Quality of life and health-related utility after trans-oral surgery for head and neck cancers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess utility coefficients of health states following two minimally invasive surgical approaches for head and neck cancer, namely trans-oral robotic surgery and trans-oral laser microsurgery. Those utility coefficients will be later exploited in an economic evaluation study comparing the two approaches. METHODS: The above cited economic evaluation will be done from the Swiss healthcare system perspective and, as such, Swiss healthcare professionals were interviewed to elicit utility coefficients. Health states, ranging from remission to palliative care, were described using clinical vignettes. A computerized tool (UceWeb) implementing standard gamble and rating scale methods was used. RESULTS: Utility coefficients for 18 different health states were elicited with the two methods from 47 individuals, for a total of 1692 values. Elicited values varied from 0.980 to 0.213. Comparison with values elicited in previous studies show the need for population-specific elicitation, mainly for the worst health states. CONCLUSION: Herein we report health utility coefficients for the Swiss population for health states following minimally invasive trans-oral surgery. This study provides utility values that can be used not only for a specific cost-utility analysis, but also for future studies involving the same health states.

Cost-utility of two minimally-invasive surgical techniques for operable oropharyngeal cancer: transoral robotic surgery versus transoral laser microsurgery.

BACKGROUND: In the past few decades, a re-evaluation of treatment paradigms of head and neck cancers with a desire to spare patients the treatment-related toxicities of open surgery, has led to the development of new minimally invasive surgical techniques to improve outcomes. Besides Transoral Laser Microsurgery (TLM), a new robotic surgical technique namely Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) emerged for the first time as one of the two most prominent and widely used minimally invasive surgical approaches particularly for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer, a sub-entity of head and neck cancers. Recent population-level data suggest equivalent tumor control, but different total costs, and need for adjuvant chemoradiation. A comparative analysis of these two techniques is therefore warranted from the cost-utility (C/U) point of view. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis for comparing TORS and TLM was performed using a decision-analytical model. The analyses adopted the perspective of a Swiss hospital. Two tertiary referral centers in Lausanne and Zurich provided data for model quantificantion. RESULTS: In the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS. This advantage remains robust, even if the costs for TORS reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment, whereby in an interval between 55 and 62% cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a revision of surgical margins renders TORS more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Non-robotic endoscopic surgery (TLM) is more cost-effective than robotic endoscopic surgery (TORS) for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancers. However, this advantage is sensitive to various parameters, i.e.to the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment.

Second primary squamous cell carcinomas treated with trans oral robotic surgery: Oncological and functional results.

Background: Recovery of swallowing in patients treated with trans-oral robotic surgery (TORS) is in general considered as favorable. However, patients afflicted with a secondary primary carcinoma of the head and neck may be more vulnerable to swallowing dysfunctions after trans-oral surgery as a consequence of previous treatments. Methods: This is a retrospective monocentric study on patients undergoing TORS for second primary squamous cell carcinoma between 2013 and 2017 (follow-up until June 2021). Swallowing performance was assessed via the functional outcome swallowing scale (FOSS). Also, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were evaluated. Results: Eighteen patients (median 62 years) underwent TORS with curative intent for T1-2 oropharyngeal and supraglottic secondary primaries. The average follow-up was of 52 months. All cases were resected R0 using TORS. 84% of patients had a post-treatment FOSS score equal or better upon last follow-up compared with pre-treatment. Only one patient required a percutaneous gastrostomy long term. DSS/DFS/OS at 5 years was 94%, 60%, and 67%, respectively. The main cause of death was metachronous pulmonary neoplasia. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates encouraging results in terms of swallowing recovery in patients undergoing TORS for selected secondary primaries of the oropharynx and supraglottic larynx. Further studies into trans-oral surgery for this condition seem therefore warranted. Level of Evidence: Case series; Level 4.