ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Living in regional/rural areas can impact outcomes for people with head and neck cancer (HNC). Using a comprehensive state-wide dataset, the impact of remoteness on key service parameters and outcomes for people with HNC was examined. METHODS: Retrospective quantitative analysis of routinely collected data held within the Queensland Oncology Repository. DESIGN: Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic regression and geospatial analysis). SETTING: All people diagnosed with HNC in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: The impact of remoteness was examined in 1991 people (1171 metropolitan, 485 inner-regional, 335 rural) with HNC cancer diagnosed between 2013 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This paper reports key demographics and tumour characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, First Nations status, co-morbidities, primary tumour site and staging), service use/uptake (treatment rates, attendance at multidisciplinary team review and timing to treatment) and post-acute outcomes (readmission rates, causes of readmission and 2-year survival). In addition to this, the distribution of people with HNC across QLD, distances travelled and patterns of readmission were also analysed. RESULTS: Regression analysis revealed remoteness significantly (p < 0.001) impacted access to MDT review, receiving treatment, and time to treatment commencement, but not readmission or 2-year survival. Reasons for readmission did not differ by remoteness, with dysphagia, nutritional inadequacies, gastrointestinal disorders and fluid imbalance indicated in the majority of readmissions. Rural people were significantly (p < 0.0001) more likely to travel to care and to readmit to a different facility than provided primary treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new insights into the health care disparities for people with HNC residing in regional/rural areas.
Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Australia , Queensland/epidemiology , ComorbidityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: People with head and neck cancer (HNC) have complex health care needs; however, limited evidence exists regarding the nature or patterns of service access and use. This study explored the post-discharge health care needs and experiences of individuals with HNC from metropolitan and rural areas. METHODS: Health care appointments and services accessed by people with HNC were collated for 6-month post-treatment. Data analysis of the whole cohort examined patterns of access while journey mapping integrated participants' experiences of recovery. RESULTS: The 6-month service access journey was mapped for 11 people. Rural participants attended a significantly greater number of appointments (p = 0.012), higher canceled/missed appointments (p = 0.013), and saw more professionals (p = 0.007). Rural participants reported higher stress and burden due to service access barriers and unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple challenges and inequities exist for rural people with HNC. Findings inform opportunities to enhance the post-treatment recovery of people with HNC in rural areas.
Subject(s)
Aftercare , Head and Neck Neoplasms , Delivery of Health Care , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Patient DischargeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether isotretinoin (or 13-cis-retinoic acid) decreases the risk of second primary cancers in patients previously treated for cure of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Two head and neck multidisciplinary cancer clinics in university teaching hospitals taking cases from 4 to 5 million people in Queensland, Australia, combined to enter appropriate patients into this trial. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty-one patients with their first head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with high expectation for cure and living close by. They were randomized into 3 arms to receive 3 years of treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Patients took isotretinoin at a high dose (1.0 mg/kg per day) or a moderate dose (0.5 mg/kg per day) or placebo. Group 1 took the high dose for 1 year and then the moderate dose for 2 years. Group 2 took the moderate dose for 3 years. Group 3 took placebo for 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The diagnosis of a second primary malignancy of the head and neck, lung, or bladder was regarded as the end point signifying failure of therapy. Issues of drug adverse effect profile and impact on survival were measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the occurrence of second primary disease (P = .90), the recurrence of primary disease (P = .70), or disease-free time (P = .80) between the treatment and nontreatment arms. Numbers were too small to find differences in survival. CONCLUSION: With evidence that retinoid treatment adversely affects survival of lung cancer and with this drug not significantly decreasing the incidence of second primary tumors of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, the use of this drug in head and neck cancer patients for second cancer prophylaxis is not indicated.
Subject(s)
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/prevention & control , Neoplasms, Second Primary/drug therapy , Neoplasms, Second Primary/prevention & control , Retinoids/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Adult , Aged , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/mortality , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/pathology , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/therapy , Chemoprevention/methods , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/mortality , Head and Neck Neoplasms/pathology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/mortality , Neoplasm Staging , Neoplasms, Second Primary/mortality , New South Wales , Poisson Distribution , Probability , Proportional Hazards Models , Risk Assessment , Survival Analysis , Treatment FailureABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The vast majority of cases of epistaxis can be managed successfully within general practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe a range of clinical interventions in the management of epistaxis appropriate to general practice. DISCUSSION: A number of relatively simple treatments and procedures may provide relief for anterior nasal bleeding, which is the site for over 80% of cases of epistaxis. Where more procedural interventions are necessary, adequate preparation and appropriate tools are required to perform these processes safely. Initial identification of the site of bleeding before commencement of treatment may be difficult but allows the correct treatment to be applied with minimal discomfort to the patient. More copious bleeding which constitutes less than 5-10% of cases, is usually the result of posterior nasal bleeding and is best treated in a facility well set up to handle such an eventuality. In cases of chronic epistaxis, a number of interventions, medical and surgical have been trialled with variable success, and should be used with caution in general practice.