Limited consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema after head and neck cancer: results from an International Delphi study.

PURPOSE: To explore current practice variation and degree of consensus among international clinical experts regarding the diagnosis, classification, measurement, and treatment of head and neck lymphedema (HNL) after head and neck cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an online Delphi study. Eligible participants were clinical researchers who had (co)authored at least one publication on HNL and healthcare professionals who had treated at least five patients with HNL the last two years. The first round was to collect views about current best practices. The second and third rounds delved deeper into these topics using statements with 7-point adjective rating scales. RESULTS: An expert panel of seventeen participants (7 clinicians, 8 researchers, and 2 others) from 8 countries completed all rounds. Regarding diagnosis, there was limited consensus on most subjects, with palpation being most endorsed. No consensus was reached on the need to use standardized classification systems. As a treatment method, complex decongestive therapy (CDT) was the most commonly used in practice and investigated in the literature. However, no consensus was reached on the importance of aspects of CDT. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial intra- and international practice variation in the management of HNL. This calls for more robust evidence and guidelines.

Currently there is little consensus and strong practice variation in head and neck lymphedema management.Clinicians should be aware that colleagues may have different opinions about the essential components of complex decongestive therapy.Sharing of best practices between rehabilitation clinicians should be encouraged to obtain practice-based evidence.At this stage, no firm recommendations can be derived on the use of complex decongestive therapy, given the various opinions expressed by clinicians and researchers in this study.

Lymphedema and Trismus after Head and Neck Cancer, and the Impact on Body Image and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: To assess the prevalence of chronic lymphedema and trismus in patients > 6 months after head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment, and to explore how the severity of these conditions correlates with body image and quality of life. METHODS: The cross-sectional sample included 59 patients, treated for HNC between six months to three years ago. Physical measurements were performed to assess the presence of external lymphedema and trismus (<36 mm). Furthermore, participants completed two questionnaires regarding body image (BIS) and quality of life (UW-QoL V4). RESULTS: Lymphedema prevalence was 94.1% (95% CI 0.86-0.98), with a median severity score of 9 (range 0-24). Trismus prevalence in this sample was 1.2%. The median BIS score was 2, indicating a positive body image. The UW-QoL score showed a good QOL with a median of 100. Only the domain of saliva and overall related health had a lower median of 70 and 60, respectively. There was no correlation between lymphedema and body image (r = 0.08, p = 0.544). Patients with higher lymphedema scores reported poorer speech with a moderate correlation (r = -0.39, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Lymphedema is a highly prevalent, but moderately severe late side-effect of HNC with a limited impact on quality of life domains except for speech, in our cohort.

A systematic review of validated assessments methods for head and neck lymphedema.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the validity and reliability of existing measurement instruments for quantifying head and neck lymphedema. METHODS: Four databases were searched on January 31st, 2022. The COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklists were used for the risk of bias (ROB) assessment. RESULTS: Out of 3362 unique records, eight studies examined the reliability and validity of five measurement instruments of which one patient reported outcome. The Patterson scale for internal lymphedema and the patient reported head and neck external lymphedema and fibrosis (LIDS-H&N) demonstrated validity and reliability. For external lymphedema, none of the instruments had good reliability for all measuring points. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficiently reliable and valid measurement instruments for external head and neck lymphedema. The Patterson scale and the patient reported LIDS-H&N seem reliable for clinical practice and research.

Breast and abdominal scarring after DIEP flap breast reconstruction: An exploration of patient-reported scar quality.

PURPOSE: This research aimed to explore factors associated with patient-reported breast and abdominal scar quality after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction (BR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional survey in which women after DIEP flap BR were invited to complete an online survey on breast and abdominal scarring. The online survey was distributed in the Netherlands in several ways in order to reach a diverse population of women. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Additional items were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). RESULTS: A total of 248 women completed the survey. There was a statistically significant worse POSAS scar appraisal for the abdominal scar compared with the breast scar. The vast majority of women reported high scores on at least one scar characteristic of their breast scar or abdominal scar. Overall, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity scored higher than pain and itching. Women were only moderately positive about the size, noticeability, location, and the information provided regarding scarring. CONCLUSION: It is crucial to address the inevitability of scars in patient education before a DIEP flap BR, with a particular focus on the abdominal scar, as women experience abdominal scars significantly worse than their breast scars. Providing more information on the experience of other women and the expected appearance will contribute to having realistic expectations while allowing them to make well-informed decisions.

Optimizing Survival Predictions of Hypopharynx Cancer: Development of a Clinical Prediction Model.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a clinical prediction model (CPM) for survival in hypopharynx cancer, thereby aiming to improve individualized estimations of survival. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of hypopharynx cancer patients. We randomly split the cohort into a derivation and validation dataset. The model was fitted on the derivation dataset and validated on the validation dataset. We used a Cox's proportional hazard model and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) selection. Performance (discrimination and calibration) of the CPM was tested. RESULTS: The final model consisted of gender, subsite, TNM classification, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 score (ACE27), body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin, albumin, and leukocyte count. Of these, TNM classification, ACE27, BMI, hemoglobin, and albumin had independent significant associations with survival. The C Statistic was 0.62 after validation. The model could significantly identify clinical risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: ACE27, BMI, hemoglobin, and albumin are independent predictors of overall survival. The identification of high-risk patients can be used in the counseling process and tailoring of treatment strategy or follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:2166-2172, 2020.