Publications

Abstract

The factors related to oropharyngeal dysphagia after remote esophagectomy (greater than five months) remain unclear. This study aimed to assess patient perception of dysphagia, maximum anterior isometric pressure (MAIP), maximum posterior isometric pressure (MPIP), lingual swallowing pressure (LSP) and radiographic physiological components of the oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing in patients who are post remote sub-total esophagectomy (SE). Patient perception of dysphagia was assessed using the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). MAIP, MPIP, and LSP were measured using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument. Videofluoroscopy was used to assess the physiologic components of swallowing with the Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile (MBSImP) and the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Ten patients were included in the study (53.2% male; mean age 54.5 ± 18.0). The mean postoperative time was 30 months (range, 5.0-72 months). Seven patients had elevated EAT-10 scores (> 3). All patients demonstrated impaired oropharyngeal swallowing on at least three MBSImP components (range 3-12) and two patients aspirated (PAS 8). There was a significant difference in MAIP values when comparing patients with normal versus impaired laryngeal elevation and epiglottic movement (p < 0.001). MPIP values were significantly different in patients with normal versus impaired epiglottic movement as well as normal versus elevated PAS scores (p < 0.001). Decreased lingual pressure and physiological changes in swallowing coexist after SE. Our results indicate that the decrease in tongue strength may be one of the factors related to unsafe swallow. The assessment of lingual pressure provides diagnostic value and should be incorporated as part of a comprehensive assessment in this population.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00455-024-10745-8

View details for PubMedID 39153046

Abstract

Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES) and Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (DIGEST-FEES) are two complimentary methods for assessing swallowing during FEES. Whereas VASES is intended to facilitate trial-level ratings of pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration, DIGEST-FEES is intended to facilitate protocol-level impairment grades of swallowing safety and efficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES impairment grades.DIGEST-FEES grades were blindly analyzed from 50 FEES - first using the original DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50) and then again using a VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50). Weighted Kappa (κw) and absolute agreement (%) were used to assess the relationship between the original DIGEST-FEES grades and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Spearman's correlations assessed the relationship between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades with measures of construct validity.Substantial agreement (κw = 0.76-0.83) was observed between the original and VASES-derived grading methods, with 60-62% of all DIGEST-FEES grades matching exactly, and 92-100% of DIGEST-FEES grades within one grade of each other. Furthermore, the strength of the relationships between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades and measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.78) were similar to the strength of the relationships between original DIGEST-FEES grades and the same measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.83).Findings from this study demonstrate substantial agreement between original and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES also appears to maintain the same level of construct validity established with the original DIGEST-FEES. Therefore, clinicians and researchers may consider using VASES to increase the transparency and standardization of DIGEST-FEES ratings. Future research should seek to replicate these findings and explore the simultaneous use of VASES and DIGEST-FEES in a greater sampling of raters and across other patient populations.

