Oral prehabilitation for patients with head and neck cancer: getting it right - the Restorative Dentistry-UK consensus on a multidisciplinary approach to oral and dental assessment and planning prior to cancer treatment.

Historically, oral and dental issues for head and neck cancer patients were often not considered until after cancer treatment was complete. As a result, outcomes for oral rehabilitation were sometimes suboptimal. Inconsistencies in service delivery models and qualification, training and experience of staff delivering dental care often compounded this problem, making research and audit almost impossible. Collaborative working by consultants in restorative dentistry from all over the UK as part of a Restorative Dentistry-UK (RD UK) subgroup, renamed more recently as the RD-UK Head and Neck Cancer Clinical Excellence Network (CEN), has re-emphasised the importance of specialist restorative dentistry intervention at the outset of the head and neck cancer pathway to optimise outcomes of patient care. The CEN has driven several initiatives, reflecting Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) principles aimed at reducing unwarranted variation. This improved consistency in approach and optimised collaborative working of the team now presents a better environment for multicentre audit and research. Ultimately, this should result in a continued improvement in patient and carer experience.

Dental loss after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Introduction In radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC), dental morbidity is significant and it may result in loss of the dentition following treatment.Aims The aim of this clinical study is to identify the incidence of tooth loss over time and correlate this to the RT dose and various risk factors in patients with HNC treated with radical RT.Design A retrospective observational study.Materials and methods The records of 1,118 patients with HNC treated with radical or adjuvant RT from January 2010 to December 2019 were analysed. After applying strict inclusion criteria, 78 patients with 1,566 individual tooth data were selected. RT dose mapping was performed for each tooth.Results A total of 253 teeth (16.2%) were extracted. The following risk factors were significant: gender (p = 0.0001), xerostomia (p <0.0001), RT dose (p <0.0001) and smoking (p <0.0001). Non-significant factors were age, RT delivery technique and the addition of cisplatin.Conclusion Detailed RT dose mapping was used to identify RT dose as a risk factor for dental loss. Careful pre-RT dental treatment and minimisation of RT dose to teeth and salivary glands is required to prevent or reduce the loss of dentition.

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT.

BACKGROUND: Men who suffer recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture have to decide between endoscopic urethrotomy and open urethroplasty to manage their urinary symptoms. Evidence of relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty compared with endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men. DESIGN: Parallel-group, open-label, patient-randomised trial of allocated intervention with 6-monthly follow-ups over 24 months. Target sample size was 210 participants providing outcome data. Participants, clinicians and local research staff could not be blinded to allocation. Central trial staff were blinded when needed. SETTING: UK NHS with recruitment from 38 hospital sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 222 men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture who had received at least one previous intervention for stricture. INTERVENTIONS: A centralised randomisation system using random blocks allocated participants 1 : 1 to open urethroplasty (experimental group) or endoscopic urethrotomy (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was control of urinary symptoms. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 24 months. The main secondary outcome was the need for reintervention for stricture recurrence. RESULTS: The mean difference in the area under the curve of repeated measurement of voiding symptoms scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 24 (severe symptoms) between the two groups was -0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.78 to 1.02; p = 0.6]. Mean voiding symptom scores improved between baseline and 24 months after randomisation from 13.4 [standard deviation (SD) 4.5] to 6 (SD 5.5) for urethroplasty group and from 13.2 (SD 4.7) to 6.4 (SD 5.3) for urethrotomy. Reintervention was less frequent and occurred earlier in the urethroplasty group (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89; p = 0.02). There were two postoperative complications requiring reinterventions in the group that received urethroplasty and five, including one death from pulmonary embolism, in the group that received urethrotomy. Over 24 months, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference £2148, 95% CI £689 to £3606) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs (QALY difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.14). Therefore, based on current evidence, urethrotomy is considered to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: We were able to include only 69 (63%) of the 109 men allocated to urethroplasty and 90 (80%) of the 113 men allocated to urethrotomy in the primary complete-case intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The similar magnitude of symptom improvement seen for the two procedures over 24 months of follow-up shows that both provide effective symptom control. The lower likelihood of further intervention favours urethroplasty, but this had a higher cost over the 24 months of follow-up and was unlikely to be considered cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Formulate methods to incorporate short-term disutility data into cost-effectiveness analysis. Survey pathways of care for men with urethral stricture, including the use of enhanced recovery after urethroplasty. Establish a pragmatic follow-up schedule to allow national audit of outcomes following urethral surgery with linkage to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98009168. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The urethra carries urine from the bladder to the tip of the penis. Men can develop a condition called urethral stricture when part of the urethra narrows due to scarring. This can lead to difficulties in passing urine and can recur. There are two operations for urethral stricture. The standard approach is endoscopic urethrotomy. The alternative is open urethroplasty. This study wanted to find out which operation was preferable in terms of symptom control, time before further surgery and which operation was best value for the NHS. All aspects of the study were informed by patients. Two hundred and twenty-two men who had received at least one previous operation for stricture took part. The choice of operation was decided by chance (randomisation). Of these men, 113 were randomised to urethrotomy and 109 were randomised to urethroplasty. Following their operation, the men filled in questionnaires every 3­6 months for 2 years about their symptoms and if any further surgery was needed. The two groups were then compared. Of the 222 men who took part, 159 provided enough information for inclusion in the comparison (90 were in the urethrotomy group and 69 were in the urethroplasty group). The improvement over time in urinary symptoms was similar for the two groups. Men in the urethrotomy group were twice as likely to need a further operation over the 2-year study period. Very few men experienced serious complications. This study showed that both operations led to symptom improvement for men with recurrent urethral stricture. Urethroplasty, however, appears unlikely to offer good value for money for the NHS. Men needing treatment for recurrent urethral stricture can use this information to weigh up the pros and cons of each operation to decide with their clinical team which one to undergo.

