Characterizing head and neck cancer survivors' discontinuation of survivorship care

Seaman, Aaron; Seligman, Kristen L; Nguyen, Khanh K.; Al‐Qurayshi, Zaid; Kendell, Nicholas; Pagedar, Nitin A.

doi:10.1002/cncr.33888

Cited by 9 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not statistically significant at p < 0.05, single treatment modality approached significance ( p = 0.071) as a predictor of discontinuation of care and deserves further attention in future studies. As cited above, 8 a previous study of discontinuation of care in a cohort of HNC survivors over a 3‐year period ( N = 449) found that having received a single treatment modality was significantly associated with discontinuation of care. Patients experiencing a single treatment modality may have less severe disease and fewer treatment side effects which may explain an increased likelihood of disengagement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“… 21 To date, few studies have specifically examined factors associated with discontinuation of care in HNC. 8 , 9 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…37 , 38 Charlton et al 37 highlight many of these studies, a number of which demonstrate an association using distance as a marker of rurality. Seaman et al 8 examined both rurality and distance in their study and found that distance (i.e., greater than 100 miles to access point)—rather than rural classification—was associated with discontinuation. As they describe, because comprehensive cancer care is often centralized, travel distance may actually be greater for some patients classified as urban compared to rural.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 , 6 , 7 However, a nontrivial number of patients may discontinue care soon after treatment, putting them at risk of negative outcomes. 8 , 9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 10 , 12 One recent study found that only half of patients receive recommended surveillance testing over a 2‐year period posttreatment, for example. 12 Limited research to date suggests that factors such as marital status, treatment modality, and poor recognition of the recommended follow‐up period may be related to discontinuation in HNC, 8 , 9 but overall extremely little is known about those who discontinue follow‐up care. This includes rates of discontinuation and which key demographic, disease, and behavioral factors may play a role, thus warranting further investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Examination of risk factors for discontinuation of follow‐up care in patients with head and neck cancer

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Little research has examined discontinuation of follow‐up care in patients with head and neck cancer. This exploratory study sought to examine key demographic, disease, and behavioral factors as possible correlates of discontinuation ( N = 512). Methods Cross‐sectional study examined correlates of discontinuation of follow‐up care within 1 year. The primary outcome was defined as a disease‐free survivor not returning to cancer clinic for two consecutive follow‐up appointments within the first year of care and not reentering oncologic care at any point thereafter. Demographic, disease, and behavioral factors were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Results One hundred twenty‐six (24.6%) patients discontinued by 12‐month follow‐up. Being unmarried (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.01–1.63, p = 0.041) and having elevated depressive symptomatology (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01–1.07, p = 0.034) were significantly associated with discontinuation. Receipt of a single (vs. multimodal) treatment approached significance (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 0.96–3.07, p = 0.071). Conclusion Approximately one quarter of patients disengaged from important follow‐up care within 1 year. Lack of social support, depressive symptomatology, and single treatment modality may be important correlates of discontinuation of care in patients with head and neck cancer. Additional studies of this outcome are needed. Improved understanding of correlates associated with discontinuation could facilitate the identification of at‐risk patients and further development of interventions to keep patients engaged at a crucial time in the survivorship care trajectory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“… 21 To date, few studies have specifically examined factors associated with discontinuation of care in HNC. 8 , 9 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 , 6 , 7 However, a nontrivial number of patients may discontinue care soon after treatment, putting them at risk of negative outcomes. 8 , 9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Examination of risk factors for discontinuation of follow‐up care in patients with head and neck cancer

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Time‐varying association of second primary malignancy and long‐term survival outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer

Zhu

Heng

Zhou

et al. 2023

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A high risk of developing second primary malignancy (SPM) has been reported among head and neck cancer patients. Here, we aimed to statistically quantify the impact of SPM development on the survival of head and neck cancer patients. Our study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database to collect the data of 48 316 patients who received curative surgical resection for initial primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (IP-HNSCC) in 1975 to 2019. SPM diagnosis was treated as a time-varying covariate and multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted to estimate the association between SPM development and survival, overall or by the subsite of IP-HNSCC. Of the included patients, 11 238 patients (23.3%) developed SPM during the follow-up period. A significant reduction in survival was observed among patients with SPM (hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival, 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.20-3.41). The impact of SPM development on reduced survival was more significant in patients with localized IP-HNSCC vs regional IP-

show abstract

Effect of Rurality in Head and Neck Cancer: A Scoping Review

Tomescu,

Sullivan,

Davies

et al. 2024

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis scoping review sought to evaluate the current literature regarding the following outcomes in relation to rurality: stage at diagnosis, clinical characteristics, treatment characteristics, and survival outcomes of head and neck cancer (HNC).Data SourcesA literature search was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), Science Direct, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases.Review MethodsA 20‐year study cutoff from the initial search was used to increase the comparability of the studies regarding population and standards of clinical care. These searches were designed to capture all primary studies reporting HNC incidence, presenting characteristics, treatments, and treatment outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, selected articles for exclusion, extracted data, and appraised studies. Critical appraisal was done according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Cohort Studies.FindingsTwenty eligible original articles were included. Stage at diagnosis, clinical characteristics, treatment characteristics, and survival outcomes were measured. Our review indicates that although this relationship is unclear, there may be variations in treatment choice for laryngeal cancer based on geographic location and rural residency status. The studies assessing HNC outcomes related to stage at diagnosis, clinical characteristics, treatment characteristics, and overall survival demonstrated conflicting findings, indicating a need for further research examining HNC outcomes with a focus on rurality as the main exposure.ConclusionsThe relationship between HNC and rural‐urban status remains unclear. More studies are needed, along with a consistent metric for measuring rurality and recruitment of comparable populations from both rural and urban areas. Laryngoscope, 2024

show abstract

Characterizing head and neck cancer survivors' discontinuation of survivorship care

Cited by 9 publications

References 58 publications

Examination of risk factors for discontinuation of follow‐up care in patients with head and neck cancer

Examination of risk factors for discontinuation of follow‐up care in patients with head and neck cancer

Time‐varying association of second primary malignancy and long‐term survival outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer

Effect of Rurality in Head and Neck Cancer: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About