View details for DOI 10.1159/000538935

View details for PubMedID 38631299

Abstract

Importance: Major head and neck surgery with microvascular free tissue transfer reconstruction is complex, with considerable risk of morbidity. Little is known about patients' experiences, including decision-making prior to, and regret following, free flap surgery.Objective: To characterize patient experiences and decision regret of patients undergoing head and neck reconstructive free flap surgery.Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods cohort study comprising semistructured interviews was conducted June to August 2021 at a single tertiary academic cancer center. Participants underwent head and neck reconstructive surgery with microvascular free tissue transfer (flap) more than 3 months before recruitment (range, 3 months to 4 years). Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for themes. Participants also completed a Decision Regret Scale questionnaire.Exposure: Microvascular free flap surgery for head and neck reconstruction.Main Outcomes and Measures: Thematic analysis of interviews, decision regret score.Results: Seventeen participants were interviewed. Median (IQR) age was 61 (52-70) years. Overall, 7 participants were women (49%), and 10 of 17 were men (59%). The most common free flap was fibula (8/17, 47%). Three major themes with 9 subthemes were identified: theme 1 was the tremendous effect of preoperative counseling on surgical decision-making and satisfaction, with subthemes including (1) importance of clinical care team counseling on decision to have surgery; (2) emotional context colors preoperative understanding and retention of information; (3) expectation-setting affects satisfaction with preoperative counseling; and (4) desire for diversified delivery of preoperative information. Theme 2 was coexisting and often conflicting priorities, including (1) desire to survive above all else, and (2) desire for quality of life. Theme 3 was perception of surgery as momentous and distressing, including (1) surgery as a traumatic event; (2) centrality of mental health, emotional resolve, and gratitude to enduring surgery and recovery; and (3) sense of accomplishment in recovery. On the Decision Regret Scale, most participants had no regret (n=8, 47%) or mild regret (n=5, 29%); 4 had moderate-to-severe regret (24%).Conclusions and Relevance: In this mixed-methods cohort study, patient experiences surrounding major head and neck reconstructive free flap surgery were described. Opportunities to improve support for this complex and vulnerable population, and to mitigate decision regret, were identified.

View details for DOI 10.1001/jamaoto.2023.4750

View details for PubMedID 38386356

Abstract

PURPOSE: Head and neck lymphedema (HNL) is common after head and neck cancer (HNC). This study aimed to explore quality of life (QoL) in patients with HNL to guide the development of a patient-reported QoL measure.METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 HNC survivors with HNL. Interviews explored participants' experiences of living with HNL. Analysis of interview transcripts drew on qualitative content analysis to ensure themes were grounded in patient experience.RESULTS: Two main themes were established: "I want to live my life" and "It was like things were short-circuited." These themes encompassed the substantial disruption patients attributed to the HNL and their desire to normalize life.CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the impact of HNL on individual patients may be critical to optimizing treatment strategies to improve the physical burden of HNL and QoL. This study provides the framework for developing a patient-reported HNL QoL measure.IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The development of an HNL-specific QoL measure, grounded in the patient perspective, may provide cancer care teams with a tool to better understand HNL's impact on each patient to tailor patient-centered care and optimize QoL outcomes.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00520-023-08150-2

View details for PubMedID 37962667

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The G8 is a well-validated screening test for older cancer patients. The current study was undertaken to determine whether the G8 is predictive of short-term post-operative outcomes after head and neck cancer (HNC) surgery.METHODS: Consecutive patients aged 65years or more and referred for a preoperative assessment by a speech-language pathologist were consecutively screened by clinicians at 2 academic medical centers using the G8. The G8 was used to screen for vulnerability prior to surgery. Patients were deemed vulnerable if they had a total G8 score ≤14 according to published guidelines. Data were also collected on demographic characteristics, tumor staging, post-operative course, and tracheostomy and feeding tube (FT) status.RESULTS: Ninety patients were consecutively screened during the study period. Using the G8, 64% of the patients were deemed vulnerable. Vulnerable patients differed significantly from non-vulnerable patients with regard to age, health, tumor stage, and baseline dysphagia, and underwent more extensive surgery. Postoperatively, vulnerable patients had a significantly longer hospital length of stay (LOS; 10.17 vs 5.50days, respectively, P<.001), were less likely to discharge home (76% vs 94%, P=.044), and were more likely to be FT dependent for over a month (54% vs 21%, P=.006) compared to non-vulnerable patients. In regression models, controlling for T-stage and surgical variables, the G8 independently predicted 2 post-operative outcomes of interest, namely LOS and FT dependency.CONCLUSIONS: The G8 may be a useful screening tool for identifying older adults at risk of a protracted postoperative medical course after HNC surgery. Future research should aim to identify the optimal screening protocol and how this information can be incorporated into clinical pathways to enhance the post-operative outcomes of older HNC patients.

View details for DOI 10.1177/00034894231191869

View details for PubMedID 37551009

View details for DOI 10.1111/coa.14046

View details for PubMedID 36918287

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00405-023-07902-4

View details for PubMedID 36912933