The aim of this study was to assess the effect of (preventive) rehabilitation on swallowing and mouth opening after concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Forty-nine patients with advanced oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx, or nasopharynx cancer treated with CCRT were randomized into a standard (S) or an experimental (E) preventive rehabilitation arm. Structured multidimensional assessment (i.e., videofluoroscopy, mouth-opening measurement, structured questionnaires) was performed before and 10 weeks after CCRT. In both S and E arms, feasibility was good (all patients could execute the exercises within a week) and compliance was satisfactory (mean days practiced per week was 4). Nevertheless, mouth opening, oral intake, and weight decreased significantly. Compared to similar CCRT studies at our institute, however, fewer patients were still tube-dependent after CCRT. Furthermore, some functional outcomes seemed less affected than those of studies in the literature that did not incorporate rehabilitation exercises. Patients in the E arm practiced significantly fewer days in total and per week, but they obtained results comparable to the S arm patients. Preventive rehabilitation (regardless of the approach, i.e., experimental or standard) in head and neck cancer patients, despite advanced stage and burdensome treatment, is feasible, and compared with historical controls, it seems helpful in reducing the extent and/or severity of various functional short-term effects of CCRT.

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Prospective assessment of dysphagia and trismus in chemo-IMRT head and neck cancer patients in relation to dose-parameters of structures involved in swallowing and mastication. Material and Methods:Assessment of 55 patients before, 10-weeks (N=49) and 1-year post-treatment (N=37). Calculation of dose-volume parameters for swallowing (inferior (IC), middle (MC), and superior constrictors (SC)), and mastication structures (e.g. masseter). Investigation of relationships between dose-parameters and endpoints for swallowing problems (videofluoroscopy-based laryngeal Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), and study-specific structured questionnaire) and limited mouth-opening (measurements and questionnaire), taking into account baseline scores. Results:At 10-weeks, volume of IC receiving ≥60Gy (V60) and mean dose IC were significant predictors for PAS. One-year post-treatment, reported problems with swallowing solids were significantly related to masseter dose-parameters (mean, V20, V40 and V60) and an inverse relationship (lower dose related to a higher probability) was observed for V60 of the IC. Dose-parameters of masseter and pterygoid muscles were significant predictors of trismus at 10-weeks (mean, V20, and V40). At 1-year, doseparameters of all mastication structures were strong predictors for subjective mouth-opening problems (mean, max, V20, V40, and V60). Conclusions:Dose-effect relationships exist for dysphagia and trismus. Therefore treatment plans should be optimized to avoid these side effects.

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.

BackgroundAim of this study is to thoroughly assess pretreatment organ function in advanced head and neck cancer through various clinical outcome measures and patients' views.MethodsA comprehensive, multidimensional assessment was used, that included quality of life, swallowing, mouth opening, and weight changes. Fifty-five patients with stage III-IV disease were entered in this study prior to organ preserving (chemoradiation) treatment.ResultsAll patients showed pretreatment abnormalities or problems, identified by one or more of the outcome measures. Most frequent problems concerned swallowing, pain, and weight loss. Interestingly, clinical outcome measures and patients' perception did no always concur. E.g. videofluoroscopy identified aspiration and laryngeal penetration in 18% of the patients, whereas only 7 patients (13%) perceived this as problematic; only 2 out of 7 patients with objective trismus actually perceived trismus.ConclusionThe assessment identified several problems already pre-treatment, in this patient population. A thorough assessment of both clinical measures and patients' views appears to be necessary to gain insight in all (perceived) pre-existing functional and quality of life problems.

Purpose of this review is to systematically assess the effects on voice and speech of advanced head and neck cancer and its treatment by means of chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane were searched (1991–2009) for terms head and neck cancer, chemoradiation, voice and speech rehabilitation. Twenty articles met the inclusion criteria, whereof 14 reported on voice outcomes and 10 on speech. Within the selected 20 studies, 18 different tools were used for speech or voice evaluation. Most studies assessed their data by means of patient questionnaires. Four studies presented outcome measures in more than one dimension. Most studies summarised the outcomes of posttreatment data that were assessed at various points in time after treatment. Except for four studies, pre-treatment measurements were lacking. This and the fact that most studies combined the outcomes of patients with radiated laryngeal cancers with outcome data of non-laryngeal cancer patients impedes an interpretation in terms of the effects of radiation versus the effects of the disease itself on voice or speech. Overall, the studies indicated that voice and speech degenerated during CRT, improved again 1–2 months after treatment and exceeded pre-treatment levels after 1 year or longer. However, voice and speech measures do not show normal values before or after treatment. Given the large-ranged posttreatment data, missing baseline assessment and the lacking separation of tumour/radiation sites, there is an urgent need for structured standardised multi-dimensional speech and voice assessment protocols in patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with CRT.