PURPOSE: The mathematical relationship between the dose to the parotid glands and salivary gland production needs to be elucidated. This study, which included data from patients included in a French prospective study assessing the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (RT), sought to elaborate a convenient and original model of salivary recovery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2001 and December 2004, 44 patients were included (35 with oropharyngeal and 9 with nasopharyngeal cancer). Of the 44 patients, 24 were treated with intensity-modulated RT, 17 with three-dimensional conformal RT, and 2 with two-dimensional RT. Stimulated salivary production was collected for </=24 months after RT. The data of salivary production, time of follow-up, and dose to parotid gland were modeled using a mixed model. Several models were developed to assess the best-fitting variable for the dose level to the parotid gland. RESULTS: Models developed with the dose to the contralateral parotid fit the data slightly better than those with the dose to both parotids, suggesting that contralateral and ipsilateral parotid glands are not functionally equivalent even with the same dose level to the glands. The best predictive dose-value variable for salivary flow recovery was the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the recommendation of a dose constraint for intensity-modulated RT planning should be established at the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy rather than the mean dose. For complete salivary production recovery after 24 months, the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy should be <33%. Our results permitted us to establish two convenient tools to predict the saliva production recovery function according to the dose received by the contralateral parotid gland.
PURPOSE: The mathematical relationship between the dose to the parotid glands and salivary gland production needs to be elucidated. This study, which included data from patients included in a French prospective study assessing the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (RT), sought to elaborate a convenient and original model of salivary recovery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2001 and December 2004, 44 patients were included (35 with oropharyngeal and 9 with nasopharyngeal cancer). Of the 44 patients, 24 were treated with intensity-modulated RT, 17 with three-dimensional conformal RT, and 2 with two-dimensional RT. Stimulated salivary production was collected for </=24 months after RT. The data of salivary production, time of follow-up, and dose to parotid gland were modeled using a mixed model. Several models were developed to assess the best-fitting variable for the dose level to the parotid gland. RESULTS: Models developed with the dose to the contralateral parotid fit the data slightly better than those with the dose to both parotids, suggesting that contralateral and ipsilateral parotid glands are not functionally equivalent even with the same dose level to the glands. The best predictive dose-value variable for salivary flow recovery was the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the recommendation of a dose constraint for intensity-modulated RT planning should be established at the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy rather than the mean dose. For complete salivary production recovery after 24 months, the volume of the contralateral parotid gland receiving >40 Gy should be <33%. Our results permitted us to establish two convenient tools to predict the saliva production recovery function according to the dose received by the contralateral parotid gland.
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: Arjan Vissink; James B Mitchell; Bruce J Baum; Kirsten H Limesand; Siri Beier Jensen; Philip C Fox; Linda S Elting; Johannes A Langendijk; Robert P Coppes; Mary E Reyland Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H B Zhang; X Lu; S M Huang; L Wang; C Zhao; W X Xia; S W Li; F L Wang; Y L Zhu; X Guo; Y Q Xiang Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Vitali Moiseenko; Jonn Wu; Allan Hovan; Ziad Saleh; Aditya Apte; Joseph O Deasy; Stephen Harrow; Carman Rabuka; Adam Muggli; Anna Thompson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christian Grønhøj; David H Jensen; Peter V Glovinski; Siri Beier Jensen; Allan Bardow; Roberto S Oliveri; Lena Specht; Carsten Thomsen; Sune Darkner; Katalin Kiss; Anne Fischer-Nielsen; Christian von Buchwald Journal: Trials Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Paul Vos; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Misty Ceizyk; Lexie Smith-Raymond; Michelle Stevie; Benjamin Slane; Alexander Chi; Anand Desai; Shane P Krafft; Siyoung Jang; Russ Hamilton; Ulf Karlsson; Dave Abraham Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 4.430