Post-Treatment Head and Neck Cancer Care: National Audit and Analysis of Current Practice in the United Kingdom: National Audit and Analysis of Current Practice in the United Kingdom

  • Matthew Ellis
  • , George Garas
  • , John Hardman
  • , Maha Khan
  • , Hisham Mehanna
  • , Matthew E. Smith
  • , Theofano Tikka
  • , Kishan Ubayasiri
  • , Richard Williams
  • , G. Garas
  • , M. Khan
  • , M. E. Smith
  • , T. Tikka
  • , K. Ubayasiri
  • , R. Williams
  • , C. Swords
  • , G. Wilson
  • , R. Hone
  • , R. Siau
  • , Tom Hampton
  • O. Mclaren, J. Fleming, T. Biggs, J. Fussey, M. Farr, R. Steven, D. Yiannakis, J. Adams, B. Wright, K. Davies, D. Dick, M. Adams, H. Jones, T. Myuran, S. Goh, M. Dowling, J. Sinnott, A. Hardy, E. Halliday, J. Virk, F. Ahmed, J. Walton, B. van Beugen, N. Hope, M. Edmond, K. Lau, T. Ahmed, D. Nair, K. Varadharajan, D. Lin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to audit current United Kingdom (UK) practice of Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) post-treatment surveillance against national guidelines and determine the outcomes of these practices in detecting recurrence. Design: National cross-sectional study of current HNC surveillance practice. Setting: UK HNC outpatient departments. Participants: HNC patients reviewed for post-treatment surveillance. Main outcome measures: Compliance with UK multidisciplinary guidelines and rates of cancer recurrence detection by time, clinic type and symptoms. Results: Data were analysed from 5,123 consultations across 89 UK centres. 30% of consultations were in dedicated multidisciplinary clinics, with input from allied health professionals (AHPs) available on the day in 23% of all consultations. Recurrence was suspected in 344 consultations and investigated with MRI in 29.6% (n = 102) and PET-CT in 14.2% (n = 49). Patient education regarding recurrence symptoms, and smoking and alcohol advice, was provided in 20.4%, 6.2% and 5.3% of cases, respectively. Rates of recurrence detected were 35% in expedited appointments and 5.2% in planned follow-ups (P =.0001). Of the expedited appointments, 63% were initiated by patients and 37% by clinicians. Recurrence was higher in those with new symptoms (7.1% versus 2.2%). The strongest predictors of recurrence were dyspnoea (positive predictive value (PPV)=16.2%), neck pain (PPV = 10.4%) and mouth/throat pain (PPV = 9.2%). Conclusions: Dedicated multidisciplinary clinics comprise a minority of consultations for HNC surveillance in the UK, with low availability of AHPs. PET-CT and MRI were underutilised for the investigation of suspected recurrence. There may be scope for greater emphasis on patient education and consequent patient-initiated symptom-driven follow-up.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)284-294
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Otolaryngology
Volume46
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2021

Keywords

  • audit
  • cancer
  • guidelines
  • head and neck
  • recurrence
  • surveillance
  • treatment

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Post-Treatment Head and Neck Cancer Care: National Audit and Analysis of Current Practice in the United Kingdom: National Audit and Analysis of Current Practice in the United Kingdom'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this