Can head and neck cancer patients be discharged after three years?

2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (10) ◽  
pp. 991-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Kumar ◽  
G Putnam ◽  
P Dyson ◽  
A K Robson
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Time To Recurrence ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Uk

AbstractBackground:Follow-up surveillance of head and neck cancer patients varies throughout the UK. The heterogeneity of these patients limits the applicability of a standardised protocol. Improvements in our understanding of the natural history of the disease may assist in the tailoring of resources to patients.Method:Prospective data collected at the Cumberland Infirmary over a 13-year period were analysed, primarily focusing upon recurrence rates and time to recurrence.Results:In keeping with other studies, recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma was found to be maximal within the first three years of treatment, regardless of subsite.Conclusion:Hospital-based surveillance may be safely discontinued after three years for some patients. Laryngeal carcinoma may require further surveillance due to possible delayed recurrence of a second primary formation. Emphasis must be placed on patient education, accessibility to head and neck services, and the existence of a robust system to facilitate urgent referrals.

scholarly journals Follow-up after treatment for head and neck cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (S2) ◽  
pp. S208-S211 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Simo ◽  
J Homer ◽  
P Clarke ◽  
K Mackenzie ◽  
V Paleri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Narrow Band Imaging ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Allied Health Professionals ◽  
Lateral Skull Base ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThis is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. In the absence of high-level evidence base for follow-up practices, the duration and frequency are often at the discretion of local centres. By reviewing the existing literature and collating experience from varying practices across the UK, this paper provides recommendations on the work up and management of lateral skull base cancer based on the existing evidence base for this rare condition.Recommendations• Patients should be followed up to a minimum of five years with a prolonged follow-up for selected patients. (G)• Patients should be followed up at least two monthly in the first two years and three to six monthly in the subsequent years. (G)• Patients should be seen in dedicated multidisciplinary head and neck oncology clinics. (G)• Patients should be followed up by dedicated multidisciplinary clinical teams. (G)• The multidisciplinary follow-up team should include clinical nurse specialists, speech and language therapists, dietitians and other allied health professionals in the role of key workers. (G)• Clinical assessment should include adequate clinical examination including fibre-optic rigid or flexible nasopharyngolaryngoscopy. (R)• Magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography imaging should be used when recurrence is suspected. (R)• Narrow band imaging can be used in the follow-up in selected sites. (R)• Second primary tumours should be part of rationale of follow-up and therefore adequate screening strategies should be used to detect them. (G)• Patients should be educated with regard to the appearance and detection of recurrences. (G)• Patients with persistent pain should be investigated to exclude recurrent disease. (R)• Patients should be offered support with tobacco and alcohol cessation services. (R)

Current Trends in the Follow-up of Head and Neck Cancer Patients in the UK

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Joshi ◽  
F. Calman ◽  
M. O'Connell ◽  
J.-P. Jeannon ◽  
P. Pracy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
The Uk

Follow-up of head and neck cancer patients post-radiotherapy

2003 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
William P. O'Meara ◽  
Jon K. Thiringer ◽  
Peter A.S. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer

A comparative study of the response and toxicities in locally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with paclitaxel, cisplatinum, 5-FU versus docetaxel, cisplatinum, 5-FU as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6089-6089
Author(s):  
Diptirani Samanta ◽  
Surendra nath Senapati ◽  
Kirti Ranjan Mohanty ◽  
Saroj Das
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Concurrent Chemoradiation ◽  
Advanced Head ◽  
Grade Ii

6089 Background: To evaluate the response and toxicity of docetaxel, cisplatinum, 5-FU vs paclitaxel, cisplatinum, 5-FU as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CTRT) with weekly cisplatinum in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Methods: 40 locally advanced head and neck cancer patients who satisfied the eligibility criteria were randomized.21 patients received three cycles of NACT i.e paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) on d1, cisplatinum (30 mg/m2) and 5-FU (600 mg/m2) d2-d4 (TCF) and 19 patients received three cycles of NACT docetaxel (75 mg/m2) on d1, cisplatinum (30 mg/m2) and 5-FU (600 mg/m2) d2-d4 at three week intervals, followed by concurrent weekly cisplatinum 30 mg/m2 along with conventional external beam radiation of total tumor dose dose 66 Gy. Response was assessed after NACT and again after six weeks, three months and six months of completion of chemoradiation. Toxicities were assessed after each cycles of NACT and also weekly during CTRT and thereafter. Results: Two weeks after completion of NACT complete response (CR) in TCF was 4.76%, partial response (PR) 80.9% and no response 9.5%. However in DCF, CR was 15.78 % PR was 73.68%. 10.52% patientd died due to toxicity. With a median follow up of seven months, in TCF CR was 57.14%, PR 33.33% and no response was 4.76%, whereas in DCF CR was 78.94%, PR 10.52% and death 10.5%. On evaluation of toxicities during NACT, patients in DCF had more significant neutropenia and in TCF more incidence of neuropathy. During CTRT, in TCF grade II and III mucositis was 54%, grade II neutropenia 5.6%, and grade II anemia 5.3%. In DCF mucositis grade II and III was 49.0%, neutropenia grade II 18.7% and anemia grade II was 7.4%. Late toxicities included were comparable in both arms. Conclusions: With a median follow up of 7 months, the CR in DCF was 78.94%, superior than TCF i.e 57.14%. Neutropenia was significant in DCF and neuropathy was high in TCF. In CTRT mucositis was the commonest toxicity observed in both TCF and DCF which was not statistically significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document