Health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: Evaluating the rural disadvantage.

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors often experience distress and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impairment. Research suggests that rural cancer patients may have poorer outcomes than urban patients. This study examined whether HNC patient emotional and HRQOL outcomes differ in those living in a rural versus urban location at 6 and 12 months postdiagnosis. METHODS: A total of 261 HNC patients were included from a longitudinal study of HNC outcomes. The majority were diagnosed with advanced stage cancer (51.3%); the most common cancer site was oral cavity (41.0%). Rurality was measured using the US Department of Agriculture Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), general HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and HNC-specific HRQOL using the Head and Neck Cancer Inventory (HNCI). Analyses were 2 (group) × 3 (assessment) repeated measures ANCOVAs, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. FINDINGS: Approximately 45% of the sample lived in a rural location. Follow-up comparisons of significant overall models indicated that rural patients reported significantly more nonsomatic depression symptoms at 6-month follow-up. Rural patients were also more likely to report significantly poorer general mental HRQOL at 12-month follow-up, significantly poorer HNC-specific HRQOL related to eating at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and marginally worse aesthetics at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with suggestions that rural HNC patients may be at heightened risk for depression symptoms and decrements in HRQOL. Patients should be screened and regularly monitored for issues with depression and HNC-specific HRQOL throughout the survivorship period.

Characterizing head and neck cancer survivors' discontinuation of survivorship care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about cancer survivors who discontinue survivorship care. The objective of this study was to characterize patients with head and neck cancer who discontinue survivorship care with their treating institution and identify factors associated with discontinuation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, who received cancer-directed therapy at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC). Eligible patients achieved a cancer-free status after curative-intent treatment and made at least 1 visit 90+ days after treatment completion. The primary outcome was discontinuation of survivorship care, which was defined as a still living survivor who had not returned to a UIHC cancer clinic for twice the expected interval. Demographic and oncologic factors were examined to identify associations with discontinuation. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of the 426 eligible patients (22.8%) discontinued survivorship care at UIHC during the study period. The mean time in follow-up for those who discontinued treatment was 15.4 months. Factors associated with discontinuation of care included an unmarried status (P = .036), a longer driving distance to the facility (P = .0031), and a single-modality cancer treatment (P < .0001). Rurality was not associated with discontinuation (24.3% vs 21.6% for urban residence; P = .52), nor was age, gender, or payor status. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that a sizeable percentage of head and neck cancer survivors discontinue care with their treating institution. Both demographic and oncologic factors were associated with discontinuation at the treating institution, and this points to potential clinical and care delivery interventions.

Post-treatment head and neck cancer survivors' approaches to self-management: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Post-treatment head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors contend with distinct, long-term challenges related to cancer treatments that impact their day-to-day lives. Alongside follow-up cancer care, they also must be responsible for the daily management of often intrusive physical and psychological symptoms, as well as maintaining their health and a lifestyle to promote their well-being. The purpose of this study was to identify HNC survivors' approaches toward engagement in self-management activities. METHODS: Post-treatment HNC survivors (N=22) participated in the study through purposeful sampling. Participants were eligible if they 1) had a history of upper aerodigestive tract cancer; 2) completed their most recent primary treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery) more than eighteen months prior and had no evidence of HNC, and 3) could speak in English. A semi-structured interview was used. Data was analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three approaches that survivors took towards self-management activities: taking charge, living with it, and engaging as needed. Our results showed that taking charge is when survivors take an active role in evaluating their health and taking action subsequently; as needed represents engaging in self-management as necessary; and living with it reflects adapting to the symptoms and side effects without managing them. CONCLUSIONS: We propose self-management approaches as a novel mechanism to understand the relationship between survivors' characteristics and health preferences and their self-management. It is important for clinicians to highlight the variation in individuals 'self-management approaches as they work to identify tailored patient-centered strategies that compliment specific patient needs.

