Value of routine follow-up for recurrence detection after treatment with curative intent for laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of routine follow-up after treatment of primary laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) remain disputed. Guidelines worldwide are consensus-based, and evidence for specific subgroups is lacking. This study evaluates routine LSCC follow-up including flexible endoscopy for detecting locoregional recurrence (LRR). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 413 LSCC patients treated between 2006 and 2012 was analysed. The cumulative risk of LRR was calculated. Routine follow-up was evaluated by follow-up visit (routine or interval) at which LRR was detected, LRR treatment intent, and overall survival (OS). Analyses were stratified by early (I-II) and advanced (III-IV) TNM-stage. RESULTS: There were 263 (64 %) patients with early-stage and 132 (32 %) patients with advanced-stage LSCC. One-, two- and five-year cumulative risks for LRR after early-stage LSCC were 8 %, 18 %, and 26 %. For advanced-stage LSCC, cumulative risks of LRR were 20 %, 30 %, and 35 %. Of all 69 LRRs after early-stage LSCC, 72 % were routine-detected, 81 % were symptomatic, and 90 % received curative-intent treatment. Of all 45 LRRs following advanced-stage LSCC, 42 % were routine-detected, 84 % were symptomatic, and 62 % received curative-intent treatment. Five-year OS of early-stage LSCC with routine-detected LRR was 70 %, and 72 % for interval-detection (log-rank-p = 0.91). Five-year OS of advanced-stage LSCC with routine-detected LRR was 37 %, and 18 % for interval-detection (log-rank-p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Routine follow-up for detecting asymptomatic recurrences seems redundant for early-stage LSCC. After advanced-stage LSCC, no asymptomatic recurrences were detected beyond one year posttreatment despite regular follow-up. Emphasis should be on other follow-up aspects, such as psychosocial support, especially after one year posttreatment.

Evaluation of a remote monitoring app in head and neck cancer follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: A remote monitoring app was developed for head and neck cancer (HNC) follow-up during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This mixed-methods study provides insight in the usability and patients' experiences with the app to develop recommendations for future use. METHODS: Patients were invited to participate if they were treated for HNC, used the app at least once and were in clinical follow-up. A subset was selected for semi-structured interviews through purposive sampling considering gender and age. This study was conducted between September 2021-May 2022 at a Dutch university medical center. RESULTS: 135 of the 216 invited patients completed the questionnaire, resulting in a total mHealth usability score of 4.72 (± 1.13) out of 7. Thirteen semi-structured interviews revealed 12 barriers and 11 facilitators. Most of them occurred at the level of the app itself. For example, patients received no feedback when all their answers were normal. The app made patients feel more responsible over their follow-up, but could not fulfill the need for personal contact with the attending physician. Patients felt that the app could replace some of the outpatient follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our app is user-friendly, makes patients feel more in control and remote monitoring can reduce the frequency of outpatient follow-up visits. The barriers that emerged must be resolved before the app can be used in regular HNC follow-up. Future studies should investigate the appropriate ratio of remote monitoring to outpatient follow-up visits and the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring in oncology care on a larger scale.

A nationwide study on cancer recurrences, second primary tumours, distant metastases and survival after treatment for primary head and neck cancer in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on the optimal duration of post-treatment follow-up after head and neck cancer (HNC). To generate site-specific input for follow-up guidelines, this study describes the incidence and timing of manifestations of disease during five years of follow-up. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with HNC in the Netherlands in 2015 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The follow-up events local recurrence (LR), regional recurrence (RR), second primary tumour (SPT), distant metastasis (DM) and death were studied per follow-up-year. The cumulative incidence of these events was calculated using competing risk analyses, with LR, RR and SPT of the head and neck (SPHNC) as events and SPT outside the head-neck (SPOHN), DM and death as competing events. Analyses were performed for oral cavity-, oropharynx-, larynx- and hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and all HNC patients. RESULTS: The 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year cumulative incidence of an event (LR, RR, SPHNC) were 10% (95%CI 8-13), 12% (95%CI 10-15), and 13% (95%CI 10-16) for oral cavity SCC; 6% (95%CI 4-9), 10% (95%CI 7-14), and 11% (95%CI 8-15) for oropharynx SCC; 7% (95%CI 5-10), 11% (95%CI 9-15), and 13% (95%CI 10-16) for larynx SCC and 11% (95%CI 6-19), 19% (95%CI 12-27), and 19% (95%CI 12-27) for hypopharynx SCC. CONCLUSIONS: One year of follow-up for oral cavity SCC, and 1.5 years for oropharynx-, larynx-, and hypopharynx SCC suffices for the goal of detecting disease manifestations after treatment. More research into other aspects of follow-up care should be performed to determine the optimal follow-up regimen.

Individualised follow-up for head and neck cancer-design of a prospective cohort study to assess its feasibility.

INTRODUCTION: It is a common practice for many cancer types to monitor patients after treatment to detect new disease manifestations early. For head and neck cancer (HNC), however, long-term routine follow-up is up for debate for several reasons. The benefits of prolonged routine follow-up on survival have not been proven. Also, cancer follow-up is putting increasing pressure on healthcare resources due to rising incidence and survival rates. Therefore, this study investigates a novel follow-up approach among HNC patients, giving them the opportunity to choose their own follow-up programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HNC patients are offered a decision-aided choice between standardised or individualised follow-up after 1.5 years of uncomplicated guideline-prescribed follow-up. Standardised follow-up entails continuing the 5-year guideline-prescribed schedule. Individualised follow-up means the patient only attends the outpatient clinic on their own initiative in case of physical symptoms or supportive care needs. Patients are educated on self-examination and when a control visit is necessary. The primary outcome measure is the feasibility of offering patients this choice. Secondary outcome measures are quality of life, costs, productivity loss and detection of new disease. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We believe that it is essential to let patients determine their follow-up programme based on their own values and preferences. If this choice is feasible, it can be implemented and investigated in other HNC care centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05386225.