Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes Measurement in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

  • Head and Neck Cancers (E Hanna, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Outcomes research is defined as clinical and population-based research that investigates the results of healthcare practices or interventions through the filter of the benefit to the patient and other stakeholders. Outcomes research is an increasingly important field or research, because of the pressing need for evidence-based information that can be used to make better informed health and healthcare decisions, and define desired health care practices in the current era of healthcare reform. This article will review the head and neck cancer (HNCA) outcomes literature published in the past year, with a focus on studies evaluating treatment and survival, short-term and long-term complications, and quality of life (QOL).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Clancy CM, Eisenberg JM. Outcomes Research: Measuring the End Results of Health Care. Science. 1998;282:245–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. “What is outcomes research?” Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/outcomes/outfact/index.html. Accessed November 4, 2013.

  3. Gourin CG, Frick KD. National trends in laryngeal cancer surgery and the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on short-term outcomes and cost of care. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:88–94. This retrospective review of robust NIS data demonstrated a trend towards centralization of larynx cancer surgical care at high-volume hospitals, greater case complexity in cases cared for by high-volume surgeons, and a significant relationship between surgeon volume and short-term outcomes, supporting a trend for centralization of larynx cancer surgical care.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gourin CG, Frick KD. National trends in oropharyngeal cancer surgery and the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on short-term outcomes and cost of care. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:542–51. This retrospective review of robust NIS data demonstrated a trend towards centralization of oropharynx cancer surgical care at high-volume hospitals, greater case complexity in cases cared for by high-volume surgeons, and a significant relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and short-term outcome, supporting a trend for centralization of oropharynx cancer surgical care.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jalisi S, Bearelly S, Abdillahi A, Truong MT. Outcomes in head and neck oncologic surgery at academic medical centers in the United States. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:689–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lassig AA, Joseph AM, Lindgren BR, et al. The effect of treating institution on outcomes in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:1083–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sharma A, Schwartz SM, Mendez E. Hospital volume is associated with survival but not multimodality therapy in Medicare patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:1845–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Subramanian S, Chen A. Treatment patterns and survival among low-income Medicaid patients with head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:489–95. This retrospective review of Medicaid data for two states found racial disparities in access to treatment and survival, and geographic differences in initial treatment and survival.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Genther DJ, Gourin CG. The effect of hospital safety-net burden status on short-term outcomes and cost of care after head and neck cancer surgery. Archives Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138:1015–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hennessey PT, Francis HW, Gourin CG. Is there a “July Effect” for head and neck cancer surgery? Laryngoscope. 2013;123:1889–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kochhar A, Pronovost PJ, Gourin CG. Hospital-acquired conditions in head and neck cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:1660–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chan JY, Semenov YR, Gourin CG. Postoperative urinary tract infection and short-term outcomes and costs in head and neck cancer surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148:602–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Graboyes EM, Liou TN, Kallogjeri D, Nussenbaum B, Diaz JA. Risk factors for unplanned hospital readmission in otolaryngology patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149:562–71. This retrospective study evaluated all otolaryngology admissions to a tertiary care hospital over one year, and found that patients with a new laryngectomy, postoperative complications, cardiac or pulmonary comorbidity, drug use, and discharge to a skilled nursing facility had an increased rate of readmission. These data report important pre-discharge variables that are amenable to targeted quality improvement interventions to reduce the incidence of unplanned hospital readmission.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Semenov YR, Starmer HM, Gourin CG. The effect of pneumonia on short-term outcomes and cost of care after head and neck cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1994–2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hennessey P, Semenov YR, Gourin CG. The effect of deep venous thrombosis on short-term outcomes and cost of care after head and neck surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:2199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. De Leeuw J, van den Berg MG, van Achterberg T, Merkx MA. Supportive care in early rehabilitation for advanced-stage radiated head and neck cancer patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148:625–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shuman AG, Terrel JE, Light E, et al. Predictors of pain among patients with head and neck cancer. Archives Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138:1147–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen AM, Daly ME, Vazquez E, et al. Depression among long-term survivors of head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:885–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lydiatt WM, Bessette D, Schmid KK, Sayles H, Burke WJ. Prevention of depression with escitalopram in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:678–86. This randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial of the use of an antidepressant in HNCA patients before treatment demonstrated a significant risk reduction in the development of depressive symptoms, which in turn was associated with improved QOL.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Amin N, Reddy K, Westerly D, et al. Sparing the larynx and esophageal inlet expedited feeding tube removal in patients with stage III-IV oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:2736–42. This retrospective study demonstrated that the radiation dose delivered to the larynx and esophageal inlet in patients with oropharyngeal SCCA was significantly associated with duration and likelihood of gastrostomy dependence. A dose reduction to the larynx and esophageal inlet of ≤ 60 Gy was associated with a median gastrostomy dependence of 6 months, while a dose to the larynx and esophageal inlet of >60 Gy was associated with a median gastrostromy dependence of 11 months..

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Mamgani A, van Rooij P, Verduijn GM, et al. The impact of treatment modality and radiation technique on outcomes and toxicity of patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Howren MB, Christensen AJ, Karnell LH, Van Liew JR, Funk GF. Influence of pretreatment social support on health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: results form a prospective study. Head Neck. 2013;35:779–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Magnuson JS, Durst J, Rosenthal EL, et al. Increased likelihood of long-term gastrostomy tube dependence in head and neck cancer survivors without partners. Head Neck. 2013;35:420–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. More YI, Tsue TT, Girod DA, et al. Functional swallowing outcomes following transoral robotic surgery vs primary chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage oropharynx and supraglottis cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:43–8. This small prospective study compared functional swallowing as measured by the MDADI in patients with advanced stage HNCA undergoing transoral robotic surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy vs. patients treated with primary chemoradiation alone. Significantly better swallowing scores were seen in the surgical group at 6 months and 12 months following treatment. These data suggest that transoral robotic surgery has a functional advantage over primary nonoperative treatment, even when adjuvant chemoradiation is required, which is useful for informed decision making.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. White H, Ford B, Bush B, et al. Salvage surgery for recurrence cancers of the oropharynx: comparing TORS with standard open surgical approaches. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:773–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brotherston DC, Poon I, Le T, et al. Patient preferences for oropharyngeal cancer treatment de-escalation. Head Neck. 2013;35:151–9. This study evaluated patient preferences in weighing the impact of increased treatment-related toxicity against the improved survival posited by the addition of chemotherapy to radiation. While 80 % of patients stated they would choose to avoid chemotherapy based on their personal experience, 69 % of participants chose chemoradiation if the difference in survival rate between radiation alone and chemoradiation was as small as < 5 %. These data suggest that HNCA patients ultimately prioritize survival over QOL.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Christine G. Gourin declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, and the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University, 601 N. Caroline Street Suite 6260, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Christine G. Gourin

Authors
  1. Christine G. Gourin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine G. Gourin.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Head and Neck Cancers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gourin, C.G. Outcomes Measurement in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 16, 376 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-013-0376-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-013-0376-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation