Adolescent Awareness of Risk Factors Associated with Head and Neck Cancer vs Lung Cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 120 (S4) ◽  
pp. S170-S170
Author(s):  
A.G Nugent ◽  
C.E Moore
2006 ◽  
Vol 132 (8) ◽  
pp. 874
Author(s):  
M. Schultzel ◽  
G. Robins-Sadler ◽  
K. L. Clark ◽  
M. Loscalzo ◽  
R. Weisman ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 121 (6) ◽  
pp. 511-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
B J Folz ◽  
A Ferlito ◽  
N Weir ◽  
L W Pratt ◽  
A Rinaldo ◽  
...  

Introduction: The illnesses of celebrity patients always receive more attention from the general public than those of ordinary patients. With regard to cancer, this fact has helped to spread information about the four major malignancies: breast cancer, prostatic cancer, lung cancer and colorectal cancer. Head and neck cancer, on the other hand, is still not well recognised by the lay public, although the risk factors are similar to those of lung cancer. It was the objective of this analysis to identify cases of celebrity patients, the description of which could help to increase awareness of head and neck cancer, its symptoms and risk factors.Methods: The Internet and medical literature databases were searched for celebrity patients who had suffered from head and neck cancer.Results: The search revealed numerous famous head and neck cancer patients. However, only seven cases were documented well in the medical literature. Among the identified persons were one emperor, two United States presidents, a legendary composer, a world-renowned medical doctor, an outstanding athlete and an extraordinary entertainer. In spite of their exclusive position in society, these patients did not have a better prognosis compared with ordinary patients of their time. Only two of the group experienced long term survival and only one was cured. None of these influential figures used their influence to fund research or to promote knowledge about their respective diseases.Conclusion: The identified cases could help increase public awareness of head and neck cancer. Similar to activities in other oncologic fields, current celebrity head and neck cancer patients should be encouraged to discuss their diseases openly, which could have a positive effect on public health.


Head & Neck ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 2571-2580
Author(s):  
Yumiko Kawashita ◽  
Shimpei Morimoto ◽  
Kensuke Tashiro ◽  
Sakiko Soutome ◽  
Masako Yoshimatsu ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukinori Takenaka ◽  
Toshimichi Yasui ◽  
Keisuke Enomoto ◽  
Haruka Miyabe ◽  
Natsue Morizane ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 223-223
Author(s):  
Navika Shukla ◽  
Anirudh Saraswathula ◽  
Saad A. Khan ◽  
Vasu Divi

223 Background: Despite the recent introduction of the CMS metric, OP-35, which tracks 30-day inpatient admissions and ED visits after outpatient chemotherapy administration, the risk factors driving acute care utilization (ACU) in the head and neck cancer treatment setting are not yet well understood. Further characterization of these risk factors could allow for improved care quality and reduce preventable inpatient and ED admissions. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked cancer registry-claims database. The study cohort consisted of patients aged 66 years or older diagnosed with head and neck cancer between 2004-2015 who received outpatient chemotherapy within the first two years after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was utilized to characterize the risk factors associated with an inpatient or ED admission within 30 days after receiving chemotherapy. Results: Of the 2,236 eligible patients, 735 (32.9%) had at least one inpatient or ED admission within 30 days of receiving outpatient chemotherapy. On multivariable analysis, cancer of the oral cavity [odds ratio (OR) 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.96] and oropharynx/hypopharynx [OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.06-1.70] were associated with an increased odds of ACU. Other factors associated with ACU included NCI comorbidity index [OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.18], prior ACU [OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.09], second cycle of chemotherapy relative to the first cycle [OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29-0.50], and third or greater cycle of chemotherapy [OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.13-0.21]. Certain chemotherapeutic agents also modified risk: use of an angiogenesis inhibitor [OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.45], alkylating agent [OR 1.24; 95% 1.01-1.53], plant alkaloid [OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.25-2.10], or antimetabolite [OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.78-4.09]. The most common admission diagnosis was pain (n = 243; 33.1%) followed by dehydration (n = 167; 22.7%). Conclusions: Multiple clinical variables modify risk of acute care utilization after outpatient chemotherapy in the head and neck cancer setting, providing several potential avenues of intervention for providers.


Author(s):  
Jagtar Singh ◽  
Ramya Ramamoorthi ◽  
Siddhartha Baxi ◽  
Rama` Jayaraj ◽  
Mahiban Thomas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document