A comparison of attitudes to laryngeal cancer treatment outcomes: A time trade-off study.

DESIGN: Time trade-off choice experiment. SETTING: Two large head and neck cancer centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who have received treatment for head and neck cancer and members of the head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were asked to rank the outcome scenarios, assign utility values using time trade-off and rate the importance of survival on treatment choice. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients with head and neck cancer and 73 staff members were recruited. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) optimal outcome was the most preferred health state (34 of 49, 69% patients, and 50 of 73, 68% staff), and CRT with complications was least preferred (27 of 49, 55% patients, and 51 of 73, 70% staff). Using time trade-off, mean utility values were calculated for CRT optimal outcome (0.73 for patients, 0.77 for staff), total laryngectomy (TL) optimal outcome (0.67 for patients, 0.69 for staff), TL outcome with complications (0.46 for patients, 0.51 for staff) and CRT with complications (0.36 for patients, 0.49 for staff). The average survival advantage required for a participant to change their preferred choice was 2.6 years. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that a significant proportion of patients with head and neck cancer and staff members would not choose CRT to manage locally advanced laryngeal cancer. Staff members rated the health states associated with laryngeal cancer treatment higher than patients who have experienced them, and this is particularly evident when considering the poorer outcomes. The head and neck cancer community should develop methods of practice and decision-making which incorporate elicitation and reporting of patient values as a central principle.

A multi-centre audit of epistaxis management in England: is there a case for a national review of practice?

OBJECTIVE: The ENT-UK Clinical Audit and Practice Advisory Group initiated a pilot audit to investigate variance in epistaxis management between six units nationwide. METHOD: All patients with a diagnosis of epistaxis who were admitted for in-patient care at six ENT departments between November 2011 and February 2012 were prospectively enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were included in the study. Variance was demonstrated between the six units in a number of the key outcome areas. Twenty-eight per cent of patients were identified as eligible for operative intervention for epistaxis in one unit, compared with only 12.5 per cent in another. CONCLUSION: There are measurable, patient-relevant outcomes to assess epistaxis management and these can highlight areas of potential improvement. This pilot audit gives a snapshot of modern practice, which shows variance between the six units assessed. A national audit may allow us to improve patient experience and maximise efficiency in delivering emergency care in our most common patient encounter.

Factors affecting duration of gastrostomy tube retention in survivors following treatment for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients treated for head and neck cancer require nutritional support, which is often delivered using a gastrostomy tube. It is difficult to predict which patients will retain their gastrostomy tube in the long term. This study aimed to identify the factors which affect the duration of gastrostomy tube retention. METHOD: In this retrospective study, 151 consecutive patients from one centre were audited. All patients had a mucosal tumour of the head and neck, and underwent gastrostomy tube insertion between 2003 and 2007. RESULTS: There were near-complete data sets for 132 patients. The gastrostomy tube was retained in survivors (n = 66) for a mean of 21.3 months and in non-survivors (n = 66) for 11.9 months. Univariate analysis showed that co-morbidity was the only factor which significantly increased duration of gastrostomy tube retention in survivors (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Co-morbidity alone was associated with a significant increase in gastrostomy tube retention. It is suggested that co-morbidity be included as a variable in future relevant research. Co-morbidity should also be considered when counselling patients about their long-term function following cancer treatment. Gastrostomy tube retention is likely to be affected by many factors, with few single variables having importance independently.