An exploratory study of the influence of clinico-demographic variables on swallowing and swallowing-related quality of life in a cohort of oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with primary surgery.

There are insufficient data on swallowing and the consequences of its dysfunction in patients with cancers of the oral cavity (OC) and oropharynx (OP) that are treated with primary surgery. The study attempts to explore the effect of important clinico-demographic variables on post-treatment swallowing and related quality of life (QOL) in post-surgical OC and OP cancer patients. Sixty-two consecutive OC and OP cancer patients completed the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) questionnaire. Mean scores were computed. Comparison of scores based on mean ranks were performed using Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Level of significance was set at P ≤ 0.02. Adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. Significantly worse mean (SD) QOL scores were observed in late T-stage (T3/T4) versus early T-stage (T1/T2) patients for global domain, physical domain, functional domain and emotional domains [44.4 (21.9) vs. 78.7 (22.7) (P < 0.001); 50.0 (9.4) vs. 75.9 (16.3), (P < 0.0001); 57.8 (20.6) vs. 84.1 (16.7), (P < 0.001) and 55.2 (18.0) vs. 78.5 (16.3), (P < 0.001)], respectively. Patients undergoing reconstruction versus without reconstruction had worse QOL scores; 58.8 (26.9) versus 79.5 (22.8), (P < 0.01); 61.2 (15.1) versus 76.4 (17.5), (P = 0.002); 65.4 (20.5) versus 86.3 (15.9), (P < 0.0001) and 63.3 (18.8) versus 79.8 (16.3), (P < 0.01), respectively, for global, physical, functional and emotional domains. Advanced T-stage, reconstruction, younger age and base of tongue tumours have a negative impact on post-treatment swallow function and related QOL in these patients.

Dosimetry audit for a multi-centre IMRT head and neck trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PARSPORT was a multi-centre randomised trial in the UK which compared Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for patients with head and neck cancer. The dosimetry audit goals were to verify the plan delivery in participating centres, ascertain what tolerances were suitable for head and neck IMRT trials and develop an IMRT credentialing program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centres enrolling patients underwent rigorous quality assurance before joining the trial. Following this each centre was visited for a dosimetry audit, which consisted of treatment planning system tests, fluence verification films, combined field films and dose point measurements. RESULTS: Mean dose point measurements were made at six centres. For the primary planning target volume (PTV) the differences with the planned values for the IMRT and CRT arms were -0.6% (1.8% to -2.4%) and 0.7% (2.0% to -0.9%), respectively. Ninety-four percent of the IMRT fluence films for individual fields passed gamma criterion of 3%/3mm and 75% of the films for combined fields passed gamma criterion 4%/3mm (no significant difference between dynamic delivery and step and shoot delivery). CONCLUSIONS: This audit suggests that a 3% tolerance could be applied for PTV point doses. For dose distributions tolerances of 3%/3mm on individual fields and 4%/3mm for combined fields are proposed for multi-centre head and neck IMRT trials.