Outcomes of head and neck cancer management from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the approach and outcomes from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Data collection was performed on a retrospective cohort of patients surgically treated for primary HNC between March and May 2020, using data from two tertiary hospitals: the European Institute of Oncology (Milan) and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London). RESULTS: We included 77 patients with HNC. More patients with COVID-19 were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and had Clavien-Dindo Classification grade I compared to negative patients, respectively (60% vs 22% [p = 0.058] and 40% vs 8% [p = 0.025]). Multivariate logistic regression analyses confirmed our data (p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Sex and age were statistically significantly different (p = 0.05 and <0.001 respectively), showing more male patients (75% vs 53.66%, respectively) and more elderly patients in Italy than in the United Kingdom (patients aged >63 years: 69.44% vs 29.27%). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a large cohort of patients with HNC with nasopharyngeal swab during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Patients with HNC with COVID-19 appeared more likely to develop postsurgical complications and to be taking ACE inhibitors. The preventive measures adopted guaranteed the continuation of therapeutic surgical intervention.

Does a personalized approach improve patient satisfaction in thoracic oncology?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' quality of life (QOL) at admission to permit definition and implementation of a personalized plan of multidimensional care. METHODS: In 2007, patients hospitalized for more than 24 hours at the Thoracic Surgery Department of a tertiary referral cancer center received QOL assessment at admission by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and LC13. Patients were asked to anonymously express their satisfaction with care at discharge by using the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. During the second part of the study (July-December 2007), specific interventions were proposed in critical areas identified by the questionnaires. RESULTS: During 2007, 898 patients completed QOL assessment at admission and 805 patients anonymously expressed their satisfaction with care at discharge. Overall patient satisfaction significantly improved in the second part of the study (85.4 +/- 16.7 vs 91.9 +/- 13.1; P = .009). The most significant improvement was recorded in nurses' information provision (67.7 +/- 24.1 vs 80.2 +/- 20.2; P = .0014) and availability (70.4 +/- 22.8 vs 84.3 +/- 19.2; P <.001). Surprisingly, the third-ranking improvement was recorded for the hospital access scale, which was the item with the lowest score in both periods and for which no specific modification occurred during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a simple and reliable evaluation of QOL at admission contributed to improved quality of administered care. This approach permits focused management of ongoing problems, close cooperation between caregivers, and a more flexible response to patient needs.