Search

Abstract Background A primary goal in transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) survivors is to optimize swallowing function. However, the uncertainty in the outcomes of TORS including postoperative residual positive margin (PM) and extranodal extension (ENE), may necessitate adjuvant therapy, which may cause significant swallowing toxicity to survivors. Methods A secondary analysis was performed on a prospective registry data with low‐ to intermediate‐risk human papillomavirus–related OPSCC possibly resectable by TORS. Decision trees were developed to model the uncertainties in TORS compared with definitive radiation therapy (RT) and chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Swallowing toxicities were measured by Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST), MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Head and Neck (MDASI‐HN) instruments. The likelihoods of PM/ENE were varied to determine the thresholds within which each therapy remains optimal. Results Compared with RT, TORS resulted in inferior swallowing function for moderate likelihoods of PM/ENE (>60% in short term for all instruments, >75% in long term for DIGEST and MDASI) leaving RT as the optimal treatment. Compared with CRT, TORS remained the optimal therapy based on MDADI and MDASI but showed inferior swallowing outcomes based on DIGEST for moderate‐to‐high likelihoods of PM/ENE (>75% for short‐term and >40% for long‐term outcomes). Conclusion In the absence of reliable estimation of postoperative PM/ENE concurrent with significant postoperative PM, the overall toxicity level in OPSCC patients undergoing TORS with adjuvant therapy may become more severe compared with patients receiving nonsurgical treatments thus advocating definitive (C)RT protocols.

Abstract Background Given the potential for older patients to experience exaggerated toxicity and symptoms, this study was performed to characterize patient reported outcomes in older patients following definitive radiation therapy (RT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Methods Cancer-free head and neck cancer survivors (>6 months since treatment completion) were eligible for participation in a questionnaire-based study. Participants completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Those patients ≥65 years old at treatment for OPC with definitive RT were included. Individual and overall symptom severity and clinical variables were analyzed. Results Of the 79 participants analyzed, 82% were male, 95% white, 41% T3/4 disease, 39% RT alone, 27% induction chemotherapy, 52% concurrent, and 18% both, and 96% IMRT. Median age at RT was 71 yrs. (range: 65–85); median time from RT to MDASI-HN was 46 mos. (2/3 > 24 mos.). The top 5 MDASI-HN items rated most severe in terms of mean (±SD) ratings (0–10 scale) were dry mouth (3.48 ± 2.95), taste (2.81 ± 3.29), swallowing (2.59 ± 2.96), mucus in mouth/throat (2.04 ± 2.68), and choking (1.30 ± 2.38) reported at moderate-severe levels (≥5) by 35, 29, 29, 18, and 13%, respectively. Thirty-nine % reported none (0) or no more than mild (1–4) symptoms across all 22 MDASI-HN symptoms items, and 38% had at least one item rated as severe (≥7). Hierarchical cluster analysis resulted in 3 patient groups: 1) ~65% with ranging from none to moderate symptom burden, 2) ~35% with moderate-severe ratings for a subset of classically RT-related symptoms (e.g. dry mouth, mucus, swallowing) and 3) 2 pts. with severe ratings of most items. Conclusions The overall long-term symptom burden seen in this older OPC cohort treated with modern standard therapy was largely favorable, yet a higher symptom group (~35%) with a distinct pattern of mostly local and classically RT-related symptoms was identified.

Abstract In the original publication [1] the name of author Jeremy M. Aymard was spelled wrong. The original article was updated to rectify this error.

Background: Two patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of swallowing and their correlation to quality of life (QOL) were compared in long-term survivors of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC).Methods: Scores on the single dysphagia item from the 28-item, multisymptom MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN-S) were compared with scores on the dysphagia-specific composite MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) and the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) in 714 patients who had received definitive radiotherapy ≥12 months before the survey. An MDASI-HN-S score ≥6 and an MDADI composite score <60 were considered representative of moderate/severe swallowing dysfunction.Results: Moderate/severe dysphagia was reported by 17% and 16% of respondents on the MDASI-HN-S and the composite MDADI, respectively. Both swallow PROs were predictive of QOL, and the MDASI-HN-S model was slightly more parsimonious for the discrimination of EQ-VAS scores compared with MDADI scores (Bayesian information criteria, 6062 vs 6076, respectively). An MDASI-HN-S cutoff score of ≥6 correlated best with a declining EQ-VAS score (P < .0001) and was associated with increased radiotherapy dose to several normal swallowing structures.Conclusions: In this cohort, the single-item MDASI-HN-S performed favorably for the discrimination of QOL compared with the multi-item MDADI. A time-efficient model for PRO measurement of swallowing is proposed in which the MDADI may be reserved for patients who score ≥6 on the MDASI-HN-S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence and severity of late oral morbidities in disease-free oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) survivors using patient reported outcomes.Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional survivorship survey of patients who completed definitive treatment for oropharyngeal carcinoma  > 12-months previously without evidence of recurrence, second primary malignancy, or distant metastasis after index cancer. Using MD Anderson Symptom Inventory- Head and Neck Module (MDASI-HN), scores for 4 self-reported oral morbidities: dry mouth, mucus secretions, mouth and throat sores, and teeth and gum issues were evaluated.Results: Among 906 survey respondents (57% response rate), (median survival time: 7 years), "dry mouth" and "problems with my mucus" were reported moderate/severe (MDASI-HN item score ≥5) in 39% and 22% of respondents, while 14% reported moderate/severe "problems with teeth and gums". Smoking at the time of survey was significantly associated with the severity of oral symptoms including "mucus" (p = 0.03), "dry mouth" (p = 0.02), "problems with my teeth and gums" (p = 0.001). All the oral morbidities symptom items significantly, positively correlated with the mean interference scores reflecting adverse impact to quality of life (QOL): "mucus" (r = 0.445, p < 0.001), "problems with teeth" (r = 0.446, p < 0.001), "mouth sores" (r = 0.321, p < 0.001) and "dry mouth" (r = 0.459, p < 0.001).Conclusion: This study showed that 45.5% reported at least one late oral morbidity at moderate/severe level which negatively correlated overall function, even years after treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is an essential component of quality palliative care that requires expert communication skills. Nurses are often the health care provider patients and families rely on when exploring their values and preferences and making treatment decisions. Therefore, communication and ACP was one of the 3 areas of practice addressed during the Palliative Nursing Summit. This article summarizes patient outcomes and nursing actions recommended by summit participants related to communication and ACP. Areas addressed included education, clinical care, research, and policy/regulation. Recommended patient outcomes included the honoring of patient/family preferences and the inclusion of ACP discussions during routine care and across the life span. Recommended nursing actions included the following: (1) nursing education (both undergraduates and practicing nurses) and competencies related to communication and ACP be developed and implemented; (2) primary palliative care, including communication and ACP, be included in the practice standards of all nursing specialties; (3) health care systems support conversations about ACP and related documentation; (4) research be conducted related to the implementation of patient/family preferences and related health care utilization; and (5) regulation and reimbursement be crafted to support nursing practice related to ACP and related conversations at the nurses' full level of expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]