4.1 Article

High prevalence of olfactory dysfunction detected in treatment-naive patients with head and neck cancer

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
Volume 143, Issue 2, Pages 201-204

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2023.2181984

Keywords

Smell; head and neck neoplasms; olfactory mucosa; anosmia; olfaction disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study quantitatively tested the olfactory function of patients with head and neck cancer and compared it to that of healthy controls. The results showed that the olfactory function of patients with HNC was significantly worse, and most of them had olfactory disorders. Therefore, smell disorders may serve as a potential marker for early diagnosis of head and neck cancer.
BackgroundPrevious studies demonstrated the difficulty of patients with Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) in sensing food taste, a function in which olfaction has a significant role. However, neither study employed psychophysical tests or control groups to establish the veracity of such complaints.Aims/objectivesIn this study, we quantitatively tested the olfactory function of HNC individuals and compared their function to that of healthy controls.MethodsThirty-one HNC naive treatment patients and thirty-one controls, matched for sex, age, schooling, and smoking, were tested with the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT).ResultsThe olfactory function was significantly worse among the patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer [UPSIT cancer = 22.9(CI 95%: 20.5-25.4) vs. UPSIT controls = 29.1(CI 95%: 26.9-31.3); p < .001]. Most patients with HNC had olfactory disorders (n = 29, 93.5%). The risk of olfactory loss was higher in the cancer group [OR: 10.5(CI 95%: 2.1-51.9; p = .001)].Conclusion and significanceOlfactory disorders can be detected in more than 90% of patients with head and neck cancer when evaluated using a well-validated olfactory test. Smell disorders may be a potential marker for early diagnosis of HNC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available