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.

Direct complications and routine ICU admission after total laryngectomy.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI), patients are admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after total laryngectomy (TL). AIMS/OBJECTIVES: To assess direct complications and the need for ICU admission after TL. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent a TL in the NCI were reviewed on the occurrence of an event requiring ICU treatment within the first 24 hours postoperatively. The predictive value of predetermined risk factors was assessed with multivariable logistic analysis. The optimal threshold of the risk score assigned by the resulting model was determined. RESULTS: An event occurred in 25 of the 113 patients (22%) of which 72% included norepinephrine dependence. Risk analysis showed that patients with either CRT prior to TL or a procedure including pharynx reconstruction, or both, should be indicated for ICU stay. Applying the rule on this cohort, 57 patients (50%) would have been sent to the ward postoperatively of which seven (12%) developed an event requiring ICU treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of the patients developed an event within the first 24 hours after TL. Our risk stratification of patients based on the mentioned risk factors is insufficiently accurate. SIGNIFICANCE: The study provides an overview of direct postoperative complications after TL.

Evaluation of tumor shape variability in head-and-neck cancer patients over the course of radiation therapy using implanted gold markers.

PURPOSE: This study quantifies tumor shape variability in head-and-neck cancer patients during radiation therapy using implanted markers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-seven patients with oropharyngeal tumors treated with (chemo)radiation were included. Helical gold markers (0.35 × 2 mm, 3-10/patient, average 6) were implanted around the tumor. Markers were identified on planning computed tomography (CT) and daily cone beam CT (CBCT). After bony anatomy registration, the daily vector length on CBCT in reference to the planning CT and daily marker movement perpendicular to the gross tumor volume (GTV) surface at planning CT (d(normal)) of each marker were analyzed. Time trends were assessed with linear regression of the (markers). In 2 patients, 2 markers were implanted in normal tissue to evaluate migration by measuring intermarker distances. RESULTS: Marker implantation was feasible without complications. Three-dimensional vectors (4827 measurements, mean 0.23 cm, interquartile ratio 0.24 cm) were highest in base of tongue sublocalization (P<.001) and bulky tumors (vectors exceeded 0.5 cm in 5.7% [0-20 mL], 12.0% [21-40 mL], and 21.7% [≥ 41 mL], respectively [P<.001] of measurements). The measured inward time trend in 11/27 patients correlated with the visual observed marker pattern. In patients with an outward trend (5/27) or no trend (11/27), visual observation showed predominantly an inhomogeneous pattern. Remarkably, in 6 patients, outward marker movement was observed in the posterior pharyngeal wall. The difference in distance between normal tissue markers (1 SD) was 0.05-0.06 cm without time trend, indicating that implanted markers did not migrate. CONCLUSIONS: During head-and-neck radiation therapy, normal tissue markers remained stable. Changes in position of tumor markers depended on sublocalization and tumor volume. Large differences in marker patterns between patients as well as within patients were observed. Based on our study, the cranial and caudal border in the posterior pharyngeal wall are at highest risk to be covered insufficiently. Furthermore, implanted markers could help identify patients with an actual shrinkage of the GTV who might benefit from mid-radiation therapy redelineation to reduce toxicity.