S602
Clinical – Head & neck
ESTRO 2026
SC related to physical health (88% HNA; 77% PROM), with ‘sore or dry mouth’ the most commonly reported (20.4% HNA; 25.7% PROM).100% (n=106) of patients rated their experience as ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’. Most felt ‘Completely supported’ (n=53, 51%) or ‘Very supported’ (n=46, 44%) following transfer.Patients valued personalised education at transfer and felt confident recognising recurrence symptoms, though some reported initial anxiety. Clinicians considered the model safe and consistent with personalised care goals but emphasised the need for clear re-entry routes and sufficient resource capacity.Meta- inferences indicated that the PFU pathway was acceptable to both patients and clinicians, but underscored the need for staff training to support uptake and enable coordinated integration. Factors influencing pathway sustainability included workforce capacity, stakeholder engagement and availability of long-term funding.
Poster Discussion 2757
Implementing Personalised Follow-Up for Head and Neck Cancer Survivors: A Two-Year Mixed- Methods Evaluation in Routine NHS Practice Laura Dean, Catherine Oakley, Teresa GuerreroUrbano, Mary Lei Oncology, Guys and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom Purpose/Objective: Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) survivors experience substantial long-term physical and psychosocial morbidity. Personalised follow-up (PFU) pathways aim to provide proactive and patient-centred support. This mixed methods study presents the implementation process, clinical outcomes and integrated evaluation of a newly established PFU pathway for HNC survivors, assessed during the first two years after adoption into routine NHS practice. Material/Methods: A HNC PFU pathway was introduced as part of routine care at a London Cancer Centre in January 2022 (Figure 1). At transfer, patients completed the EORTC HN43 Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) and a Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA). PROM scores ≥ 50 and HNA scores ≥ 5 on the HNA were pragmatically defined as indicative of significant concerns (SC). Patient-reported acceptability and experience was assessed using a questionnaire (n=106). Semi- structured interviews with patients, clinicians and managers explored implementation processes, acceptability and determinants of sustainability. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to generate meta-inferences.
Conclusion: This research suggests that PFU can deliver a safe, acceptable and resource-efficient model of survivorship care for HNC. Strengthening pathway understanding among clinicians and embedding supportive infrastructure is key to sustaining and extending this model in practice. Keywords: Personalised follow-up, PROMS, survivorship
Digital Poster 2774 Objective swallowing assessment after
Results: 203 patients met pathway inclusion criteria; 129 (65%) transferred to PFU, 15 (7%) declined, and 59 (29%) remained in routine follow-up due to clinical or psychosocial factors. Four patients (3.1%) re-presented with red-flag symptoms post-transfer, with two diagnosed with a cancer (table 1).SC reporting on PROMs and HNAs was low (mean 1.2 and 0.9 per patient, respectively). Higher levels of SCs were observed in patients with oral cavity cancers (mean: standard deviation, 3.0:1.8 PROM; 2.1:0.7 HNA). Most
chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients treated with cobalt teletherapy in Northeast India Rudrasankar Chakraborty 1 , Jyotiman Nath 1 , Mridul Ali 2 , Mouchumee Bhattacharyya 1 , Kaushik Jagannath Kataki 1 , Yanpothung Yanthan 1 , Saswati Datta 1 , Kallani Das 1 1 Radiation oncology, Dr.B.Borooah cancer Institute, Guwahati, India. 2 Speech and swallow therapy, Dr.B.Borooah cancer Institute, Guwahati, India
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online