Search

Background and Aim: Cancer related fatigue significantly impairs the ability to undertake sustained physical activity across the domains of daily living, work and recreation. The purpose of this study is to monitor cancer related fatigue and the factors affected or caused by it for 12 months in head and neck cancer patients following their diagnosis. Their perceptions of how fatigue might affect their activity levels in addition to identifying avenues to improve engagement with physical activity will be also explored., Methods: A single centre longitudinal mixed-methods study will be conducted. Forty head and neck cancer patients will be recruited over 6 months following the confirmation of their treatment plan, after which fatigue and physical activity will be assessed at four time points over 12 months. Additionally, other factors which influence fatigue such as body composition, blood counts, systemic inflammation levels, haemoglobin concentration, thyroid function, sleep quality, cardiorespiratory fitness and upper and lower extremity strength will be measured to understand how the multifactorial problem of fatigue may evolve over time and influence physical activity levels. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted after treatment completion and at end of twelve months which will analyse the participants fatigue experiences, understand how their perceived fatigue may have impacted physical activity and report the factors which may improve engagement with physical activity during cancer. Quantitative data will be analysed and reported using standard descriptive statistics and post-hoc pairwise comparisons. The changes in outcome measures across time will be analysed using the MIXED procedure in SPSS software. Statistical significance will be accepted at p<0.05. Qualitative data will be analysed using the Interpretative Phenomenological Approach using the NVivo software., Discussion: The results from this study may help inform the planning and delivery of appropriately timed interventions for the management of cancer related fatigue., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Narasimhan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background and Aim: Attempts at personalisation of exercise programmes in head and neck cancer (HaNC) have been limited. The main aim of the present study is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of introducing a remotely delivered, fully personalised, collaborative, and flexible approach to prescribing and delivering exercise programmes into the HaNC usual care pathway., Methods: This is a single arm, feasibility study. Seventy patients diagnosed with HaNC will be recruited from two regional HaNC centres in the United Kingdom. Patients will undertake an 8-week exercise programme designed and delivered by cancer exercise specialists. The exercise programme will start any time between the time of diagnosis and up to 8 weeks after completing treatment, depending on patient preference. The content of the exercise programme will be primarily based on patient needs, preferences, and goals, but guided by current physical activity guidelines for people with cancer. The primary outcome measure is retention to the study. Secondary quantitative outcomes are uptake to the exercise programme, different measures of exercise adherence, pre- and post-intervention assessments of fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form), quality of life (SF-36), physical activity levels (International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form), and various components of physical fitness. The outcomes of the nested qualitative study are acceptability and feasibility of the intervention evaluated via interviews with patients, health care professionals, and the cancer exercise specialists. Intervention and participant fidelity will be determined using checklists and scrutiny of each patient's logbook and the cancer exercise specialists' meeting notes. Analysis of quantitative data will be via standard summary statistics. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis., Expected Results: This feasibility study will inform the design and conduct of a future randomised controlled trial. Success will be defined according to a traffic light system for identifying the appropriateness of progression to a randomised controlled trial., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN82505455)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Midgley et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: Assess safety and feasibility of the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) for evaluating head and neck cancer (HaNC) survivors. Also compare their cardiorespiratory fitness to age and sex-matched norms and establish current physical activity levels., Methods: Fifty HaNC survivors [29 male; mean (SD) age, 62 (8) years], who had completed treatment up to 1 year previously, were recruited. Participants performed a CPET on a cycle ergometer to symptom-limited tolerance. Participants completed a questionnaire to report contributory factors they perceived as influencing test termination. Physical activity levels were determined using a self-reported physical activity questionnaire., Results: Three participants did not complete the CPET because (1) poor fitting mouthpiece and naso-oral mask due to facial disfiguration from surgery; (2) knee pain elicited by cycling; and (3) early CPET termination due to electrocardiogram artefacts. Participants reached a mean peak oxygen uptake that was 34% lower than predicted and the mean (SD) CPET duration of 7:52 (2:29) min:s was significantly lower than the target test duration of 10 min (p < 0.001). Leg muscle aches and/or breathing discomfort were major contributory factors influencing test termination for 78% of participants, compared to 13% for dry mouth/throat and/or drainage in the mouth/throat. No major adverse events occurred. Participants were categorised as 26% active, 8% moderately active, and 66% insufficiently active., Conclusion: These preliminary data suggest the CPET appears safe and feasible for most HaNC survivors when strict exclusion criteria are applied; however, low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness should be considered when calculating an appropriate ramp rate., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine.)

