Search

Background Few cancers pose greater challenges than head and neck (H&N) cancer. Residual effects following treatment include body image changes, pain, fatigue and difficulties with appetite, swallowing and speech. Depression is a common comorbidity. There is limited evidence about ways to assist patients to achieve optimal adjustment after completion of treatment. In this study, we aim to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of a model of survivorship care to improve the quality of life of patients who have completed treatment for H&N cancer. Methods/Design This is a preliminary study in which 120 patients will be recruited. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the H&N Cancer Survivor Self-management Care Plan (HNCP) involving pre- and post-intervention assessments will be used. Consecutive patients who have completed a defined treatment protocol for H&N cancer will be recruited from two large cancer services and randomly allocated to one of three study arms: (1) usual care, (2) information in the form of a written resource or (3) the HNCP delivered by an oncology nurse who has participated in manual-based training and skill development in patient selfmanagement support. The trained nurses will meet patients in a face-to-face interview lasting up to 60 minutes to develop an individualised HNCP, based on principles of chronic disease self-management. Participants will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome measure is quality of life. The secondary outcome measures include mood, self-efficacy and health-care utilisation. The feasibility of implementing this intervention in routine clinical care will be assessed through semistructured interviews with participating nurses, managers and administrators. Interviews with patients who received the HNCP will explore their perceptions of the HNCP, including factors that assisted them in achieving behavioural change. Discussion In this study, we aim to improve the quality of life of a patient population with unique needs by means of a tailored self-management care plan developed upon completion of treatment. Delivery of the intervention by trained oncology nurses is likely to be acceptable to patients and, if successful, will be a model of care that can be implemented for diverse patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with head and neck cancer are at high risk of malnutrition and dysphagia. Enteral tube feeding via a gastrostomy or nasogastric tube is often required in response to dysphagia, odynophagia or side effects of treatment that lead to dehydration and/or weight-loss. A recent systematic review concluded that the optimal method of tube feeding remains unclear; however prophylactic gastrostomy, placed in anticipation of its use during and after treatment, is common practice, following a number of demonstrated benefits. However the majority of these studies have been undertaken in patients receiving radiotherapy alone. More recent studies in patient populations receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy are showing that despite prophylactic gastrostomy placement significant weight loss still occurs, placing the patient at risk of the consequences of malnutrition. Therefore we set out to investigate innovative prophylactic nutrition support via the gastrostomy to optimise the nutritional outcomes of patients with head and neck cancer. Methods/design Patients with head and neck cancer will be eligible for this single centre randomised controlled trial if they are identified for referral for a prophylactic gastrostomy using local guidelines. Patients will be excluded if they are: under the age of eighteen; pregnant; unable to give informed consent; or severely malnourished or moderately malnourished with significant dysphagia requiring a liquid or puree diet. All eligible patients who consent for the study will be allocated randomly to either the intervention or control group (usual care). The intervention group will commence prophylactic supplementary nutrition support via the gastrostomy immediately following placement compared to usual care where nutrition support is commenced via the gastrostomy when clinically indicated during treatment. Key outcome measures will be percentage weight loss, body composition, nutritional status and quality of life, measured at baseline and three months post treatment. Discussion To our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of early prophylactic tube feeding compared to commencement of feeding during treatment, as per current standard practice, in patients undergoing prophylactic gastrostomy prior to treatment for head and neck cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has previously been difficult as they are resistant to conventional chemotherapy and radiation. The development of imatinib mesylate has made a major impact on the management of advanced GISTs. It is apparent that there are sanctuary sites such as the central nervous system where imatinib does not achieve adequate concentrations. We describe the case of a man with metastatic GIST who experienced multiple cerebral relapses of disease while systemic disease progression appeared to be controlled by imatinib. Case presentation: A 47-year-old man presented in July 1999 with a jejunal GIST with multiple hepatic metastases. The jejunal primary was resected and after unsuccessful cytoreductive chemotherapy, the liver metastases were also resected in December 1999. The patient subsequently relapsed in August 2001 with symptomatic hepatic, subcutaneous gluteal, left choroidal and right ocular metastases all confirmed on CT and PET scanning. Biopsy confirmed recurrent GIST. MRI and lumbar puncture excluded central nervous system involvement. The patient was commenced on imatinib 400 mg bd in September 2001 through a clinical trial. The symptoms improved with objective PET and CT scan response until December 2002 when the patient developed a right-sided foot drop. MRI scan showed a left parasagittal tumor which was resected and confirmed histologically to be metastatic GIST. Imatinib was ceased pre-operatively due to the trial protocol but recommenced in February 2003 on a compassionate use program. The left parasagittal metastasis recurred and required subsequent re-excision in September 2003 and January 2004. Control of the systemic GIST was temporarily lost on reduction of the dose of imatinib (due to limited drug supply) but on increasing the dose back to 800 mg per day, systemic disease was stabilized for a period of time before generalised progression occurred. Conclusion: This case illustrates that the brain can be a sanctuary site to treatment of GISTs with imatinib. Maintaining dosing of imatinib in the face of isolated sites of disease progression is also important, as other metastatic sites may still be sensitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]