Post‐Treatment Head and Neck Cancer Care: National Audit and Analysis of Current Practice in the United Kingdom Academic Article uri icon

  •  
  • Overview
  •  
  • Research
  •  
  • Identity
  •  
  • Additional Document Info
  •  
  • View All
  •  

abstract

  • OBJECTIVES: We aimed to audit current United Kingdom (UK) practice of Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) post-treatment surveillance against national guidelines, and determine the outcomes of these practices in detecting recurrence. DESIGN: National cross-sectional study of current HNC surveillance practice. SETTING: UK HNC outpatient departments. PARTICIPANTS: HNC patients reviewed for post-treatment surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Compliance with UK multidisciplinary guidelines, and rates of cancer recurrence detection by time, clinic type and symptoms. RESULTS: Data were analysed from 5,123 consultations across 89 UK centres. 30% of consultations were in dedicated multidisciplinary clinics, with input from Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) available on the day in 23% of all consultations. Recurrence was suspected in 344 consultations and investigated with MRI in 29.6% (n=102) and PET-CT in 14.2% (n=49). Patient education regarding recurrence symptoms, and smoking and alcohol advice, was provided in 20.4%, 6.2%, and 5.3% of cases, respectively. Rates of recurrence detected were 35% in expedited appointments and 5.2% in planned follow-ups (p=0.0001). Of the expedited appointments, 63% were initiated by patients and 37% by clinicians. Recurrence was higher in those with new symptoms (7.1% versus 2.2%). The strongest predictors of recurrence were dyspnoea (positive predictive value (PPV)=16.2%), neck pain (PPV=10.4%) and mouth/throat pain (PPV=9.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated multidisciplinary clinics comprise a minority of consultations for HNC surveillance in the UK, with low availability of AHPs. PET-CT and MRI were underutilised for the investigation of suspected recurrence. There may be scope for greater emphasis on patient education and consequent patient-initiated symptom driven follow-up.

authors

  • Ellis, M
  • Garas, G
  • Hardman, J
  • Khan, M
  • Mehanna, H
  • Smith, ME
  • Tikka, T
  • Ubayasiri, K
  • Williams, R
  • Swords, C
  • Wilson, G
  • Hone, R
  • Siau, R
  • Hampton, T
  • Mclaren, O
  • Fleming, J
  • Biggs, T
  • Fussey, J
  • Farr, M
  • Steven, R
  • Yiannakis, D
  • Adams, J
  • Wright, B
  • Davies, K
  • Dick, D
  • Adams, M
  • Jones, H
  • Myuran, T
  • Goh, S
  • Dowling, M
  • Sinnott, J
  • Hardy, A
  • Halliday, E
  • Virk, J
  • Ahmed, F
  • Walton, Jonathan Mark
  • Beugen, B
  • Hope, N
  • Edmond, M
  • Lau, K
  • Ahmed, T
  • Nair, D
  • Varadharajan, K
  • Lin, D
  • Ferguson, L
  • Mahalingam, S
  • Kamhieh, Y
  • Afiq Slim, M
  • Tornari, T
  • Abdel‐Rahim, A
  • Hutson, K
  • Millington, A
  • Moorhouse, T
  • Farrar, E
  • Doumas, S
  • Kamel, U
  • Coyle, P
  • McAnerney, D
  • Mirza, O
  • Leopard, D
  • Saunders, T
  • McMurran, L
  • Johnstone, L
  • Oremule, T
  • Bates, J
  • Iacovidou, A
  • Upile, N
  • Chessman, R
  • Mcleod, R
  • Milner, T
  • Cheong, R
  • Gaunt, A
  • To, K
  • Tse, A
  • Yap, D
  • Noon, E
  • Cresswell, M
  • Mallick, AS
  • Crookes, W
  • Corner, C
  • Walker, N
  • Ricks, R
  • Healy, S
  • Kendall, W
  • Fragkiadakis, G
  • Conroy, K
  • Pervez, A
  • Caton, N
  • Balakumar, R
  • Smith, C
  • Waters, A
  • Advani, R
  • Shaker, M
  • Schecter, E
  • Liu, ZW
  • Karamali, K
  • Alvi, S
  • Cosway, B
  • Thorley, D
  • Williams, M
  • Bijoor, P
  • Anwar, B
  • Hamilton, N
  • Moghul, G
  • Ansari, S
  • Mahon, N
  • Hey, S
  • Lancer, H
  • Ghedia, R
  • Dewhurst, S
  • Cherko, M
  • Carter, A
  • Pennell, D
  • Al‐Lami, A
  • Timms, S

publication date

  • January 2021