The ability of patients to participate in recreational activities is an important facet of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after treatment for cancer of the head and neck. The aim of this study was to analyse patients' responses to the activity and recreation domains of the University of Washington quality of life questionnaire (UW-QoL), and to relate them to clinical characteristics, the intensity of leisure-time exercise/week, perceived barriers that interfere with exercise, and feeling able to participate in an exercise programme. Other questionnaires used were the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise questionnaire, the Perceived Exercise Barriers questionnaire, and the Exercise Preferences questionnaire. The survey sample comprised 1021 patients of whom 437 responded (43%). Of them, 9% reported a serious problem with activity and 8% with recreation. The main influencing factors were site (oropharynx), advanced stage, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, composite flap, gastrostomy tube, and coexisting conditions. Low (worse) scores in the UW-QoL activity and recreation domains were associated with little time spent exercising, low-intensity exercise, more barriers to exercising, and a lack of preference. The use of the UW-QoL in follow-up assessments can help to identify patients who are having difficulties in these two domains, as well as those who feel able to participate in an exercise programme. Further research is required to optimise the interventions that will promote exercise and improve recovery and wellbeing., (Copyright © 2018 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The present study aimed to establish exercise preferences, barriers, and perceived benefits among head and neck cancer survivors, as well as their level of interest in participating in an exercise program. Patients treated for primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck between 2010 and 2014 were identified from the hospital database and sent a postal questionnaire pack to establish exercise preferences, barriers, perceived benefits, current physical activity levels, and quality of life. A postal reminder was sent to non-responders 4 weeks later. The survey comprised 1021 eligible patients of which 437 (43%) responded [74% male, median (interquartile range) age, 66 (60-73) years]. Of the respondents, 30% said 'Yes' they would be interested in participating in an exercise program and 34% said 'Maybe'. The most common exercise preferences were a frequency of three times per week, moderate-intensity, and 15-29 min per bout. The most popular exercise types were walking (68%), flexibility exercises (35%), water activites/swimming (33%), cycling (31%), and weight machines (19%). Home (55%), outdoors (46%) and health club/gym (33%) were the most common preferred choices for where to regularly exercise. Percieved exercise benefits relating to improved physical attributes were commonly cited, whereas potential social and work-related benefits were less well-acknowledged. The most commonly cited exercise barriers were dry mouth or throat (40%), fatigue (37%), shortness of breath (30%), muscle weakness (28%) difficulty swallowing (25%), and shoulder weakness and pain (24%). The present findings inform the design of exercise programs for head and neck cancer survivors.

Background: Cetuximab (Erbitux*) is the only new medical therapy for locally and regionally advanced SCCHN to be licensed in industrialized countries in the past 15 years and presents an alternative to cisplatin which is the current therapeutic standard. In the absence of a published head-to-head trial, we estimated the relative benefit of cetuximab and cisplatin using an indirect comparison methodology., Methods: We performed a systematic review of the Medline and Embase databases between 1998 and 2008 to find published trials of cisplatin plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone and synthesized the information with meta-analysis. Those results were combined with trial-based results of cetuximab plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone. Inclusion criteria stipulated that cisplatin be administered concurrently with radiation, the radiation protocol be comparable to the registration trial for cisplatin (once-daily, twice-daily, or concomitant boost) and cisplatin dosing be comparable to that in common use (i.e. day 1, 22 and 43 of treatment). Endpoints were locoregional control and overall survival. Two reviewers examined 269 abstracts which yielded four trials meeting the inclusion criteria., Results: There was little evidence of superiority of either platinum-based radiotherapy or cetuximab-based radiotherapy. All estimated hazard ratios were near 1.0 (equivalence), all confidence intervals spanned the null value (1.0), and no consistent pattern was observed regarding the direction of the effect. The results remained robust in sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: This is the first quantitative analysis allowing formal comparison between cetuximab and radiotherapy versus cisplatin and radiotherapy. Based on state-of-the-art methodology for indirect comparisons, it was not possible to identify either treatment regimen as superior in prolonging either locoregional control or overall survival. Until the publication of more studies, and particularly a head-to-head comparison, the two treatments may be considered equally efficacious when given alongside radiotherapy. The choice of treatment may focus on the toxicity profile of the medications.