Costs Associated With Imaging Surveillance After Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends imaging within 6 months after treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC). Further imaging is recommended only if the patient has symptoms or abnormal findings on physical examination. However, in many instances, asymptomatic patients continue to have imaging evaluations. Objectives: To assess practice patterns in surveillance imaging in patients with HNC and evaluate the costs associated with these imaging practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-institution retrospective economic evaluation study screened 435 patients to identify patients newly diagnosed with head and neck mucosal and salivary gland malignant tumors between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Data analyses were performed from October 25, 2018, to November 24, 2020. Exposure: Imaging practice patterns. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and costs of imaging studies during the surveillance period for all patients, patients who remained disease free, and patients who developed recurrence. Results: A total of 136 patients (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 62 [14] years; 84 [61.8%] male; 106 [77.9%] White) with HNC were included in the study. The oropharynx was the most common subsite (64 [47.1%]), most HNCs were stage IVA (62 [45.6%]), and most patients received definitive radiation-based treatment (71 [52.2%]). During the median surveillance period of 3.2 years (range, 0.3-6.8 years), a mean (SD) of 14 (10) imaging studies were performed for all patients, with a mean (SD) total cost of $36 800 ($24 500). In patients who remained disease free, a mean (SD) of 13 (10) imaging studies were performed during the surveillance period, with a mean (SD) total cost of $35 000 ($21 700). Patients who lacked symptoms had a mean (SD) of 4 (3) studies performed per year, resulting in a mean cost of $9600 ($5900) per year. Patients who developed recurrence had more studies per year of follow-up (mean difference, 5.0; 95% CI, 3.4-6.6) and higher associated mean costs (mean difference, $10 600; 95% CI, $6100-$15 000) than patients who remained disease free. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation study, many patients treated for HNCs received imaging studies beyond what is recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. These findings suggest that the cost burden of imaging in the asymptomatic patient needs to be considered against the value obtained from routine imaging in this current health care environment.

Sialendoscopy for Patients with Radioiodine-Induced Sialadenitis and Xerostomia.

BACKGROUND: We examined outcomes in patients treated for radioactive iodine-induced sialadenitis (RAIS) and xerostomia with sialendoscopy. METHODS: Data was prospectively collected for all patients undergoing sialendoscopy for RAIS from a single institution. Interventional details and intraoperative findings were recorded. Qualitative data were obtained through patient examination, telephone interviews, and use of a standard quality of life questionnaire, Xerostomia Questionnaire. Quantitative data were obtained from patients who underwent sialometry. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (24 women and 2 men; median age, 43 years; age range, 19-57 years) underwent interventional sialendoscopy after conservative management of symptoms proved unsuccessful. Sialadenitis was present in 25 patients and xerostomia in 22 patients. Mucus plugging in the duct of the gland was the most common finding (22 patients) followed by stenosis (18 patients), inflammation (eight patients), and erythema (eight patients). Median follow-up time was 23.4±12.1 months. Sixteen patients (64%) reported complete resolution; seven (28%), partial resolution; one (4%), no change in symptoms; and one (4%), regression in RAIS-related symptoms. Patients subjectively noted the following regarding their xerostomia symptoms: seven (31.8%) had complete resolution; 10 (45.5%), partial resolution; four (18.2%), no change; and one (4.5%), regression. Statistical analysis of the available sialometry data revealed a statistically significant difference in saliva production at 6 months following sialendoscopy for unstimulated saliva production (p=0.028). CONCLUSION: Sialendoscopy is an effective treatment option for the management of RAIS and xerostomia refractory to conservative therapy and medical management. Patients in our cohort report durable improvement in symptoms after intervention.