| Literature DB >> 35681678 |
Inês Leão1,2, Catarina Garcia2,3, Pedro Antunes2,4, Ana Campolargo2,5, Isabel Dias6, Edite Coimbra7, Pedro Oliveira7, Horácio Zenha8, Horácio Costa8, Andreia Capela1,2, Sofia Viamonte2,5, Alberto J Alves2,3, Ana Joaquim1,2.
Abstract
Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment's toxicities impact several health domains. Exercise training (ET) may be beneficial. This prospective observational study (NCT04996147) aimed to analyse the acute impact of HNC curative multimodal treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), nutritional status, physical and cognitive functions, and ET preferences. Eighteen patients with stage III/IV HNC were evaluated at baseline (T0), and 10 patients were evaluated at the end of treatment (T1), 7 of them after radical chemoradiotherapy (rCRT). At T0, the majority referred a good HRQoL on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (median score: 70.8), were moderately malnourished or at risk of malnutrition (78%), recognized the benefits of an ET program, and were willing to participate (78%). After rCRT, there was worsening in HRQoL (75 vs. 50 score, p = 0.014), dysphagia severity (Eating Assessment Tool: 7 vs. 31, p = 0.027; Functional Oral Intake Scale: 6 vs. 4, p = 0.041), handgrip strength (dominant: 40.9 vs. 35.8 kgf, p = 0.027; nondominant: 37.2 vs. 33.9 kgf, p = 0.043), and nutritional status (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment: 7 vs. 18, p = 0.028). HNC patients subjected to radical treatment represent a vulnerable population that might benefit from multimodal supportive care strategies including an ET program.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive function; exercise training; head and neck cancer; nutritional status; physical function; quality of life
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681678 PMCID: PMC9179562 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Consort diagram.
Patients’ baseline sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics (n = 18).
| Characteristic | Total |
|---|---|
| Age in years—median (IQR) | 53.3 (51.8–65.5) |
| Gender, male—n (%) | 18 (100) |
| ECOG-PS—n (%) 0 1 | |
| Marital status—n (%) Single/divorced Married | |
| Education—n (%) ≤Primary education >Primary education | |
| Employment—n (%) Employed Unemployed Retired | |
| Smoking status—n (%) Current Former smoker 1 | |
| Alcohol status—n (%) Never drinker Current drinker Former drinker | |
| Primary tumour location—n (%) Larynx Oral cavity Pharynx | |
| Stage—n (%) III IVA IVB | |
| Treatment—n (%) Induction CT followed by CRT Induction CT followed by surgery ± RT Radical CRT Surgery followed by CRT |
1 Former smoker: previous smoker who quit more than 12 months ago.
Baseline quality of life, physical fitness, dysphagia, nutritional status, and cognitive function (n = 18).
| Characteristic | Total | |
|---|---|---|
| Median | IQR | |
|
| ||
| Global health status | 70.8 | 50.0–83.3 |
|
| ||
| Physical functioning | 86.7 | 73.3–100 |
| Emotional functioning | 75.0 | 66.7–85.4 |
| Cognitive functioning | 91.7 | 83.3–100 |
| Social functioning | 100 | 66.7–100 |
|
| ||
| Fatigue | 11.1 | 8.3–33.3 |
| Pain | 16.7 | 12.5–50.0 |
| Insomnia | 33.3 | 0–41.7 |
| Appetite loss | 0 | 0–33.3 |
| Financial difficulties | 16.7 | 0–66.7 |
|
| ||
| Swallowing | 20.8 | 0–50.0 |
| Dry mouth and sticky saliva | 25.0 | 0–33.3 |
| Body image | 5.6 | 0–22.2 |
| Fear of progression | 16.7 | 16.7–66.7 |
|
| ||
| 6 min walk test (meters) | 434 | 399–533.8 |
| 30 s sit-to-stand test (repetitions) | 13.5 | 12.0–15.5 |
| Isometric handgrip strength (kgf) | ||
| Dominant hand | 38.0 | 34.7–44.0 |
| Nondominant hand | 37.1 | 33.7–41.3 |
| Isometric quadriceps strength (kgf) | ||
| Dominant limb | 31.7 | 20.7–36.5 |
| Nondominant limb | 30.5 | 20.9–35.6 |
|
| ||
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 21.9 | 18.0–25.1 |
| Global Assessment PG-SGA (score) | 12.0 | 7.0–16.0 |
|
| ||
| MoCA (points) | 23 | 20.8–26.3 |
|
| ||
| EAT-10 total score (points) | 7.5 | 1.8–22.3 |
| FOIS score (points) | 5.0 | 5.0–6.0 |
* One patient did not complete baseline nutritional and dysphagia evaluations.
Figure 2Possible benefits of ET program (n = 18).
Figure 3Exercise training preferences at baseline regarding (a) frequency (times/week), (b) duration, and (c) intensity.
