Objective swallowing outcomes measure the physical swallowing function, while subjective outcomes measure swallowing perception. A test for swallowing capacity, measuring the ingestion of all consistencies is currently not available. Therefore, the Swallowing Proficiency for Eating And Drinking (SPEAD) test was developed. It entails the timed ingestion of thin liquid, thick liquid and solid. In this study, its feasibility, reliability and validity were evaluated in patients with dysphagia after treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) and healthy participants. Thirty-eight HNC patients and forty healthy participants were enrolled in this study and performed the SPEAD test three times. Video recordings of the test were evaluated three times by one observer, and once by three additional observers, to assess test-retest, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed by calculating effect sizes for the difference between results of patients and healthy participants and by evaluating correlations with objective (e.g., videofluoroscopy and functional oral intake scale) and subjective (e.g., SWAL-QOL) swallowing outcomes. Test-retest, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of ingestion duration was good to excellent. All hypotheses with regard to magnitude and direction of correlations were confirmed, supporting construct validity of the test. Our initial results suggest that the SPEAD test reliably measures the transport capacity of the upper digestive tract (in grams per second) and that this test can be useful to objectively evaluate and monitor the (safe) swallowing capacity in HNC patients, in both research as well as daily clinical practice.
Effective clearance of inhaled particles requires mucus production and continuous mucus transport from the lower airways to the oropharynx. Mucus production takes place mainly in the peripheral airways. Mucus transport is achieved by the action of the ciliated cells that cover the inner surface of the airways (mucociliary transport) and by expiratory airflow. The capacity for mucociliary transport is highest in the peripheral airways, whereas the capacity for airflow transport is highest in the central airways. In patients with airways disease, mucociliary transport may be impaired and airflow transport may become the most important mucus transport mechanism.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).
