4.7 Article

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

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 341-345

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据