AIMS: To determine the value of routine follow-up in detecting and salvaging recurrence after radical treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and to identify clinical or pathological prognostic factors that predicted for survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was conducted at the Odette Cancer Centre between January 2000 and May 2006. Two hundred and twenty-three patients with advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who were treated with curative intent were reviewed. Recurrences were divided into local, regional or distant recurrences. The detection method for each recurrence was categorised as self or physician detected. A self-detected recurrence arose from symptoms that led to investigations that confirmed a recurrence (even if initiated at the time of a routine visit), whereas a physician-detected recurrence was found during the routine follow-up examination and was asymptomatic. RESULTS: There was no evidence to suggest a significant improvement in disease-free or overall survival in the physician-detected versus patient-detected groups. Regional and distant recurrences were only detected by physicians in one-fifth of cases and, overall, patients self-detected their own recurrence in two-thirds of the cases that experienced disease progression within the sample. Of the 12 clinical/pathological variables considered, only the response to treatment and perineural invasion were associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Current surveillance methods do not appear to improve cancer control in the stage III/IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma population. However, technological advances and biomarker development may lead to surveillance technique enhancements. Also, post-treatment follow-up remains important for the evaluation of treatment results, emotional support and management of late complications. Among the clinical and pathological factors considered, only the treatment response and perineural invasion predicted survival.
AIMS: To determine the value of routine follow-up in detecting and salvaging recurrence after radical treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and to identify clinical or pathological prognostic factors that predicted for survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was conducted at the Odette Cancer Centre between January 2000 and May 2006. Two hundred and twenty-three patients with advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who were treated with curative intent were reviewed. Recurrences were divided into local, regional or distant recurrences. The detection method for each recurrence was categorised as self or physician detected. A self-detected recurrence arose from symptoms that led to investigations that confirmed a recurrence (even if initiated at the time of a routine visit), whereas a physician-detected recurrence was found during the routine follow-up examination and was asymptomatic. RESULTS: There was no evidence to suggest a significant improvement in disease-free or overall survival in the physician-detected versus patient-detected groups. Regional and distant recurrences were only detected by physicians in one-fifth of cases and, overall, patients self-detected their own recurrence in two-thirds of the cases that experienced disease progression within the sample. Of the 12 clinical/pathological variables considered, only the response to treatment and perineural invasion were associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Current surveillance methods do not appear to improve cancer control in the stage III/IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma population. However, technological advances and biomarker development may lead to surveillance technique enhancements. Also, post-treatment follow-up remains important for the evaluation of treatment results, emotional support and management of late complications. Among the clinical and pathological factors considered, only the treatment response and perineural invasion predicted survival.
Authors: Louise Madeleine Risør; Annika Loft; Anne Kiil Berthelsen; Frederik Cornelius Loft; Andreas Ruhvald Madsen; Ivan Richter Vogelius; Andreas Kjær; Jeppe Friborg Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Antoine Digonnet; Marc Hamoir; Guy Andry; Missak Haigentz; Robert P Takes; Carl E Silver; Dana M Hartl; Primož Strojan; Alessandra Rinaldo; Remco de Bree; Andreas Dietz; Vincent Grégoire; Vinidh Paleri; Johannes A Langendijk; Vincent Vander Poorten; Michael L Hinni; Juan P Rodrigo; Carlos Suárez; William M Mendenhall; Jochen A Werner; Eric M Genden; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: S Doumas; J C Paterson; P M Norris; J V Tighe; L Newman; B S Bisase; A E Kolokotronis; A W Barrett Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2014-07-11
Authors: Maria T Brands; Elisabeth A J Smeekens; Robert P Takes; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Andre L M Verbeek; Matthias A W Merkx; Sandra M E Geurts Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Petr Szturz; Carl Van Laer; Christian Simon; Dirk Van Gestel; Jean Bourhis; Jan B Vermorken Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 6.244