Head and neck cancer survivorship from the patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship is a critical part of head and neck cancer (HNC) care. In order to design better processes, we assessed care provided to long-term HNC survivors and their priorities for ongoing care. METHODS: A survey was provided to HNC survivors at clinic appointments, including our HNC survivorship clinic. Questions focused on priorities for care in the otolaryngology clinic, types of care provided, and opioid use. RESULTS: Of 168 respondents, the most common priority for survivors was surveillance for recurrence (first priority in 75%), with general health the next most common (8%). Few respondents reported active primary care involvement in survivorship. About 10% of patients reported current opioid use. CONCLUSION: Survivors face a large burden of symptoms and deficits, but our data show that most survivors focus on recurrence. Few survivors reported recall of survivorship care plan delivery or discussing cancer care needs with primary care providers.

Attitudes of Clinicians about Screening Head and Neck Cancer Survivors for Lung Cancer Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

OBJECTIVE: National guidelines recommend lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients, including survivors of other tobacco-related cancers like head and neck cancer (HNC). This qualitative study investigated clinicians' practices and attitudes toward LCS with LDCT with patients who have survived HNC, in the context of mandated requirements for shared decision making (SDM) using decision aids. METHODS: Thematic analysis of transcribed semi-structured clinician interviews and focus group. RESULTS: Clinicians recognized LCS' utility for some HNC survivors with smoking histories. However, they identified many challenges to SDM in diverse clinic settings, including time, workflow, uncertainty about guidelines and reimbursement, decision aids, competing patient priorities, unclear evidence, potentially heightened patient receptivity and stress, and the complexity of discussions. They also identified challenges to LCS implementation. CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians feel that LDCT LCS may benefit some HNC survivors, there are barriers both to implementing LCS SDM for these patients in primary care as currently recommended and to integrating it into cancer clinics. Challenges for SDM across settings include a lack of decision aids tailored to patients with cancer histories. Given recommendations to broaden LCS eligibility criteria, more research may be required before refinement of current guidelines.

Survival Outcomes for Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

OBJECTIVES: Survival outcomes for advanced non-melanoma skin cancers of the head and neck treated with surgical resection are not well described in the literature. We aimed to describe outcomes for T3 and T4 cutaneoous squamous cell carcinoma of the head or neck treated with surgical resection at 1 tertiary academic medical center. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with T3 or T4 cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head or neck from 2005 to 2016 treated with definitive surgical resection. Survival outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and multivariate analysis was completed with Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Forty-three patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age at diagnosis was 74.7 years (SD = 10.2), and 34 (79.1%) patients were male. Twelve (27.9%) patients were immunosuppressed. Radical resection, defined as temporal bone resection, orbital exenteration, calvarial resection, mandibulectomy, or maxillectomy, was performed in 25 (58.1%) cases. Final surgical margins were positive in 19 (44.2%) cases. Patients with tumors of the scalp/neck had a 1-year survival probability of 85.7%, and the probability of survival 1 year after a neck dissection was greater than 93%. CONCLUSION: Anatomical subsites, specifically scalp/neck tumors, tended to have worse overall survival. Positive final margins tended to indicate a worse prognosis, and overall survival and recurrence were not significantly different among patients who underwent radical surgical resection compared to soft tissue resection.

The complicated 'Yes': Decision-making processes and receptivity to lung cancer screening among head and neck cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended when offering lung cancer screening (LCS)-which presents challenges with tobacco-related cancer survivors because they were excluded from clinical trials. Our objective was to characterize head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward LCS and SDM. METHODS: Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 HNC survivors, focusing on patients' cancer and smoking history, receptivity to and perceptions of LCS, and decision-making preferences RESULTS: Participants were receptive to LCS, referencing their successful HNC outcomes. They perceived that LCS might reduce uncertainty and emphasized the potential benefits of early diagnosis. Some expressed concern over costs or overdiagnosis, but most minimized potential harms, including false positives and radiation exposure. Participants preferred in-person LCS discussions, often ideally with their cancer specialist. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: HNC survivors may have overly optimistic expectations for LCS, and clinicians need to account for this in SDM discussions. Supporting these patients in making informed decisions will be challenging because we lack clinical data on the potential benefits and harms of LCS for cancer survivors. While some patients prefer discussing LCS with their cancer specialists, the ability of specialists to support high-quality decision making is uncertain.