Impact of tumor board recommendations on treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background/Aims: To identify physician selection factors in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer and how treatment outcome is affected by Tumor Board recommendations. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 213 patients treated for locally advanced head and neck cancer in a single institution was performed. All treatments followed Tumor Board recommendations: 115 patients had chemotherapy and radiation, and 98 patients received postoperative radiation. Patient characteristics, treatment toxicity, locoregional control and survival between these two treat- ment groups were compared. Patient survival was compared with survival data reported in randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: There were no differences in comorbidity factors, and T or N stages between the two groups. A statistically significant number of patients with oropharyngeal and oral cavity tumors had chemoradiation and postoperative radiation, respectively (p < 0.0001). Grade 3-4 toxicities during treatment were 48 and 87% for the postoperative radiation and chemoradiation groups, respectively (p = 0.0001). There were no differences in survival, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases between the two groups. Patient survival was comparable to survival rates reported by randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Conclusion: Disease sites remained the key determining factor for treatment selection. Multidisciplinary approaches provided optimal treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer, with overall survival in these patients being comparable to that reported in randomized clinical trials. Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG.

Head repositioning accuracy in patients with neck pain and asymptomatic subjects: concurrent validity, influence of motion speed, motion direction and target distance

Background: Cervicocephalic kinesthetic deficiencies have been demonstrated in patients with chronic neck pain (NP). On the other hand, authors emphasized the use of different motion speeds for assessing functional impairment of the cervical spine. Purpose: The objectives of this study were (1) to investigate the head repositioning accuracy in NP patients and control subjects and (2) to assess the influence of target distance, motion speed, motion direction and pain. Materials and methods: Seventy-one subjects (36 healthy subjects and 35 NP patients; age 30–55 years) performed the head repositioning test (HRT) at two different speeds for horizontal and vertical movements and at two different distances. For each condition, six consecutive trials were sampled. Results: The study showed the validity and reproducibility of the HRT, confirming a dysfunctional threshold of 4.5°. Normative values of head repositioning error up to 3.6° and 7.1° were identified for healthy and NP subjects, respectively. A distance of 180 cm from the target and a natural motion speed increased HRT accuracy. Repositioning after extension movement showed a significantly larger error in both groups. Intensity, duration of pain as well as pain level did not significantly alter head repositioning error. Conclusions: The assessment of proprioceptive performance in healthy and NP subjects allowed the validation of the HRT. The HRT is a simple, not expensive and fast test, easily implementable in daily practice to assess and monitor treatment and evolution of proprioceptive cervical deficits.