No abstract

Oncological care was largely derailed due to the reprioritisation of health care services to handle the initial surge of COVID-19 patients adequately. Cancer screening programmes were no exception in this reprioritisation. They were temporarily halted in the Netherlands (1) to alleviate the pressure on health care services overwhelmed by the upsurge of COVID-19 patients, (2) to reallocate staff and personal protective equipment to support critical COVID-19 care, and (3) to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Utilising data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry on provisional cancer diagnoses between 6 January 2020 and 4 October 2020, we assessed the impact of the temporary halt of national population screening programmes on the diagnosis of breast and colorectal cancer in the Netherlands. A dynamic harmonic regression model with ARIMA error components was applied to assess the observed versus expected number of cancer diagnoses per calendar week. Fewer diagnoses of breast and colorectal cancer were objectified amid the early stages of the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands. This effect was most pronounced among the age groups eligible for cancer screening programmes, especially in breast cancer (age group 50–74 years). Encouragingly enough, the observed number of diagnoses ultimately reached and virtually remained at the level of the expected values. This finding, which emerged earlier in age groups not invited for cancer screening programmes, comes on account of the decreased demand for critical COVID-19 care since early April 2020, which, in turn, paved the way forward to resume screening programmes and a broad range of non-critical health care services, albeit with limited operating and workforce capacity. Collectively, transient changes in health-seeking behaviour, referral practices, and cancer screening programmes amid the early stages of the initial COVID-19 epidemic in the Netherlands conjointly acted as an accelerant for fewer breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses in age groups eligible for cancer screening programmes. Forthcoming research is warranted to assess whether the decreased diagnostic scrutiny of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in stage migration and altered clinical management, as well as poorer outcomes.

Postoperative radiotherapy and maxillary or mandibular tumor involvement are the highest contributing risk factors to decreasing MMO and the subsequent development of trismus after oral cancer treatment.

No abstract

The clinical course of SC is favorable with a low rate of locoregional recurrence and excellent survival. Given the low incidence of nodal metastases, elective neck treatment, i.e. surgery and/or radiotherapy, does not seem to be indicated.

Background Chewing ability is often compromised in patients with oral cancer. The aim of this study was to identify which factors affect masticatory performance in these patients. Methods Patients with primary oral cancer were assessed for up to 5 years after primary treatment. Healthy controls were assessed once. A mixed‐model analysis was performed, with masticatory performance as outcome measure. Results A total of 123 patients were included in the study. Factors positively associated with masticatory performance were number of occlusal units (OU), having functional dentures, and maximum mouth opening (MMO). The impact of tumor location and maximum bite force (MBF) differed per assessment moment. Masticatory performance declined for up to 1 year but recovered at 5 years after treatment. Conclusion Masticatory performance in patients treated for oral cancer is affected by MBF, MMO, number of OU, and dental status. These should be the focus of posttreatment therapy.

INTRODUCTION: In head and neck cancer patients, weight loss increases morbidity and mortality, and decreases treatment tolerance and quality of life. Early nutritional intervention has beneficial effects on these factors. AIM: We observed patients’ weight courses after specialists’ care and surveyed nutrition-related documentation by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: From a Head and Neck Oncology Centre (HNOC) study, 68 patients were asked to participate in an extended general practice cohort. Twenty-six patients participated in the prospective three-monthly weight measurements during the year after HNOC care. We extracted nutritional information contained in referral letters (n=24) and medical records from the year before referral (n=45) and after HNOC care (n=26). An impaired nutritional status was assigned to weight loss =10% within six months or Body Mass Index (BMI) <18.5 kg/m2 and ‘at risk’ to weight loss =5% but <10% within six months. RESULTS: Three (12%) participants were nutritionally impaired and two (8%) were deemed ‘at risk’. Although GPs suspected a (pre-) malignancy in 11 cases (46%), only two (8%) documented weight loss or BMI and four (17%) nutrition-related complaints in their referral letters. Medical records more often contained information on nutrition-related complaints and tube feeding later in the disease course, as opposed to concern over weight loss or BMI. DISCUSSION: Therefore, we call for nutritional management in general practice, by urging practitioners to assess patients’ nutritional status throughout the disease course and intervene if necessary. The passing on of related information in case of referral promotes continuity of care. KEYWORDS: Humans; follow-up studies; weight loss; cachexia; family practice; head and neck neoplasms

Introduction Routine follow‐up after curative treatment of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is common practice considering the high risk of second primaries and recurrences (ie second events). Current guidelines advocate a follow‐up period of at least 5 years. The recommendations are not evidence‐based and benefits are unclear. This is even more so for follow‐up after a second event. To facilitate the development of an evidence‐ and personalized follow‐up program for OSCC, we investigated the course of time until the second and subsequent events and studied the risk factors related to these events. Materials and methods We retrospectively studied 594 OSCC patients treated with curative intent at the Head and Neck Cancer Unit of the Radboud University Medical Centre from 2000 to 2012. Risk of recurrence was calculated addressing death from intercurrent diseases as competing event. Results The 1‐, 5‐ and 10‐year cumulative risks of a second event were 17% (95% CI:14%;20%), 30% (95% CI:26%;33%), and 37% (95% CI:32%;41%). Almost all locoregional recurrences occurred in the first 2 years after treatment. The incidence of second primary tumors was relatively stable over the years. The time pattern of presentation of third events was similar. Discussion Our findings support a follow‐up time of 2 years after curative treatment for OSCC. Based on the risk of recurrence there is no indication for a different follow‐up protocol after first and second events. After 2 years, follow‐up should be tailored to the individual needs of patients for supportive care, and monitoring of late side‐effects of treatment.