To compare voice quality after radiotherapy or endoscopic laser surgery in patients with similar T1a midcord glottic carcinomas according to a validated multidimensional protocol. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University cancer referral center. Patients: Two cohorts of consecutive patients willing to participate after treatment for primary T1a midcord glottic carcinoma with laser surgery (18 of 23 eligible) or radiotherapy (16 of 18 eligible). Main Outcome Measures: Posttreatment voice quality was evaluated according to a multidimensional voice protocol based on validated European Laryngological Society recommendations, including perceptual, acoustic, aerodynamic, and stroboscopic analyses, together with patient self-assessment using the Voice Handicap Index. Results: Approximately half of the patients had mild to moderate voice dysfunction in the perceptual analysis (53% [8 of 15] in the radiotherapy group and 61% [11 of 18] in the laser surgery group) and on the Voice Handicap Index (44% [7 of 16] in the radiotherapy group and 56% [10 of 18] in the laser surgery group). The voice profile in the laser surgery group was mainly breathy; in the radiotherapy group, it was equally breathy and rough, with a trend for more jitter in the acoustic analysis. There was no statistical difference in the severity of voice dysfunction between the groups in any of the variables. Conclusions: Endoscopic laser surgery offers overall voice quality equivalent to that of radiotherapy for patients with T1a midcord glottic carcinoma, although specific voice profiles may ultimately be different for the 2 modalities. We believe that endoscopic laser surgery is the preferred treatment in these patients because it provides oncologic control similar to that of radiotherapy and the additional benefits of lower costs, shorter treatment time, and the possibility of successive procedures.
Outcome for T1a patients selected for laser surgery is excellent. In patients with larger lesions treated with radiotherapy, outcome is inferior to patients selected for laser surgery, but also to that reported for (unselected) T1a carcinomas treated with radiotherapy in literature. Strategies to improve treatment results in patients deemed unsuitable for laser surgery should be designed.
To allow comparison of laser surgery versus radiotherapy, a standardized method is needed that accurately measures tumor extent and depth. Agreement on functional outcome measures is necessary to allow comparison of treatments and resection types. Multicenter studies should be encouraged to guarantee adequate subject numbers.
Background
The following position statement from the Union of the European Phoniatricians, updated on 25th May 2020 (superseding the previous statement issued on 21st April 2020), contains a series of recommendations for phoniatricians and ENT surgeons who provide and/or run voice, swallowing, speech and language, or paediatric audiology services.
Objectives
This material specifically aims to inform clinical practices in countries where clinics and operating theatres are reopening for elective work. It endeavours to present a current European view in relation to common procedures, many of which fall under the aegis of aerosol generating procedures.
Conclusion
As evidence continues to build, some of the recommended practices will undoubtedly evolve, but it is hoped that the updated position statement will offer clinicians precepts on safe clinical practice.
Laryngeal preservation for T2 tumours in this review is higher for patients treated primarily with TLM (88.8 vs. 79.0%). It is important to differentiate between tumours with normal and impaired mobility (T2a and T2b) because the latter showed poorer prognosis for both TLM and radiotherapy. Involvement of the anterior commissure does not result in significantly lower oncological results, if adequately staged and treated. More studies are needed to support these data and to compare the functional outcomes between TLM and radiotherapy for T2 glottic carcinoma.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.