The psychological impact of annual chest X-ray follow-up in head and neck cancer

Patient perspectives on surveillance after head and neck cancer treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines advise post-treatment surveillance of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients should involve scheduled appointments with a variety of practitioners. Increasing numbers of HNC survivors raise the burden to provide efficient and effective care. With resource limitation, there is growing importance to identify how surveillance can be justified and optimised for survivors. This systematic review presents current evidence on patient perspectives of post-treatment HNC surveillance, aiming to inform future work putting patient priorities at the forefront of surveillance planning.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, NIHR Dissemination Centre, The Kings Fund Library, Clinical Evidence, NHS Evidence and NICE Clinical Evidence were searched to identify publications regarding patient perspectives of HNC post-treatment surveillance. Studies not reporting on both surveillance and patient perspectives were excluded.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred fifty-eight citations were screened and 49 full-text articles reviewed. Sixteen studies were included in the final review. Three authors reviewed all articles prior to final analysis to ensure all met inclusion criteria. Most evidence was low quality. Study models returned included cross-sectional surveys, structured interviews and one systematic review. Overall, positive perceptions of HNC surveillance were mostly related to increased reassurance. Negative perceptions predominantly focused on anxiety and fear of recurrence, but a lack of psychological support and inadequate access to certain aspects of care were also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates that patients' perceptions of surveillance after HNC are mostly positive, feeling it provides reassurance. However, several studies report unmet needs, particularly regarding managing anxiety.

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

OBJECTIVES

To identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety ('scanxiety') and interventions to reduce it.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety.

DATA EXTRACTION

Demographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% ('any' anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%-28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions.

Searching for metachronous tumours in patients with head and neck cancer: the ideal protocol!

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As treatment changes in the management of head and neck cancer, patients are reportedly living longer; therefore, their death may be due to comorbidity, metastatic disease or the development of a metachronous second primary tumour (MSPT). This review describes recent developments in the identification of MSPTs of head and neck cancer, oesophagus and lung, and suggests/recommends an 'ideal surveillance protocol'.

RECENT FINDINGS

The rate of MSPT development ranges between 6 and 9% annually for life. Improved accuracy in the detection of mucosal asymptomatic premalignant and early cancer has been enhanced by incorporating fluorescence spectroscopy in addition to modern flexible endoscopic techniques in the outpatient setting. Newer imaging has replaced old techniques (chest radiograph, barium swallow, etc.) by using radiotracer PET-computed tomography to detect local tumour activity. Further advances are anticipated in optical diagnostics and the incorporation of radiopharmaceuticals with labelled antibodies to enhance PET imaging, thus making tumour identification more accurate. Genetic classification of head and neck cancer has already identified high-risk patient groups, thereby allowing expensive tumour screening techniques to be used selectively and specifically. Patients who continue to smoke and abuse alcohol must be helped and encouraged to quit.

SUMMARY

It is now possible to review traditional follow-up policy for treated head and neck cancer patients, to encourage the implementation of an evidence-based surveillance protocol, to identify only patients who are at high-risk of developing a MSPT, to incorporate modern targeted expensive tumour screening and to allow treatment of early cancer and effective treatment, thereby improving patients' quality of life and increasing survival.