Untitled

Abstract

This study evaluated post-treatment performance and quality of life (QOL) outcome in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with organ preservation, intensive chemoradiotherapy (FHX). Participants were 47 Stage II-IV HNC patients with no evidence of disease at least one year post-completion of organ preservation, concomitant FHX treatment. Patients were assessed via a semi-structured in-person interview, standardized measures of QOL (FACT-H&N, CES-D), performance (PSS-HN) and patients' perception of residual side effects. Disease, treatment and toxicity data were retrieved from medical charts and protocol records. The most salient performance impairment was inability to eat a normal solid food diet, with 50% of patients able to eat soft foods or take liquids only. This specific functional deficit was not related to global QOL, nor to specific quality of life dimensions. Dry mouth, the most frequent and severe residual effect, was not associated with outcome diet, depression or QOL. Residual pain, seen in only 15% of patients, appeared to influence both functional and QOL parameters as well as being a marker for other troublesome symptoms. Twenty-three per cent of patients were depressed; depression was associated with past problems related to alcohol abuse. Decreased QOL and increased depressive symptomatology were related to total number and severity of residual effects. The data highlight the importance of systematic study of QOL dimensions and caution against making assumptions about patients' experience of particular disease and treatment sequelae.

Evaluation of the quality of life of patients before treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck by means of chemoradiotherapy

“…Depression and other psychosocial morbidities such as anxiety occurred frequently in head and neck cancer patients before and after treatment [ 20 , 21 ]. These reactions are common because cancer and its treatment have always been associated with the idea of death and suffering.…”

Feasibility and acceptability of combining cognitive behavioural therapy techniques with swallowing therapy in head and neck cancer dysphagia

“…Total HADS scores (HADS-T) ≥ 15 indicate clinically significant distress. Performance Status Scales (PSS) Normalcy of Diet [ 20 ] measures diet texture restrictions and is clinician-rated. The scale has ten ranked categories ranging from 0 (nil by mouth) to 100 (full diet without restrictions).…”

Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Cancer Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Assessment Tool: A Literature Review

“…Of the 33 included studies, only 12 looked at samples with heterogeneous primary cancers [ 6 , 8 , 20 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 - 34 , 37 , 38 ]. Of the 21 studies that looked at patients with only one primary cancer, seven looked at patients with lung cancer [ 12 - 14 , 23 , 25 , 30 , 36 ], four studies observed patients with only head and neck cancers [ 9 , 16 , 24 , 27 ], two looked at only prostate patients [ 7 , 11 ], another two focused on breast patients [ 18 , 21 ], those with only gynecologic cancers were examined in two studies [ 17 , 35 ], one study focused on gastric carcinoma patients[ 19 ], one study analyzed patients with hepatocellular carcinoma [ 15 ], another examined renal cell carcinoma patients [ 22 ] and a further study enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer [ 10 ].…”

“…Two groups were established-group one contained countries which had per capita health expenditures of less than $2,000 US while studies which came from countries with greater than $2,000 US in per capita expenditures were sorted into a second group. Studies from China, India, the Philippines and South Korea were sorted into group one [ 6 , 13 , 15 , 24 , 25 , 35 , 37 ] while articles from the United States, Canada, Sweden, Japan and Australia were sorted into the second group [ 7 - 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 - 23 , 26 - 34 , 36 , 38 ]. It was found that patients from countries with low per capita health expenditures had significantly lower levels of physical well-being (weighted mean: 16.87 versus 19.93; P = 0.0110), social/family well-being (mean: 18.51 versus 22.06; P = 0.0164) and relationship with doctors (mean: 6.60 versus 7.27; P = 0.0111) ( Table 2 ); total FACT-G score (including or excluding the relationship with doctor subscale) was not statistically significant (P = 0.5964, P = 0.1652, respectively).…”