Trade-off between Survival and Laryngeal Preservation in Advanced Laryngeal Cancer: The Otorhinolaryngology Patient's Perspective
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris Cité, APHP, HEGP, Paris, France. The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology
(Impact Factor: 1.09).
09/2012; 121(9):570-5. DOI: 10.1177/000348941212100902
We performed a prospective study to evaluate, from the patient's perspective, the trade-off between speech and survival that individuals face when given a diagnosis of advanced-stage laryngeal cancer amenable to either total laryngectomy or a laryngeal preservation protocol using chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
Volunteers (309) consecutively seen at the otorhinolaryngology clinic of a university teaching hospital in France completed an anonymous questionnaire designed to determine their position if they faced the diagnosis of an advanced-stage laryngeal cancer. Univariate analysis was performed for potential statistical relationships with various variables.
We found that 12.9% of patients were unable to determine their position regarding the two treatment options offered, and this group had a significant statistical relationship with four variables (age, education, professional status, and history of cancer among relatives). We found that 24.6% of patients made survival their main consideration and would not consider any trade-off. Among the 62.5% who considered the trade-off, the percentage of cure that patients were ready to lose in order to preserve their larynx varied from 5% to 100% (mean, 33%; SD, 23%). Aside from the undecided group, none of the variables analyzed was related either to the decision as to whether to consider a trade-off or to the percentage of c re that patients agreed to trade to preserve their larynx.
In patients with advanced-stage laryngeal cancer, treatment should be initiated only after careful evaluation of the patient's attitude toward both laryngeal preservation and survival.
Available from: Emilie A.C. Dronkers
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Decisions on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatment are widely recognized as being difficult, due to high morbidity, often involving vital functions. Some patients may therefore decline standard, curative treatment. In addition doctors may propose alternative, nonstandard treatments. Little attention is devoted, both in literature and in daily practice, to understanding why and when HNSCC patients or their physicians decline standard, curative treatment modalities. Our objective is to determine factors associated with noncompliance in head and neck cancer treatment for both patients and physicians and to assess the influence of patient compliance on prognosis.
We did a retrospective study based on the medical records of 829 patients with primary HNSCC, who were eligible for curative treatment and referred to our hospital between 2010 and 2012. We analyzed treatment choice and reasons for nonstandard treatment decisions, survival, age, gender, social network, tumor site, cTNM classification, and comorbidity (ACE27). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression methods was performed to determine predictive factors associated with non-standard treatment following physician or patient decision. To gain insight in survival of the different groups of patients, we applied a Cox regression analysis. After checking the proportional hazards assumption for each variable, we adjusted the survival analysis for gender, age, tumor site, tumor stage, comorbidity and a history of having a prior tumor.
17 % of all patients with a primary HNSCC did not receive standard curative treatment, either due to nonstandard treatment advice (10 %) or due to the patient choosing an alternative (7 %). A further 3 % of all patients refused any type of therapy, even though they were considered eligible for curative treatment. Elderliness, single marital status, female gender, high tumor stage and severe comorbidity are predictive factors. Patients declining standard treatment have a lower overall 3-year survival (34 % vs. 70 %).
Predictive factors for nonstandard treatment decisions in head and neck cancer treatment differed between the treating physician and the patient. Patients who received nonstandard treatment had a lower overall 3-year survival. These findings should be taken into account when counselling patients in whom nonstandard treatment is considered.
BMC Cancer 07/2015; 15(1):515. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1523-3 · 3.36 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Management of laryngeal cancer has focused on improving survival while preserving function. Over the past 20 years, the trends have shifted from surgery to chemoradiotherapy and presently we are facing various challenges. It is imperative to re-examine what has happened and what can be done.
Review of the literature along with our experience in the management of functional organ preservation for laryngeal cancer.
There was an increasing use of chemoradiotherapy with a decreasing use of surgery. Inappropriate patient selection along with inability to properly apply salvage surgeries have been presumed to be responsible for survival deterioration in laryngeal cancer. Reports concerning late adverse events after chemoradiotherapy are also increasing. Reconfirmation of the multidisciplinary team approach is imperative. Transoral laser microsurgery can be used for early laryngeal cancer and, in some experienced institutes, for advanced-stage cancers. Supracricoid laryngectomy demonstrated satisfactory oncologic and functional outcomes, based on our experience.
Treatment selection for larynx preservation should not merely be decided by guidelines but considering each patient's individual condition. Head and neck surgeons are encouraged to take reasonable risks in performing salvage larynx preservation surgery when it is the only option to save a functioning larynx.
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 03/2012; 42(3):155-60. DOI:10.1093/jjco/hyr190 · 2.02 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We analyzed the clinical outcomes of 849 laryngeal cancers treated in the past 40 years, which overlapped with the era of the global treatment shift.
To compare the chronological outcomes, patients were divided into four groups according to their registration year as 1972-82, 1983-92, 1993-2002 and 2003-12; treatment trends, larynx preservation rate and overall survival rate were compared.
There were 104, 173, 253 and 319 patients registered in 1972-82, 1983-92, 1993-2002 and 2003-12, respectively. Five-year overall survival rates were 74, 76.5, 75.6 and 82.2% in 1972-82, 1983-92, 1993-2002 and 2003-12, respectively. The five-year larynx preservation rates were 65.5, 75.7, 75.4 and 80.9% in 1972-82, 1983-92, 1993-2002 and 2003-12, respectively.
The number of patients treated at our institute increased, and the overall survival and larynx preservation rates exhibited favorable improvements over the past four decades. In the analysis of nonsurgical options, S1 combined radiotherapy showed superiority over concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy in larynx preservation, and S1 combined radiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy and Tegafur Uracil combined radiotherapy showed superiority over radiotherapy in overall survival. In nonsurgical approaches, proper case selection is the key to success and may be much more important than pursuing radiotherapy dose escalation. In the analysis of surgical options, laser and supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy contributed to larynx preservation in early- and intermediate-stage cancers, respectively. Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy demonstrated overall survival not worse than total laryngectomy, which is the prerequisite treatment basis for larynx preservation options. We must make extra efforts in pursuing an ideal balance between nonsurgical and surgical larynx preservation options.
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2013; 44(1). DOI:10.1093/jjco/hyt162 · 2.02 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.