The Acceptability of Behavioural Swallowing Interventions for Head and Neck Cancer Patients During Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study Exploring Experiences of Clinical Trial Speech-Language Pathologists.

The PRO-ACTIVE randomized clinical trial offers 3 swallowing therapies to Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients during radiotherapy (RT) namely: reactive, proactive low- ("EAT-RT" only) and high-intensity ("EAT-RT + exercises"). Understanding the experiences of the trial Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) will be useful to inform clinical implementation. This study assessed SLP opinions of acceptability and clinical feasibility of the 3 trial therapies. 8 SLPs from 3 Canadian PRO-ACTIVE trial sites participated in individual interviews. Using a qualitative approach, data collection and thematic analysis were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Member checking was conducted through a follow-up focus group with willing participants. Seven themes were derived: intervention coherence, burden, barriers/facilitators, self-efficacy, attitude, ethicality, and perceived effectiveness. SLPs felt all 3 therapies had potential benefit yet perceived more advantages of proactive therapies compared to reactive. Compared to exercises, SLPs particularly endorsed the EAT-RT component. A major barrier was keeping patients motivated, which was impacted by acute toxicity and sometimes conflicting instructions from the healthcare team. Strategies utilized by to overcome barriers included: scaling exercises and/or diet up/down according to the changing patient needs and communicating therapy goals with healthcare team. A model was derived describing the perceived acceptability of the swallowing therapies according to SLPs, based on the interconnection of main themes. Proactive therapies were perceived as more acceptable to trial SLPs, for facilitating patient engagement. The perceived acceptability of the swallowing therapies was related to seven interconnected aspects of providers' experience. These findings will inform the implementation and potential uptake of the PRO-ACTIVE swallowing therapies in clinical practice.

Exploring the Acceptability of Behavioral Swallowing Interventions for Head and Neck Cancer Patients During Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Experience.

The PRO-ACTIVE randomized clinical trial offers 3 swallowing therapies to Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients during radiotherapy namely: reactive, proactive low- ("EAT-RT" only), and high-intensity ("EAT-RT + exercises"). Understanding the perceived acceptability of these interventions is important to inform eventual implementation into clinical practice. This study explored patients' perspectives using qualitative methodology. At 2 Canadian PRO-ACTIVE trial sites, 24 trial participants were recruited for individual semi-structured interviews, representing each of the 3 trial arms. Data collection and thematic analysis were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Member checking was conducted through follow-up focus groups. Seven themes were derived reflecting the TFA constructs. Overall, regardless of trial arm, patients reported a positive experience with therapy. Patients identified benefits of EAT-RT therapy, reporting that it provided meaningful feedback on diet progress and supported goal setting for oral intake. Patients who received proactive therapies valued the opportunity to set expectations early, build mealtime routine iteratively over time, and have an extended engagement with the SLP. Regardless of trial arm, patients agreed proactive therapy aligned with what they think is best and that therapy intensity should accommodate individual needs. This study identified the value to HNC patients of receiving swallowing interventions during RT and setting realistic expectations around swallowing. Compared to reactive care, proactive therapies were perceived helpful in consolidating habits early, establishing realistic expectations around swallowing and building an extended rapport with the SLP. These findings will inform the implementation of proactive versus reactive swallowing therapies in clinical practice.

