COVID-19 impact on anxiety and depression in head and neck cancer patients: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the coronavirus disease 2019 has increased anxiety, depression, and distress levels in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, RT-HNC patients were surveyed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for anxiety and depression and the distress thermometer (DT) for distress. HADS scores were compared with data pre-COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the COVID-19 impact on daily routines, treatment, and cancer care through a questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. The HADS mean score and estimated rates were 4.34 (±4.06)/22% for anxiety and 5.08 (±4.82)/22% for depression; in comparison, our historical control had 4.04 (±3.59)/20% for anxiety (p = .79) and 4.03 (±3.62)/17% for depression (p = .49). Mean DT score was 3.68 (±2.77). Responders were aware of COVID-19, afraid of having medical complications, believed it was life-threatening, did not miss appointments, believed their treatment was not impacted, and felt safe at the hospital amid the pandemic. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that anxiety, depression, and distress levels found in RT-HNC patients did not increase during the pandemic. Patients were afraid of being infected by COVID-19; however, they complied with their cancer treatment.

Prospective Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiation Therapy of 25 Gy in 5 Fractions Compared With 35 Gy in 5 Fractions in the Reirradiation of Recurrent Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to investigate whether reirradiation of recurrent glioblastoma with hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (HSRT) consisting of 35 Gy in 5 fractions (35 Gy/5 fx) compared with 25 Gy in 5 fractions (25 Gy/5 fx) improves outcomes while maintaining acceptable toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a prospective randomized phase 2 trial involving patients with recurrent glioblastoma (per the 2007 and 2016 World Health Organization classification). A minimum interval from first radiation therapy of 5 months and gross tumor volume of 150 cc were required. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive HSRT alone in 25 Gy/5 fx or 35 Gy/5 fx. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). We used a randomized phase 2 screening design with a 2-sided α of 0.15 for the primary endpoint. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2019, 40 patients were randomized and received HSRT, with 20 patients in each group. The median age was 50 years (range, 27-71); a new resection before HSRT was performed in 75% of patients. The median PFS was 4.9 months in the 25 Gy/5 fx group and 5.2 months in the 35 Gy/5 fx group (P = .23). Six-month PFS was similar at 40% (85% CI, 24%-55%) for both groups. The median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months in the 25 Gy/5 fx group and 10 months in the 35 Gy/5 fx group (P = .201). Grade ≥3 necrosis was numerically higher in the 35 Gy/5 fx group (3 [16%] vs 1 [5%]), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .267). In an exploratory analysis, median OS of patients who developed treatment-related necrosis was 14.1 months, and that of patients who did not was 8.7 months (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: HSRT alone with 35 Gy/5 fx was not superior to 25 Gy/5 fx in terms of PFS or OS. Due to a potential increase in the rate of clinically meaningful treatment-related necrosis, we suggest 25 Gy/5 fx as the standard dose in HSRT alone. During follow-up, attention should be given to differentiating tumor progression from potentially manageable complications.

The impact of an educational video about radiotherapy and its toxicities in head and neck cancer patients. Evaluation of patients' understanding, anxiety, depression, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: Head and neck radiotherapy can cause several toxicities, and its management has important treatment implications. Proper information about treatment is crucial to assist patients by preparing them and enhancing their ability to manage their illness. Thus, this study aimed to verify the impact of an educational video on the improvement of the patient's understanding, satisfaction, quality of life, and influence on their emotional state in different moments of treatment. METHODS: A 10 min video about head and neck radiotherapy and its toxicities was produced. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed in two groups: a control group (n = 65), which received standard verbal and written information, and an experimental group (n = 65), which received standard information and the video. Appropriated questionnaires (HADS, UW-QOLv4, IRTU, and Post-RTU) were applied in four different moments in order to evaluate patients' understanding, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. RESULTS: The video improved the understanding of treatment and its side effects. Also, the video group reported better awareness about oral health care during the treatment. Osteoradionecrosis and radiation-related caries were the most unknown side effects. On the other hand, the educational video did not modify the patients' anxiety, depression, and quality of life. All patients reported high satisfaction with the video. CONCLUSIONS: Audiovisual tools may improve patients' understanding of radiotherapy and were shown to be a useful tool when used in association with verbal and written information in cancer centers. In addition, information about osteoradionecrosis and radiation-related caries must be reinforced to patients.

Strategies for communicating oral and oropharyngeal cancer diagnosis: why talk about it?

OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to explore the paradigms of disclosing a cancer diagnosis with a focus on oral and oropharyngeal cancer and patient-related considerations. STUDY DESIGN: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted using the following keywords: oral cancer; mouth lesions; oncology; breaking bad news; truth disclosure; and communication skills training. English and Spanish language studies published through October 2019 were included. RESULTS: The way bad news is conveyed to patients with cancer may affect their comprehension of information, emotional distress, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. Models of communication that are focused on patients' preferences may result in better treatment outcomes. Available protocols, such as SPIKES and ABCDE, have useful recommendations for health care professionals communicating an oral cancer diagnosis. However, it is important to be attentive to the particular information needs of patients. CONCLUSIONS: When communicating a cancer diagnosis, providers should employ validated methods of information delivery and support for oncology patients. Further studies are needed to evaluate the experiences and preferences of patients with oral cancer during these communications.