Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) is associated with high toxicity that adversely affects physical functioning, body composition, fatigue, quality of life and treatment outcomes. Exercise interventions during treatment might counteract these negative effects. We therefore assessed the feasibility of an exercise programme for HNC patients during CRT. Forty patients were offered a tailored 10‐week endurance and resistance training with supervised and home‐based sessions. Feasibility endpoints were (1) adherence (main outcome): ≥60% attendance; (2) recruitment: ≥30%; (3) retention rate: ≥85% and (4) compliance rate: ≥60%. Physical performance, muscle strength, body composition, quality of life and fatigue were assessed pre‐ and post‐intervention. Overall adherence was 54%. The recruitment rate was 36%, and the retention rate was 65%. Compliance to the supervised intervention protocol was 66%. Statistically significant decreases were found in mean grip strength, fat‐free mass and clinically relevant deteriorations on several domains of quality of life, and fatigue subscales were found. We conclude that this exercise programme for HNC patients during CRT in its current form is feasible for only a minority of patients. We suggest adaptations to improve adherence and retention rates for a definitive multicentre trial. This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7305), 6 June 2018, retrospectively registered.

(1) Background: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) is associated with severe toxicity resulting in fatigue and weight loss, including loss of skeletal muscle mass. Exercise interventions might positively affect physical fitness and quality of life. Sufficient adherence and compliance rates are necessary for optimal effects. This study aimed to gain insight into expectations and experiences and factors influencing adherence, retention and compliance of HNC patients participating in exercise intervention during CRT. (2) Methods: Consecutive participants were invited for semi-structured interviews, conducted pre- and post-intervention. A deductive approach was used to identify themes and factors influencing adherence, retention and compliance. (3) Results: Thematic saturation was reached after interviewing 14 patients pre-intervention. Five themes were identified: planning and time management, treatment toxicity, motivation to exercise, exercise intervention and supervision by a physiotherapist. The intensity of the treatment schedule and treatment toxicity were important barriers. Facilitators mentioned were physical and emotional benefits, social support as well as the simplicity and home-based setting of the intervention. (4) Conclusions: A personalised approach, considering the individual facilitators and barriers of HNC patients, is important to increase adherence, retention and compliance to exercise intervention and to reap the optimal effects of the program.

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. 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. 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. The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).

Purpose: Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries. Methods: An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers. Results: Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation. Conclusion: Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.