Referrals for head and neck cancer in England and The Netherlands: an international qualitative study of the views of secondary-care surgical specialists

Qualitative study to inform the design and contents of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system for patients referred from primary care on a suspected head and neck cancer diagnostic pathway

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to inform the development of a patient-reported symptom questionnaire for head and neck cancer and outline the requirements for a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system. The study objectives are to explore how clinicians ask questions and decide subsequent steps for patients referred with suspected head and neck cancer; the language patients and clinicians use to describe symptoms; how clinicians reassure and discharge low-risk patients; and identify clinician and patient experiences of the head and neck cancer diagnostic pathway and their views on a novel diagnostic pathway using patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification.

DESIGN

The study employed qualitative methods including observation and recordings of clinic consultations and semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients. Analysis proceeded concurrently with data collection using a rapid qualitative analysis approach.

SETTING

Three acute UK National Health Service Trusts with variation in service delivery models. Data collection took place between April and October 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and fifty-six adults referred for suspected head and neck cancer, and 21 clinicians from different subspecialties were recruited. A subset of recruited patients (n=16) and clinicians (n=13) were interviewed. One observation of a general head and neck clinic was conducted.

RESULTS

The findings highlight types of symptoms and the language used by patients and clinicians to describe these symptoms in clinic consultations. During interviews, patients described the need for in-person support and human clinical decision-making, an accessible system for reporting their symptoms and reassurance regarding the security of patient data. Clinicians discussed the need for risk scores to be sufficiently validated to be trusted, the potential clinical usefulness of a risk score-based system, for example, to support triage by discriminating symptoms, and accessibility for patients. The observation highlighted inconsistent and sometimes unclear referral information and the limited time clinicians have to read referral information.

CONCLUSION

The findings have implications for the development of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system. As well as ensuring patients can understand the language used, it will be important to consider how their emotional needs can be met. The findings also have wider implications for understanding the impact of language on emotionally evocative healthcare interactions.

Value and Quality of Care in Head and Neck Oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The concept of value-based health care (VBHC) was articulated more than a decade ago. However, its clinical implementation remains an on-going process and a particularly demanding one for the domain of head and neck cancer (HNC). These cancers often present with fast growing tumors in functionally and cosmetically sensitive sites and afflict patients with differing circumstances and comorbidity. Moreover, the various treatment modalities and protocols have different effects on functional outcomes. Hence, the interpretation of what constitutes VBHC in head and neck oncology remains challenging.

RECENT FINDINGS

This monograph reviews developments in specific aspects of VBHC for HNC patients, including establishment of registries and quality indices (such as infrastructure, process, and outcome indicators). It emphasizes the importance of the multidisciplinary team, "time to treatment intervals," and adherence to guidelines. The discussion addresses major indicators including survival, quality of life and functional outcomes, and adverse events. Also, strengths and weaknesses of nomograms, prognostic and decision models, and variation of care warrant attention. Health care professionals, together with patients, must properly define quality and relevant outcomes, both for the individual patient as well as the HNC population. It is essential to capture and organize the relevant data so that they can be analyzed and the results used to improve both outcomes and value.

Head and neck cancer risk calculator (HaNC-RC)-V.2. Adjustments and addition of symptoms and social history factors

OBJECTIVES

Head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis through the 2-week wait, urgent suspicion of cancer (USOC) pathway has failed to increase early cancer detection rates in the UK. A head and neck cancer risk calculator (HaNC-RC) has previously been designed to aid referral of high-risk patients to USOC clinics (predictive power: 77%). Our aim was to refine the HaNC-RC to increase its prediction potential.

DESIGN

Following sample size calculation, prospective data collection and statistical analysis of referral criteria and outcomes.

SETTING

Large tertiary care cancer centre in Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

3531 new patients seen in routine, urgent and USOC head and neck (HaN) clinics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data collected were as follows: demographics, social history, presenting symptoms and signs and HNC diagnosis. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were performed to identify significant predictors of HNC. Internal validation was performed using 1000 sample bootstrapping to estimate model diagnostics included the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

The updated version of the risk calculator (HaNC-RC v.2) includes age, gender, unintentional weight loss, smoking, alcohol, positive and negative symptoms and signs of HNC. It has achieved an AUC of 88.6% with two recommended triage referral cut-offs to USOC (cut-off: 7.1%; sensitivity: 85%, specificity: 78.3%) or urgent clinics (cut-off: 2.2%; sensitivity: 97.1%; specificity of 52.9%). This could redistribute cancer detection through USOC clinics from the current 60.9%-85.2%, without affecting total numbers seen in each clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the HaNC-RC v.2 has a significant potential in both identifying patients at high risk of HNC early thought USOC clinics but also improving health service delivery practices by reducing the number of inappropriately urgent referrals.