Assessing and improving quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer

Cancer-associated financial burden in German head and neck cancer patients

Background

The financial toxicity of cancer causes higher morbidity and mortality. As the financial burden due to head and neck cancer (HNC) in European healthcare systems with legally established compulsory health insurance is still poorly understood, we set up an investigation to assess the financial impact of HNC.

Methods

Between August 2022 and March 2023, HNC consecutive patients (n = 209) attending the cancer aftercare program of a university hospital in an outpatient setting were surveyed utilizing self-administered questionnaires about their socioeconomic situation, income loss, and out-of-pocket payments (OOPPs).

Results

The majority of HNC patients (n = 119, 59.5%) reported significant financial burden as a consequence of OOPP (n = 100, 50.0%) and/or income loss (n = 51, 25.5%). HNC patients reporting financial burden due to OOPP had on average 1,716 € per year costs related to their disease, whereas patients reporting an income loss had a mean monthly income loss of 620.53 €. Advanced UICC (7th edition, 2017) stage, T3 or T4 category, and larynx/hypopharynx cancer are significant predictors of financial burden.

Conclusion

HNC survivors suffer from significant financial burden after HNC treatment, even in Germany with a healthcare system with statutory health insurance. The findings from this study offer valuable insights for healthcare professionals and policymakers, helping them acknowledge the economic impact of HNC.

Quality of life following treatment with intra-arterial cisplatin with concurrent radiation and erlotinib for locally advanced head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVES

Studies that focus on the feasibility of using erlotinib plus chemoradiation to treat locally advanced head and neck cancer have given hints of improved survival outcomes compared to chemoradiation alone. However, the influence of this treatment regimen on the quality of life of the patients has not been documented. We conducted a study of this triple combination and now have documented follow-up survival data as well as long-term quality of life (QoL) measures.

METHODS

Three sets of QoL questionnaires were given to patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer at two time points, pre- and post-treatment, to assess differences in quality of life after receiving chemotherapy with intra-arterial (IA) cisplatin (150 mg/m2), concomitant radiation (70 Gy), and oral erlotinib (150 mg/day). Additionally, patients were followed for a total of 5 years.

RESULTS

Treatment had a detrimental effect on appearance, taste, and saliva domain scores in their QoL questionnaires. Nonetheless, fewer patients reported pain and anxiety.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The combination of erlotinib with chemoradiation produced similar adverse effects on the QoL scores of patients with head and neck cancer as compared to chemoradiation alone.

Understanding Financial Toxicity in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background

Cancer treatment often results in financial burdens for patients including healthcare costs as well as treatment-induced disability leading to "financial toxicity" (FT) and decreased quality of life. The purpose of this review is to describe FT related to head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment, including quantifications of direct and indirect costs and descriptions of measurement tools.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify articles published before April 2022. Full-text published studies were included if they assessed direct or indirect costs of HNC treatment; studies were excluded if they did not focus on HNC or financial burden. The risk of bias was assessed, and the results of the studies were synthesized.

Results

Database searches yielded 530 unique studies, and 33 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Medical expenses for patients with HNC were higher than for patients with other cancers or controls in several studies. Major surgical procedures, neck dissection, free-flap reconstruction, and intensive care unit admission increased hospital costs. Trimodal therapy with surgery plus chemoradiation represented the most expensive treatment, and chemoradiation increased complication-related health care costs. In several studies, >50% of patients treated for HNC were disabled and did not return to work. One of the greatest contributors to the indirect cost of HNC treatment is the loss of lifetime wages. Patients with HNC are at risk for depression, anxiety, and social isolation, which are linked to a decreased quality of life and treatment non-adherence. The only tools used to assess FT in patients with HNC are the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) and the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT).

Conclusion

Financial toxicity is highly prevalent among patients with HNC. Further research is needed to validate the assessment tools for quantifying FT in HNC patients.

Relating person-centredness to quality-of-life assessments and patient-reported outcomes in healthcare: A critical theoretical discussion

Engagement with the historical and theoretical underpinnings of measuring quality of life (QoL) and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in healthcare is important. Ideas and values that shape such practices—and in the endgame, people's lives—might otherwise remain unexamined, be taken for granted or even essentialized. Our aim is to explicate and theoretically discuss the philosophical tenets underlying the practices of QoL assessment and PRO measurement in relation to the notion of person‐centredness. First, we engage with the late‐modern history of the concept of QoL and the act of assessing and measuring it. Working with the historical method of genealogy, we describe the development of both QoL assessments and PRO measures (PROMs) within healthcare by accounting for the contextual conditions for their possibility. In this way, the historical and philosophical underpinnings of these measurement practices are highlighted. We move on to analyse theoretical and philosophical underpinnings regarding the use of PROMs and QoL assessments in clinical practice, as demonstrated in review studies thereof. Finally, we offer a critical analysis regarding the state of theory in the literature and conclude that, although improved person‐centredness is an implied driver of QoL assessments and PROMs in clinical practice, enhanced theoretical underpinning of the development of QoL assessments is called for.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer: Results From a Prospective, Real-World Data Study With Brazilian Patients Treated With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, Conformal and Conventional Radiation Techniques

PURPOSE

To compare global health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and overall survival (OS) in patients with head and neck cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) or conventional radiation therapy (2DRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this real-world, multi-institutional and prospective study, HRQoL outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Head and Neck 43 (H&N43) questionnaires. Item response theory was used to generate a global HRQoL score, based on the 71 questions from both forms. The effect of treatment modality on HRQoL was studied using multivariate regression analyses. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meyer method, and groups were compared by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Five hundred and seventy patients from 13 institutions were included. Median follow-up was 12.2 months. Concerning the radiation technique, 29.5% of the patients were treated with 2DRT, 43.7% received 3DCRT, and 26.8% were treated with IMRT. A higher proportion of patients receiving 2DRT had a treatment interruption of more than 5 days (69% vs 50.2% for 3DCRT and 42.5% for IMRT). IMRT had a statistically significant positive effect on HRQoL compared with 3DCRT (β= 2.627, standard error = 0.804, P = .001) and 2DRT had a statistically significant negative effect compared with 3DCRT (β= -5.075, standard error = 0.926, P < .001). Patients receiving 2DRT presented a worse OS (P = .01). There were no differences in OS when IMRT was compared with 3DCRT.

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT provided better HRQoL than 3DCRT, which provided better HRQoL than 2DRT. Patients receiving 2DRT presented a worse OS, which might be related to more frequent treatment interruptions.