Update and external validation of a head and neck cancer prognostic model

Head & Neck ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 1232-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank R. Datema ◽  
Marciano B. Ferrier ◽  
Yvonne Vergouwe ◽  
Ana Moya ◽  
Jan Molenaar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
External Validation

scholarly journals Predicting survival in head and neck cancer: External validation and update of the prognostic model OncologIQ in 2189 patients

Head & Neck ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arta Hoesseini ◽  
Nikki Leeuwen ◽  
Marinella P. J. Offerman ◽  
Jang Zhang ◽  
Emilie A. C. Dronkers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
External Validation

Update and external validation of a multivariable prediction model for tube feeding dependency for at least four weeks during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6040-6040
Author(s):  
Anna C. H. Willemsen ◽  
Annemieke Kok ◽  
Laura W.J. Baijens ◽  
J. P. De Boer ◽  
Remco de Bree ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Radiation Dose ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Prediction Model ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Tube Feeding

6040 Background: Patients who receive chemoradiation or bioradiation (CRT/BRT) for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) often experience high toxicity rates, which may interfere with oral intake, leading to (temporary) tube feeding (TF) dependency. International guidelines recommend gastrostomy insertion when the expected use of TF exceeds four weeks. In this study we aimed to update and externally validate a prediction model to identify patients in need for TF for at least four weeks, meeting the international criteria for prophylactic gastrostomy insertion. Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study was performed in four tertiary referral head and neck cancer centers in the Netherlands. The prediction model was developed using data from the University Medical Center Utrecht and the Netherlands Cancer Institute. The model was externally validated in patients from the Maastricht University Medical Center and Radboud University Medical Center. The primary endpoint was TF, initiated during or within 30 days after completion of CRT/BRT, and administered for at least four weeks. Potential predictors were retrieved from patient medical records and radiotherapy dose-volume parameters were calculated. Results: The developmental and validation cohort included 409 and 334 patients respectively. Multivariable analysis showed significant predictive value (p < 0.05) for adjusted diet at start of CRT/BRT, percentage weight change prior to treatment initiation, WHO performance status, tumor-site, nodal stage, mean radiation dose to the contralateral parotid gland, and mean radiation dose to the oral cavity. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the updated model was 0.73 and after external validation 0.64. Positive and negative predictive value at 90% cut off were 80.0% and 48.2% respectively. Conclusions: This externally validated prediction model to estimate TF-dependency for at least four weeks in LAHNSCC patients performs well. This model, which will be presented, can be used in clinical practice to guide personalized decision making on prophylactic gastrostomy insertion.

scholarly journals Head and Neck cancer patients’ preferences for individualized prognostic information: a focus group study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arta Hoesseini ◽  
Emilie A. C. Dronkers ◽  
Aniel Sewnaik ◽  
Jose A. U. Hardillo ◽  
Robert J. Baatenburg de Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Vital Functions ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Head and Neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by significant mortality and morbidity. Treatment is often invasive and interferes with vital functions, resulting in a delicate balance between survival benefit and deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Therefore, including prognostic information during patient counseling can be of great importance. The first aim of this study was to explore HNC patients’ preferences for receiving prognostic information. The second aim of this study was to explore patients’ views on ‘’OncologIQ’’, a prognostic model developed to estimate overall survival in newly diagnosed HNC patients. Methods We conducted a single center qualitative study by organizing five focus groups with HNC patients (n= 21) and their caregivers (n= 19), categorized in: 1) small laryngeal carcinomas treated with radiotherapy or laser, 2) extensive oral cavity procedures, 3) total laryngectomy, 4) chemoradiation, 5) other treatments. The interview guide consisted of two main topics: life-expectancy and the prognostic model OncologIQ. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed and coded. Themes were derived using content analysis. Results All patients found it important to receive information about their life-expectancy. While disclosing prognostic information in general terms like ‘’the cancer is curable’’ gives enough reassurance for most patients, some also wanted numerical information like OncologIQ’s prognostic estimates. Overall, patients thought life-expectancy should not be discussed shortly after cancer diagnosis disclosure, as a certain time is needed to process the first shock. They had a stronger preference for receiving prognostic information in case of a poor prognosis. Prognostic information should also include information on the expected QoL. The pie chart was the most preferred chart for discussing survival rates. Conclusions HNC patients find it important to receive prognostic information. A tailor-made approach is necessary to provide customized prognostic information. A clinical practice guideline was developed to support professionals in sharing prognostic information, aiming to improve shared decision making and patient-centered care.

scholarly journals Head and Neck cancer patients’ preferences for individualized prognostic information: a focus group study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arta Hoesseini ◽  
Emilie A. C. Dronkers ◽  
Aniel Sewnaik ◽  
Jose A. U. Hardillo ◽  
Robert J. Baatenburg de Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
General Terms ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background: Head and Neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by significant mortality and morbidity. Treatment is often invasive and interferes with vital functions, resulting in a delicate balance between survival benefit and deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Therefore, including prognostic information during patient counseling can be of great importance. The first aim of this study was to explore HNC patients’ preferences for receiving prognostic information: both qualitative (general terms like ‘’curable cancer’’), and quantitative information (numbers, percentages). The second aim of this study was to explore patients’ views on ‘’OncologIQ’’, a prognostic model developed to estimate overall survival in newly diagnosed HNC patients. Methods: We conducted a single center qualitative study by organizing five focus groups with HNC patients (n= 21) and their caregivers (n= 19), categorized in: 1) small laryngeal carcinomas treated with radiotherapy or laser, 2) extensive oral cavity procedures, 3) total laryngectomy, 4) chemoradiation, 5) other treatments. The patients’ perspective was the main focus. The interview guide consisted of two main topics: life-expectancy and the prognostic model OncologIQ. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed and coded. Themes were derived using content analysis. Results: While all patients considered it somewhat to very important to receive information about their life-expectancy, only some of them wanted to receive quantitative information. Disclosing qualitative prognostic information like ‘’the cancer is curable’’ would give enough reassurance for most patients. Overall, patients thought life-expectancy should not be discussed shortly after cancer diagnosis disclosure, as a certain time is needed to process the first shock. They had a stronger preference for receiving prognostic information in case of a poor prognosis. Prognostic information should also include information on the expected QoL. The pie chart was the most preferred chart for discussing survival rates. Conclusions: The participants found it important to receive information on their life-expectancy. While most patients were enough reassured by qualitative prognostic information, some wanted to receive quantitative information like OncologIQs’ estimates. A tailor-made approach is necessary to provide customized prognostic information. A clinical practice guideline was developed to support professionals in sharing prognostic information, aiming to improve shared decision making and patient-centered care.

Abstract 3821: A prognostic model of head and neck cancer ties TP53 mutation to 3p loss

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Gross ◽  
Ryan K. Orosco ◽  
John P. Shen ◽  
Ann Marie Egloff ◽  
Hannah Carter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
Tp53 Mutation

scholarly journals Biological Determinants of Chemo-Radiotherapy Response in HPV-Negative Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicentric External Validation

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martijn van der Heijden ◽  
Paul B. M. Essers ◽  
Monique C. de Jong ◽  
Reinout H. de Roest ◽  
Sebastian Sanduleanu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Biological Determinants
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document