Trade-off between survival and laryngeal preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer: The otorhinolaryngology patient's perspective
ABSTRACT 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.
- SourceAvailable 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 15(1):515. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1523-3 · 3.32 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 · 1.75 Impact Factor
Article: Laryngeal cancer.[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Treatment of laryngeal carcinoma continues to evolve, and whereas there was a transition from total laryngectomy to chemoradiation in response to the Veterans Affairs study and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 91-11, recent data suggest the role of partial laryngectomy must be revisited. Recent data have shown that laryngeal preservation does not equate with laryngeal function. Data are accumulating in support of operative management of advanced laryngeal carcinoma away from chemoradiation for select patients. In particular, supracricoid laryngectomy may be a viable option for intermediate and selected advanced laryngeal carcinoma while maintaining laryngeal function. The evolution of treatment for advanced laryngeal carcinoma is focusing treatment on maintaining locoregional control while also maintaining a functional larynx.Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery 02/2014; DOI:10.1097/MOO.0000000000000032 · 1.39 Impact Factor