Anal Adenocarcinoma: A Rare Entity in Need of Multidisciplinary Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare clinical entity for which the optimal management is not defined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the multidisciplinary management and outcomes of patients with anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a quaternary cancer center. PATIENTS: Men and women with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 1995 and 2016 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-two patients were treated with either chemoradiotherapy or trimodality therapy including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local failure, regional failure, and distant metastasis rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the clinical predictors of outcome. RESULTS: There was a higher 5-year rate of local failure in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy compared with trimodality therapy (53% vs 10%; p < 0.01). The 5-year incidence of distant metastases was 29% (trimodality therapy) versus 30% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.9); adjuvant chemotherapy did not reduce the incidence of distant metastases (p = 0.8). Five-year overall survival was 73% (trimodality therapy) versus 49.4% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse overall survival were treatment with chemoradiotherapy, cT3-4 category disease, and node-positive disease. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment may continue to be tailored to individual patients, better outcomes with a trimodality therapy approach were observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708.ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL: UNA ENTIDAD POCO FRECUENTE EN NECESIDAD DE UN MANEJO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO. ANTECEDENTES: El adenocarcinoma anal es una entidad clínica poco frecuente por lo que aún no se define el manejo óptimo. OBJETIVO: Describir el manejo multidisciplinario y los resultados de los pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. DISEO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Centro de cáncer cuaternario. PACIENTES: Hombres y mujeres con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 1995 y 2016. INTERVENCIONES: Cincuenta y dos pacientes fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia o terapia trimodal que incluyó: radioterapia, quimioterapia y resección quirúrgica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Se estimaron las tasas de falla local, falla regional y metástasis a distancia mediante el método de incidencia acumulada. Se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier para estimar la supervivencia libre de progresión y la supervivencia global. Los riesgos proporcionales de multivariable Cox se utilizaron para evaluar los predictores clínicos de los resultados. RESULTADOS: Hubo una mayor tasa de falla local a cinco años en pacientes tratados con quimiorradioterapia en comparación con terapia trimodal (53% vs 10%; p < 0,01). La incidencia a cinco años de metástasis a distancia fue del 29% (terapia trimodal) versus 30% (quimiorradioterapia) (p = 0,9); la quimioterapia adyuvante no redujo la incidencia de metástasis a distancia (p = 0,8). La supervivencia global a cinco años fue del 73% (terapia trimodal) versus 49,4% (quimiorradioterapia); p = 0,1. En el análisis multivariable, los factores asociados con una peor supervivencia general fueron el tratamiento con quimiorradioterapia, enfermedad de categoría cT3-4 y enfermedad con ganglios positivos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por su pequeño tamaño de muestra y su naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el tratamiento puede seguir adaptándose a pacientes individuales, se observaron mejores resultados con un enfoque TTM. Conslute Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

A core outcome set for patient-reported dysphagia for use in head and neck cancer clinical trials: An international multistakeholder Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Measuring dysphagia-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients is challenging due to dysphagia's multidimensional impact, causing inconsistency in outcome reporting. To address this issue, this study derived a consensus-based core outcome set (COS) for patient-reported dysphagia in HNC clinical trials where swallowing is a primary or secondary endpoint. METHODS: A sample of HNC clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers participated in a 2-Round Delphi technique. A Delphi survey, containing a comprehensive list of dysphagia-related PROs, was developed. In Round 1, participants rated item importance on a 5-point scale. Items rated ≥4 by >70% advanced to Round 2, where a consensus meeting addressed items with varied opinions, and the Delphi survey with remaining items was completed. Items rated ≥4 by >70% formed the final COS. RESULTS: Forty-five participants from nine countries were recruited. After Round 1, 40 items were excluded and 64 advanced to Round 2. After Round 2, a 7-outcome COS was established, comprising the domains of dysphagia symptoms, health status and quality of life. CONCLUSION: This study achieved consensus among HNC stakeholders on essential dysphagia PROs for HNC clinical trials. It is advisable to include these 7-core concepts in clinical trials involving people with HNC to facilitate treatment comparisons and data synthesis.

Patient-reported outcome measures for dysphagia in head and neck cancer: A systematic review and appraisal of content validity and internal structure.

