Search

ABSTRACT Background Acoustic evaluation of speech is the least explored method of speech evaluation in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. The purpose of this study was to explore acoustic parameters of speech and their correlation with questionnaire evaluation and perceptual evaluation in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. Methods One hundred seventeen subjects (65 consecutive patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer and 52 controls) participated in this study. Formant frequencies (by Linear Predictive Coding), Speech Handicap Index, and London Speech Evaluation scale were used for acoustic evaluation, questionnaire evaluation, and perceptual evaluation, respectively. Results Men showed significant elevation in second formant (F2) values for patients with oral cavity cancer and those who underwent surgery alone. Female patients with early T classification cancers and those who underwent surgery and chemoradiation showed significant reduction in the mean F2 values. Importantly, however, acoustic evaluation parameters did not correlate with either perceptual evaluation or questionnaire evaluation parameters, although there was moderate correlation between questionnaire evaluation and perceptual evaluation speech parameters. Conclusion Acoustic evaluation modalities have no clear role in the management of patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 670-676, 2016 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim was to explore the impact of important clinico-demographic factors on the post-treatment quality of life (QOL) in surgically treated oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients. 63 consecutive follow-up oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients treated primarily with surgery were recruited. 55 patients sent the completed questionnaires and finally included in this study. QOL and important sub-domains of the QOL were assessed. Mean QOL scores (SD) were computed, level of significance was set at P < 0.05. The mean composite QOL score and standard deviation (SD) for oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients were 76.6 (15.2) and 73.4 (13.9), respectively. Patients with higher T-stage (T3 and T4) and higher overall-stage (III and IV) had lower mean QOL scores as against early T (T1 and T2) and overall early-stage (I and II); mean scores (SD) 64.3 (13.6) and 72.3 (13.8), and 76.6 (13.6) and 81.7 (14.1), respectively. Younger patients had lower mean scores (SD) than older patients; mean QOL scores (SD) 69.7 (14.0) and 79.6 (SD), respectively. Patients with reconstruction had lower mean QOL scores as compared to those without reconstruction; mean scores (SD) 67.6 (16.0) and 77.4 (12.5), respectively. In conclusion, tumor-stage, overall-stage, age of patients, and reconstruction had a significant direct effect on the post-treatment QOL of oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Posttreatment speech problems are seen in nearly half of patients with head and neck cancer. Although there are many voice-specific scales, surprisingly there is no speech-specific questionnaire for English-speaking patients with head and neck cancer. The aim of this study was to validate the Speech Handicap Index (SHI) as the first speech-specific questionnaire in the English language. Method. In all, 55 consecutive patients in follow-up for oral and oropharyngeal cancer completed the SHI and University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UWQOL V.04). Thirty-two patients completed both questionnaires again 4 weeks later to address test-retest reliability. Results. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and group validity of the SHI were found to be highly significant (p < .01) using Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's correlation coefficient (r), and Mann-Whitney U tests. Conclusions. The SHI is a precise, highly reliable, and valid speech assessment tool for patients with head and neck cancer. Further dedicated studies using the SHI in patients with head and neck cancer would be useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Quality of life (QOL) is by definition a multi-dimensional global construct that has become an increasingly important outcome measure in cancer treatment. The impact of a head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis on the person and the consequences of its treatment cross multiple functional domains that have a clear and direct influence on one’s post-treatment well-being and associated QOL. The evaluation of QOL and performance outcome in cancer is critical to optimal patient care, comprehensive evaluation of treatment alternatives, and the development of informed rehabilitation and patient education services. Despite the difficulties of going from concept to quantification of patient perceptions, the number of instruments available to measure QOL psychometrically has increased rapidly. Assessments can now be made in a variety of distinctive ways using both specific and generic measures. There is no gold-standard questionnaire and the choice is based on psychometric properties, research objectives and study design. QOL assessment has evolved over the years into an organised scientific discipline, such that useful insights can be obtained by a review of the current literature. However, more work needs to be done to improve the applicability and clinical utility of QOL assessment. Most importantly, QOL studies should be reported in such a way as to provide clinically meaningful data to physicians and surgeons, in order to link research to clinical practice. Further attention should be paid to the development of newer theoretical models, minimalist approaches, development of more sensitive and specific instruments and the effective use of modern technology to achieve this objective. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A letter to the editor is presented commending the articles on quality of life and medical rehabilitation.

Abstract: Purpose: Aim of this study was to correlate dose to pharyngeal constrictors (PC) with subjective and observer-based assessments of swallowing in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing concomitant chemo-IMRT. Materials and methods: Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for superior constrictor (SC), middle constrictor (MC) and inferior constrictor (IC) were generated for 37 patients. Mean doses to SC, MC and IC were correlated to objective dysphagia grade (1year, RTOG scoring) and global, total physical (TP) and most relevant components of the physical section (P6, P8) of the MD Anderson dysphagia inventory (MDADI) which was evaluated post-treatment. Odds ratios of dysphagia (>grade 0), poor global (<3), TP (<32), P6 (<3) and P8 (<3) for patients with mean dose>60Gy to SC and IC were calculated. Results: There was no significant correlation between mean dose to PC and any of the analysed MDADI parameters and observer-assessed dysphagia grade. Odds ratio of dysphagia (>grade 0), poor global (<3), TP (<32), P6 (<3) and P8 (<3) for patients with mean dose>60Gy to IC and SC were not significantly higher than those for patients receiving <60Gy. Conclusion: This study did not find a statistically significant correlation between radiation dose to the PC and observer-assessed dysphagia grade or patient-reported MDADI questionnaire at 1year. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Impairment of swallowing function is a common multidimensional symptom complex seen in 50–75% of head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors. Although there are a number of validated swallowing-specific questionnaires, much of their focus is on the evaluation of swallowing-related quality of life (QOL) rather than swallowing as a specific function. The aim of this study was to validate the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire (SSQ) as a swallowing-specific instrument in HNC patients. Fifty-four consecutive patients in follow-up for oral and oropharyngeal cancer completed the SSQ and MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). Thirty-one patients completed both questionnaires again four weeks later to address test–retest reliability. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s α and Spearman’s correlation coefficient, respectively. Construct validity (including group validity) and criterion validity were determined using Spearman’s correlation coefficient and Mann–Whitney U-test. Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, construct validity, group validity and criterion validity of the SSQ was found to be significant (P <0.01). We were able to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the SSQ in HNC patients. The SSQ is a precise, reliable and valid tool for assessing swallow in this patient group. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]