Michel C van Harten1, Mischa de Ridder1, Olga Hamming-Vrieze2, Ludi E Smeele3, Alfons J M Balm3, Michiel W M van den Brekel4. 1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.vd.brekel@nki.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The increasing volume of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients can lead to longer intervals between histopathological diagnosis and primary treatment. This could cause psychological distress to the patient, but more importantly could possibly lead to tumor progression and decreased survival. Accordingly, this study investigates these relationships. METHODS: The correlation of professional delay and clinical characteristics of 2493 patients, treated between 1990 and 2011 with oral, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal and laryngeal SCC, was investigated. Patients were divided in two groups based on treatment delay, defined as the interval between histopathological diagnosis and initial treatment. Univariate and multivariate proportional hazards models were used to assess disease specific survival (DSS) and disease free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Year of diagnosis, tumor site and therapy were significantly related to treatment delay. Tumor stage was not related to treatment delay. Multivariate regression models revealed that the group with a delay of more than 30 days had a better DSS (HR .838, CI .697-.922, p=.041) and DFS (HR .816, CI .702-.947), p=.007) than the group treated within 30 days. CONCLUSION: In our study, treatment delay up to 90 days is not related to impaired survival. This argument can be used extremely cautiously to comfort patients who have to wait several weeks for treatment. Although, possible tumor progression during treatment delay could have led to increased morbidity subsequent to more extensive treatment. Also, possible negative psychological impact of delay in treatment should not be underestimated.
OBJECTIVE: The increasing volume of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients can lead to longer intervals between histopathological diagnosis and primary treatment. This could cause psychological distress to the patient, but more importantly could possibly lead to tumor progression and decreased survival. Accordingly, this study investigates these relationships. METHODS: The correlation of professional delay and clinical characteristics of 2493 patients, treated between 1990 and 2011 with oral, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal and laryngeal SCC, was investigated. Patients were divided in two groups based on treatment delay, defined as the interval between histopathological diagnosis and initial treatment. Univariate and multivariate proportional hazards models were used to assess disease specific survival (DSS) and disease free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Year of diagnosis, tumor site and therapy were significantly related to treatment delay. Tumor stage was not related to treatment delay. Multivariate regression models revealed that the group with a delay of more than 30 days had a better DSS (HR .838, CI .697-.922, p=.041) and DFS (HR .816, CI .702-.947), p=.007) than the group treated within 30 days. CONCLUSION: In our study, treatment delay up to 90 days is not related to impaired survival. This argument can be used extremely cautiously to comfort patients who have to wait several weeks for treatment. Although, possible tumor progression during treatment delay could have led to increased morbidity subsequent to more extensive treatment. Also, possible negative psychological impact of delay in treatment should not be underestimated.
Authors: Luke H DeGraaff; Alexis J Platek; Austin J Iovoli; Kimberly E Wooten; Hassan Arshad; Vishal Gupta; Ryan P McSpadden; Moni Abraham Kuriakose; Wesley L Hicks; Mary E Platek; Anurag K Singh Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Sonam Sharma; Justin Bekelman; Alexander Lin; J Nicholas Lukens; Benjamin R Roman; Nandita Mitra; Samuel Swisher-McClure Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Frederico Omar Gleber-Netto; Maha Yakob; Feng Li; Ziding Feng; Jianliang Dai; Huang-Kai Kao; Yu-Liang Chang; Kai-Ping Chang; David T W Wong Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Allen S Ho; Sungjin Kim; Mourad Tighiouart; Alain Mita; Kevin S Scher; Joel B Epstein; Anna Laury; Ravi Prasad; Nabilah Ali; Chrysanta Patio; Jon Mallen-St Clair; Zachary S Zumsteg Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Merijn Eskes; Alfons J M Balm; Maarten J A van Alphen; Ludi E Smeele; Ian Stavness; Ferdinand van der Heijden Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.924