Surgical Treatment for Recurrent Bulbar Urethral Stricture: A Randomised Open-label Superiority Trial of Open Urethroplasty Versus Endoscopic Urethrotomy (the OPEN Trial).

BACKGROUND: Urethral stricture affects 0.9% of men. Initial treatment is urethrotomy. Approximately, half of the strictures recur within 4 yr. Options for further treatment are repeat urethrotomy or open urethroplasty. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of urethrotomy with open urethroplasty in adult men with recurrent bulbar urethral stricture. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an open label, two-arm, patient-randomised controlled trial. UK National Health Service hospitals were recruited and 222 men were randomised to receive urethroplasty or urethrotomy. INTERVENTION: Urethrotomy is a minimally invasive technique whereby the narrowed area is progressively widened by cutting the scar tissue with a steel blade mounted on a urethroscope. Urethroplasty is a more invasive surgery to reconstruct the narrowed area. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the profile over 24 mo of a patient-reported outcome measure, the voiding symptom score. The main clinical outcome was time until reintervention. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The primary analysis included 69 (63%) and 90 (81%) of those allocated to urethroplasty and urethrotomy, respectively. The mean difference between the urethroplasty and urethrotomy groups was -0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.74 to 1.02). Fifteen men allocated to urethroplasty needed a reintervention compared with 29 allocated to urethrotomy (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.52 [0.31-0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: In men with recurrent bulbar urethral stricture, both urethroplasty and urethrotomy improved voiding symptoms. The benefit lasted longer for urethroplasty. PATIENT SUMMARY: There was uncertainty about the best treatment for men with recurrent bulbar urethral stricture. We randomised men to receive one of the following two treatment options: urethrotomy and urethroplasty. At the end of the study, both treatments resulted in similar and better symptom scores. However, the urethroplasty group had fewer reinterventions.

Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs) are treated by the NHS each year. Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a commonly used treatment for advanced HNSCC. Approximately 90% of patients undergoing CRT require nutritional support via gastrostomy or nasogastric tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date (at the time of writing), not been compared. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to compare these two options. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a RCT comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy with oral feeding plus as-required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. Patients were recruited from four tertiary centres treating cancer and randomised to the two arms of the study (using a 1 : 1 ratio). The eligibility criteria were patients with advanced-staged HNSCC who were suitable for primary CRT with curative intent and who presented with no swallowing problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the willingness to be randomised. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise. The criteria for progression to a Phase III trial were based on a hypothesised recruitment rate of at least 50%, collection of outcome measures in at least 80% of those recruited and an economic value-of-information analysis for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 75 patients approached about the trial, only 17 consented to be randomised [0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.32]. Among those who were randomised, the compliance rate was high (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). Retention rates were high at completion of treatment (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05), at the 3-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04) and at the 6-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). No serious adverse events were recorded in relation to the trial. The qualitative substudy identified several factors that had an impact on recruitment, many of which are amenable to change. These included organisational factors, changing cancer treatments and patient and clinician preferences. A key reason for the differential recruitment between sites was the degree to which the multidisciplinary team gave a consistent demonstration of equipoise at all patient interactions at which supplementary feeding was discussed. An exploratory economic model generated from published evidence and expert opinion suggests that, over the 6-month model time horizon, pre-treatment gastrostomy tube feeding is not a cost-effective option, although this should be interpreted with caution and we recommend that this should not form the basis for policy. The economic value-of-information analysis indicates that additional research to eliminate uncertainty around model parameters is highly likely to be cost-effective. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The recruitment issues identified for this cohort may not be applicable to other populations undergoing CRT. There remains substantial uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet one of the three criteria for progression, as the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised. Once patients were recruited to the trial, compliance and retention in the trial were both high. The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase the numbers recruited. The economic analysis suggests that further research in this area is likely to be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment. The appropriate research question and design of a future study needs to be identified. More work is needed to understand the experiences of nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48569216. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A feasibility study incorporating a pilot randomised controlled trial of oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy tube versus oral feeding plus as-needed nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing chemoradiation for head and neck cancer (TUBE trial): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There are 7000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC) treated by the NHS each year. Stage III and IV HNSCC can be treated non-surgically by radio therapy (RT) or chemoradiation therapy (CRT). CRT can affect eating and drinking through a range of side effects with 90 % of patients undergoing this treatment requiring nutritional support via gastrostomy (G) or nasogastric (NG) tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date, not been compared to assess which leads to a better patient outcome. The purpose of this study is to explore the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing these two options with particular emphasis on patient willingness to be randomised and clinician willingness to approach eligible patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy versus oral feeding plus as required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. A total of 60 participants will be randomised to the two arms of the study (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome of feasibility is a composite of recruitment (willingness to randomise and be randomised) and retention. A qualitative process evaluation investigating patient, family and friends and staff experiences of trial participation will also be conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise to synthesise available evidence and provide estimates of cost-effectiveness and value of information. Participants will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation), during CRT weekly, 3 months and 6 months. DISCUSSION: Clinicians are in equipoise over the enteral feeding options for patients being treated with CRT. Swallowing outcomes have been identified as a top priority for patients following treatment and this trial would inform a future larger scale RCT in this area to inform best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN48569216.

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy--clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urethral stricture is a common cause of difficulty passing urine in men with prevalence of 0.5 %; about 62,000 men in the UK. The stricture is usually sited in the bulbar part of the urethra causing symptoms such as reduced urine flow. Initial treatment is typically by endoscopic urethrotomy but recurrence occurs in about 60% of men within 2 years. The best treatment for men with recurrent bulbar stricture is uncertain. Repeat endoscopic urethrotomy opens the narrowing but it usually scars up again within 2 years requiring repeated procedures. The alternative of open urethroplasty involves surgically reconstructing the urethra, which may need an oral mucosal graft. It is a specialist procedure with a longer recovery period but may give lower risk of recurrence. In the absence of firm evidence as to which is best, individual men have to trade off the invasiveness and possible benefit of each option. Their preference will be influenced by individual social circumstances, availability of local expertise and clinician guidance. The open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy (OPEN) trial aims to better guide the choice of treatment for men with recurrent urethral strictures by comparing benefit over 2 years in terms of symptom control and need for further treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: OPEN is a pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised trial. Men with recurrent bulbar urethral strictures (at least one previous treatment) will be randomised to undergo endoscopic urethrotomy or open urethroplasty. Participants will be followed for 24 months after randomisation, measuring symptoms, flow rate, the need for re-intervention, health-related quality of life, and costs. The primary clinical outcome is the difference in symptom control over 24 months measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of a validated score. The trial has been powered at 90% with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 0.1 difference in AUC measured on a 0-1 scale. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomised (intention-to-treat). The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A qualitative study will assess willingness to be randomised and hence ability to recruit to the trial. DISCUSSION: The OPEN Trial seeks to clarify relative benefit of the current options for surgical treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture which differ in their invasiveness and resources required. Our feasibility study identified that participation would be limited by patient preference and differing recruitment styles of general and specialist urologists. We formulated and implemented effective strategies to address these issues in particular by inviting participation as close as possible to diagnosis. In addition re-calculation of sample size as recruitment progressed allowed more efficient design given the limited target population and funding constraints. Recruitment is now to target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98009168 Date of registration: 29 November 2012.

Current practice in dental oncology in the U.K.

UNLABELLED: The clinical management of cancer patients, particularly where it affects the head and neck, may result in short- and long-term complications. Specialist management of the dental sequelae of cancer is often recognized nowadays by the term'Dental Oncology' Members of the dental team play a vital role in preventing and promptly managing such complications and all dental professionals should have a sound understanding and knowledge of the oral implications of cancer therapy and their management, and the contribution of this to the patient's quality of life. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article offers the dental team an overview of the impact of cancer therapy and strategies for preventing and managing the oral side-effects of cancer therapy prior to, during, and beyond cancer treatment.