4.7 Article

Dose-response analysis of parotid gland function: What is the best measure of xerostomia?

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 106, Issue 3, Pages 341-345

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.03.009

Keywords

Head and Neck Cancers; Radiotherapy; IMRT; Xerostomia; Parotid gland

Funding

  1. Oracle Cancer Trust
  2. Cancer Research UK [C8996/A3803]
  3. ICR-CTSU program [C1491/A9895]
  4. National Cancer Research Network
  5. Section of Radiotherapy Grant [C46/A2131]
  6. Head and Neck Program [C7224/A13407]
  7. NHS
  8. Cancer Research UK [10588, 13407] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the dose-response relationships for the different measures of salivary gland recovery following radical radiotherapy for locally advanced-head and neck squamous cell cancers (LA-HNSCC). Methods and materials: Dosimetric analysis of data from the PARSPORT trial, a Phase III study of conventional RT (RT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for LA-HNSCC was undertaken to determine the relationship between parotid gland mean dose and toxicity endpoints: high-grade subjective and objective xerostomia and xerostomia-related quality of life scores. LKB-NTCP parameters (TD50, m and n) were generated and tolerance doses (D50) reported using non-linear logistic regression analysis. Results: Data were available on 63 patients from the PARSPORT trial. Parotid saliva flow rate provided the strongest association between mean dose and recovery, D50 = 23.4 Gy (20.6-26.2) and k = 3.2 (1.9-4.5), R-2 = 0.85. Corresponding LKB parameters were TD50 = 26.3 Gy (95% CI: 24.0-30.1), m = 0.25 (0.18-1.0 and n = 1). LENTSOMA subjective xerostomia also demonstrated a strong association D50 = 33.3 Gy (26.7-39.8), k = 2.8 (91.4-4.4), R-2 = 0.77). Conclusion: We recommend using the LENT SOMA subjective xerostomia score to predict recovery of salivation due to its strong association with dosimetry and ease of recording. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available