PURPOSE: To evaluate xerostomia following intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved study of xerostomia was conducted in 210 head and neck cancer patients who were beyond the acute recovery phase (> 1 year) after radiation therapy. Xerostomia was evaluated with the 8-question XQ developed and validated at the University of Michigan. RESULTS: Median XQ scores (normalized so that no xerostomia = 0 and maximum xerostomia = 100) were larynx-only group, 4 points, ipsilateral radiotherapy, 34 points; bilateral radiotherapy, 64 points; IMRT with mean contralateral parotid dose more than 26 Gy, 44 points; and IMRT with mean contralateral parotid dose 26 Gy or less, 32 points (P < 0.05 for all major comparisons). CONCLUSION: The XQ is an excellent tool for identifying important differences in xerostomia after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. The authors' IMRT program decreases the severity of xerostomia symptoms compared with what is typically seen after conventional radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: To evaluate xerostomia following intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved study of xerostomia was conducted in 210 head and neck cancerpatients who were beyond the acute recovery phase (> 1 year) after radiation therapy. Xerostomia was evaluated with the 8-question XQ developed and validated at the University of Michigan. RESULTS: Median XQ scores (normalized so that no xerostomia = 0 and maximum xerostomia = 100) were larynx-only group, 4 points, ipsilateral radiotherapy, 34 points; bilateral radiotherapy, 64 points; IMRT with mean contralateral parotid dose more than 26 Gy, 44 points; and IMRT with mean contralateral parotid dose 26 Gy or less, 32 points (P < 0.05 for all major comparisons). CONCLUSION: The XQ is an excellent tool for identifying important differences in xerostomia after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. The authors' IMRT program decreases the severity of xerostomia symptoms compared with what is typically seen after conventional radiation therapy.
Authors: Weidong Lu; Peter M Wayne; Roger B Davis; Julie E Buring; Hailun Li; Laura A Goguen; David S Rosenthal; Roy B Tishler; Marshall R Posner; Robert I Haddad Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Markus Stock; Wolfgang Dörr; Carmen Stromberger; Ulrike Mock; Susanne Koizar; Richard Pötter; Dietmar Georg Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: S B Jensen; A M L Pedersen; A Vissink; E Andersen; C G Brown; A N Davies; J Dutilh; J S Fulton; L Jankovic; N N F Lopes; A L S Mello; L V Muniz; C A Murdoch-Kinch; R G Nair; J J Napeñas; A Nogueira-Rodrigues; D Saunders; B Stirling; I von Bültzingslöwen; D S Weikel; L S Elting; F K L Spijkervet; M T Brennan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Pinelopi Theopisti Memtsa; Maria Tolia; Ioannis Tzitzikas; Ioannis Bizakis; Kyriaki Pistevou-Gombaki; Martha Charalambidou; Chrysoula Iliopoulou; George Kyrgias Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Federica Pellegrino; Elena Groff; Luca Bastiani; Bruno Fattori; Guido Sotti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: A Andreano; M Ansarin; D Alterio; R Bruschini; M G Valsecchi; A G Russo Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.124