Acute impact of CRT on quality of life, physical fitness, nutritional status, dysphagia and cognitive function (n = 7).
| N | Baseline | Post-Treatment | Effect Size | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Global health status | 7 | 75 (66.7–83.3) | 50 (33.3–66.7) | 0.014 1 | 0.657 |
|
| 7 | ||||
| Physical functioning | 86.7 (60–100) | 80 (73.3–86.7) | 0.684 | 0.109 | |
| Emotional functioning | 75 (66.7–83.3) | 77.8 (58.3–83.3) | 1.000 | 0.000 | |
| Cognitive functioning | 100 (83.3–100) | 100 (83.3–100) | 0.414 | 0.218 | |
| Social functioning | 100 (100–100) | 66.7 (66.7–100) | 0.046 1 | 0.567 | |
|
| 7 | ||||
| Fatigue | 11.1 (0–33.3) | 44.4 (33.3–77.8) | 0.026 1 | 0.595 | |
| Pain | 16.7 (16.7–33.3) | 33.3 (33.3–50) | 0.038 1 | 0.553 | |
| Insomnia | 0 (0–33.3) | 66.7 (0–66.7) | 0.063 | 0.496 | |
| Appetite loss | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–33.3) | 0.157 | 0.378 | |
| Financial difficulties | 33.3 (0–66.7) | 66.7 (0–100) | 0.414 | 0.218 | |
|
| |||||
| Swallowing | 6 | 29.2 (0–52.1) | 66.7 (25–72.9) | 0.043 1 | 0.584 |
| Dry mouth and sticky saliva | 6 | 0 (0–33.3) | 66.7 (45.8–87.5) | 0.041 1 | 0.589 |
| Body image | 7 | 0 (0–11.1) | 11.1 (0–55.6) | 0.109 | 0.429 |
| Fear of progression | 7 | 16.7 (16.7–66.7) | 33.3 (16.6–33.3) | 0.785 | 0.073 |
|
| |||||
| 6MWT (meters) | 7 | 486 (412–533) | 422 (362–510) | 0.236 | 0.317 |
| 30 second sit-to-stand test (reps) | 6 | 13 (12–17) | 14 (12–17) | 0.833 | 0.061 |
| Isometric handgrip strength (kgf) | |||||
| Dominant hand | 7 | 39.7 (35.0–50.0) | 35.0 (31.7–39.3) | 0.018 1 | 0.632 |
| Nondominant hand | 7 | 37.2 (33.6–42.5) | 33.9 (34.3–41.2) | 0.043 1 | 0.542 |
| Isometric quadriceps strength (kgf) | |||||
| Dominant limb | 7 | 33.8 (26.3–36.5) | 28.7 (25.7–31.4) | 0.176 | 0.361 |
| Nondominant limb | 7 | 30.8 (22.4–37.0) | 26.2 (19.3–33.4) | 0.237 | 0.316 |
|
| |||||
| BMI (kg/m2) – median (IQR) | 7 | 24.2 (18.1–25.6) | 20.6 (18.6–22.7) | 0.028 1 | 0.587 |
| Body fat (%) – median (IQR) | 6 | 21.1 (11.3–26.4) | 15.3 (11.8–20.3) | 0.046 1 | 0.575 |
| Fat-free mass (kg) – n (%) | 6 | 51.8 (46.0–55.5) | 49.0 (44.1–52) | 0.046 1 | 0.575 |
| Global Assessment PG-SGA | 6 | ||||
| A. Well nourished | 3 (50%) | 0 (0%) | 0.549 | ||
| B. Moderately malnourished or suspected malnutrition | 2 (33.3%) | 1 (16.7%) | |||
| C. Severely malnourished | 1 (16.7%) | 5 (83.3%) | |||
| PG-SGA total score (points) | 6 | 7 (3–13) | 18 (15–23) | 0.028 1 | 0.635 |
|
| |||||
| EAT-10 total score (points) – median (IQR) | 7 | 7 (0–11) | 31 (21–40) | 0.027 1 | 0.590 |
| FOIS score – n (%) | 7 | ||||
| Nothing by mouth | 1 (14.3%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0.203 | ||
| Tube dependent with minimal attempts of food or liquid | 0 (0%) | 1 (14.3%) | |||
| Total oral diet with multiple consistencies, but requiring special preparation or compensations | 2 (28.6%) | 1 (14.3%) | |||
| Total oral diet with multiple consistencies without special preparation, but with specific food limitations | 2 (28.6%) | 2 (28.6%) | |||
| Total oral diet with no restrictions | 2 (28.6%) | 1 (14.3%) | |||
| FOIS total score (points) | 6 | 6 (5–7) | 4 (1–5) | 0.041 1 | 0.545 |
|
| |||||
| MoCA (points) – median (IQR) | 7 | 26 (20–27) | 23 (20–26) | 0.167 | 0.369 |
1 Significant results (p-value < 0.05).