were found to be higher in Group III (P = 0.032), although the other two groups had more advanced clinical and pathological N stage disease (P = 0.012, P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, older age (P < 0.0001), presence of perinodal invasion (P = 0.012), time interval between surgery and radiotherapy longer than 6 weeks (P = 0.003) and tumor grade (P = 0.049) were the most significant factors. For loco-regional failure-free survival, advanced clinical stage (P = 0.002), place of surgery (P = 0.031) and presence of clinical subglottic invasion (P = 0.029) were shown to be important prognostic factors. For distant metastasis-free survival, only pathological (+) lymph node status (P = 0.046) was a significant factor in multivariate analysis. The significance of place of surgery as well as other well-known prognostic factors underlines the importance of an experienced multidisciplinary treatment team if best results are to be obtained for the patient.

Optimization of follow-up timing from study of patterns of first failure after primary treatment. An example from patients with NSCLC: a study of the REACT working group of ESTRO.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology was funded by the EU for a project on Recording providing Education, and Ameliorating the Consequences of Treatment (REACT). An important aim of follow-up (FU) after treatment for cancer is to detect various events associated with disease recurrence or metastatic spread or severe treatment-related complications as early as possible. Each tumour type may show a specific pattern and timing of these events related to different prognostic factors. The aim of this study was to propose a way of defining an optimal timing schedule for follow-up after treatment based on the analysis of failure patterns determined from follow-up data from prospective clinical trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify prognostic factors associated with each failure type (loco-regional recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM) or side effects (SE)). Competing risks methods were applied to estimate the cumulative incidence functions (CIF), adjusted on the significant prognostic factors. Equally spaced quantiles of the CIF were then used to estimate the corresponding optimised follow-up times depending on a pre-specified total number of visits. Follow-up data from the CHART bronchus clinical trial were used to analyse the pattern of time to first failure. RESULTS: A significantly higher risk of failure was observed for males (SE), stage III (DM) and conventional treatment (LR). Overall, patients treated with CHART needed 1 fewer visit in each category of patients compared to the Conventional group. For example, stage III male patients treated with CHART would need 8 visits during the first two years at 7, 11, 16, 24, 37, 52, 64 and 104 weeks rather than the 9 follow-up visits planned in the protocol. Similar patients treated with Conventional radiotherapy would need 8 visits at 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 24, 52 and 104 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Use of these methods would allow timing of follow-up visits to be adapted according to tumour site and prognostic factors determined previously from audit or clinical trials. Application of this approach could optimize the timing of follow-up visits by placing them closer to the times when failures are expected to occur. It does not address the wider issues of follow-up such as who should do it or what should be done for which further studies are required.

Audit of effectiveness of routine follow-up clinics after radiotherapy for cancer: a report of the REACT working group of ESTRO.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology was funded by the EU for a project on recording providing education, and ameliorating the consequences of treatment (REACT). An European audit was carried out as part of which to assess the usefulness of current follow-up practices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 4-month period in 15 cancer centres in 10 countries, patients attending for routine follow-up completed a questionnaire covering their expectations of and satisfaction with the visit. This was matched with a questionnaire completed by the physician about the content and usefulness of the consultation. The feasibility of a short toxicity scale developed by Dische and Saunders was also investigated. RESULTS: In total, 2303 matched questionnaires were analysed. Forty percent of the patients had symptoms or medical problems related to their disease. In 18% there was a positive finding on clinical examination. In 28% investigations were undertaken part of departmental routine practice. Ten percent of the investigations showed an abnormal result. Ninety nine percent of physicians and 85% of the patients expressed satisfaction. Using the short toxicity scale rates of recording toxicity could be increased from 28 to 93%. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in follow-up practices among European centres. There was a low incidence of positive findings clinically or with routine investigations. A simple scale for recording morbidity has proved easy to use by departments, which have not routinely used one of the standard measures. Further work will attempt to produce an European guideline for effective routine follow-up after radiotherapy.