Dysphagia is a major head and neck cancer (HNC) issue. Dysphagia-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are critical for patient-centred assessment and intervention tailoring. This systematic review aimed to derive a comprehensive inventory of HNC dysphagia PROMs and appraise their content validity and internal structure. Six electronic databases were searched to February 2023 for studies detailing PROM content validity or internal structure. Eligible PROMs were those developed or validated for HNC, with ≥20% of items related to swallowing. Two independent raters screened citations and full-text articles. Critical appraisal followed COSMIN guidelines. Overall, 114 studies were included, yielding 39 PROMs (17 dysphagia-specific and 22 generic). Of included studies, 33 addressed PROM content validity and 78 internal structure. Of all PROMs, only the SOAL met COSMIN standards for both sufficient content validity and internal structure. Notably, the development of 18 PROMs predated the publication of COSMIN standards. In conclusion, this review identified 39 PROMs addressing dysphagia in HNC, of which only one met COSMIN quality criteria. Given that half of PROMs were developed prior to COSMIN guidelines, future application of current standards is needed to establish their psychometric quality.

Telemedicine-enabled biofeedback electropalatography rehabilitation (TEBER): A pilot study for patients treated with surgery for oral cavity carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To address the rehabilitative barriers to frequency and precision of care, we conducted a pilot study of a biofeedback electropalatography (EPG) device paired with telemedicine for patients who underwent primary surgery +/- adjuvant radiation for oral cavity carcinoma. We hypothesized that lingual optimization followed by telemedicine-enabled biofeedback electropalatography rehabilitation (TEBER) would further improve speech and swallowing outcomes after "standard-of-care" SOC rehabilitation. METHOD: Pilot prospective 8-week (TEBER) program following 8 weeks of (SOC) rehabilitation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included and 11 completed the protocol. When examining the benefit of TEBER independent of standard of care, "range-of-liquids" improved by +0.36 [95% CI, 0.02-0.70, p = 0.05] and "range-of-solids" improved by +0.73 [95% CI, 0.12-1.34, p = 0.03]. There was a positive trend toward better oral cavity obliteration; residual volume decreased by -1.2 [95% CI, -2.45 to 0.053, p = 0.06], and "nutritional-mode" increased by +0.55 [95% CI, -0.15 to 1.24, p = 0.08]. CONCLUSION: This pilot suggests that TEBER bolsters oral rehabilitation after 8 weeks of SOC lingual range of motion.

The Feasibility of Quality Assurance in the TOPGEAR International Phase 3 Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy for Gastric Cancer (an Intergroup Trial of the AGITG/TROG/NHMRC CTC/EORTC/CCTG).

PURPOSE: The TOPGEAR phase 3 trial hypothesized that adding preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to perioperative chemotherapy will improve survival in patients with gastric cancer. Owing to the complexity of gastric irradiation, a comprehensive radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) program was implemented. Our objective is to describe the RTQA methods and outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RTQA was undertaken in real time before treatment for the first 5 patients randomized to CRT from each center. Once acceptable quality was achieved, RTQA was completed for one-third of subsequent cases. RTQA consisted of evaluating (1) clinical target volume and organ-at-risk contouring and (2) radiation therapy planning parameters. Protocol violations between high- (20+ patients enrolled) and low-volume centers were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: TOPGEAR enrolled 574 patients, of whom 286 were randomized to receive preoperative CRT and 203 (71%) were included for RTQA. Of these, 67 (33%) and 136 (67%) patients were from high- and low-volume centers, respectively. The initial RTQA pass rate was 72%. In total, 28% of cases required resubmission. In total, 200 of 203 cases (99%) passed RTQA before treatment. Cases from low-volume centers required resubmission more often (44/136 [33%] vs 13/67 [18%]; P = .078). There was no change in the proportion of cases requiring resubmission over time. Most cases requiring resubmission had multiple protocol violations. At least 1 aspect of the clinical target volume had to be adjusted in all cases. Inadequate coverage of the duodenum was most common (53% major violation, 25% minor violation). For the remaining cases, the resubmission process was triggered secondary to poor contour/plan quality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter trial, RTQA is feasible and effective in achieving high-quality treatment plans. Ongoing education should be performed to ensure consistent quality during the entire study period.