Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret in Head and Neck Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Head and neck cancer (HNC) often requires treatment with a major impact on quality of life. Treatment decision-making is often challenging, as it involves balancing survival against the preservation of quality of life and choosing among treatments with comparable outcomes but variation in morbidity and adverse events; consequently, the potential for decisional conflict (DC) and decision regret (DR) is high. Objectives: To summarize the literature on DC and DR in HNC, to give an overview of its prevalence and extent, and to advise on clinical practice and future research. Data Sources: Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 24, 2023, including all years of publication. Study Selection: Eligible studies addressed DC and/or DR as primary or secondary outcomes with any instrument in HNC, except cutaneous tumors. Two mutually blinded researchers conducted screening and inclusion with support of an artificial intelligence assistant and conducted risk of bias (ROB) assessment. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for data extraction. ROB assessments were done using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) and CLARITY (quantitative). Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to obtain pooled prevalence estimates for DC and DR when at least 4 sufficiently clinically homogeneous studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of DC (qualitative, Decisional Conflict Scale, SURE questionnaire) and DR (qualitative, study-specific questionnaires, Decision Regret Scale, Shame and Stigma Scale). Results: Overall, 28 studies were included, with 16 included in meta-analyses for DR prevalence. The pooled prevalence of clinically relevant DR above the cutoff score for validated questionnaires (11 studies; 2053 participants) was 71% (95% CI, 58%-82%; I2 = 94%), while for study-specific questionnaires (5 studies; 674 participants) it was 11% (95% CI, 5%-22%; I2 = 92%). Only 4 studies investigated DC, showing a prevalence of 22.6% to 47.5% above cutoff values. Derived overarching themes found in qualitative studies were preparation, shared decision-making roles, information, time pressure, stress of diagnosis, and consequences. Conclusions and Relevance: Although limited data on DC and DR were available, the studies performed indicated that DC and DR are highly prevalent issues in HNC. Results suggest that study-specific questionnaires underestimated DR. The findings underscore the rationale to improve counseling and shared decision-making for this patient population.

National Improvement of Waiting Times: First Results From the Dutch Head and Neck Audit.

OBJECTIVE: Timely treatment initiation in head and neck cancer (HNC) care is of great importance regarding survival, oncological, functional, and psychological outcomes. Therefore, waiting times are assessed in the Dutch Head and Neck Audit (DHNA). This audit aims to assess and improve the quality of care through feedback and benchmarking. For this study, we examined how waiting times evolved since the start of the DHNA. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: National multicentre study. METHODS: The DHNA was established in 2014 and reached national coverage of all patients treated for primary HNC in 2019. DHNA data on curative patients from 2015 to 2021 was extracted on national (benchmark) and hospital level. We determined 3 measures for waiting time: (1) the care pathway interval (CPI, first visit to start treatment), (2) the time to treatment interval (TTI, biopsy to start treatment), and (3) CPI-/TTI-indicators (percentage of patients starting treatment ≤30 days). The Dutch national quality norm for the CPI-indicator is 80%. RESULTS: The benchmark median CPI and TTI improved between 2015 and 2021 from 37 to 26 days and 37 to 33 days, respectively. Correspondingly, the CPI- and TTI-indicators, respectively, increased from 39% to 64% and 35% to 40% in 2015 to 2021. Outcomes for all hospitals improved and dispersion between hospitals declined. Four hospitals exceeded the 80% quality norm in 2021. CONCLUSION: Waiting times improved gradually over time, with 4 hospitals exceeding the quality standard in 2021. On the hospital-level, process improvement plans have been initiated. Systematic registration, auditing, and feedback of data support the improvement of quality of care.

Hearing Outcome After Linear Accelerator-Based Radiotherapy for Vestibular Schwannomas: A Retrospective Analysis of a Single Center.

OBJECTIVE: To report our results on hearing preservation after linear accelerator (LINAC)-based stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas (VS) in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: All patients who presented with VS in our center between 2010 and 2018 and who were treated with LINAC-based radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Pure tone average and speech discrimination score represented hearing outcome, pre- and postradiotherapy. A Gardner-Robertson grade I or II hearing represented functional hearing. RESULTS: In total, 35 patients were treated with LINAC-based radiotherapy. Median age was 55 years (range 18-86 years), 22 (63%) were female. Sixteen patients had a Koos grade III or IV tumor. Twenty-four patients were treated with radiosurgery (1 or 5 fractions; stereotactic radiosurgery), and eleven patients were treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years (range 1.8-8.4 years). In 34 patients, hearing was assessed pre- and post-radiotherapy. In seventeen patients, hearing remained stable. In eleven patients, a decrease in GR scale was observed, of which seven patients showed a decrease from a functional to a non-functional level (4 GR III, 2 GR IV, and 1 GR V). Tumor control was 95% (34/35), and except for hearing loss, all post-radiation complications and morbidity were transient. CONCLUSION: These data emphasize that although the rate of tumor control (the primary goal of radiotherapeutic treatment) is high, it is important to adequately manage patients' expectations regarding the outcomes of the secondary possibly positive outcome; hearing preservation.