BACKGROUND: Xerostomia is a serious morbidity of radiation treatment in head and neck cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective phase III multicenter randomized study comparing submandibular salivary gland transfer (SGT) procedure with pilocarpine during and for 3 months after XRT. Salivary flow (baseline, stimulated) and University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (U of W QOL) scores were measured. RESULTS.: An interim intent to treat analysis (120 patients) at 6 months shows superior results in SGT arm: median baseline salivary flow for SGT (0.04 mL/minute) versus pilocarpine (0.01 mL/minute), p = .001; median stimulated salivary flow (0.18 mL/minute) for SGT versus (0.05 mL/minute) for pilocarpine, p = .003. Scores (U of W QOL) for amount (p = .017) and consistency of saliva (p = .005) in favor of SGT leading to premature closure of study. CONCLUSIONS: Submandibular SGT procedure is superior to pilocarpine in management of radiation-induced xerostomia.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Xerostomia is a serious morbidity of radiation treatment in head and neck cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective phase III multicenter randomized study comparing submandibular salivary gland transfer (SGT) procedure with pilocarpine during and for 3 months after XRT. Salivary flow (baseline, stimulated) and University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (U of W QOL) scores were measured. RESULTS.: An interim intent to treat analysis (120 patients) at 6 months shows superior results in SGT arm: median baseline salivary flow for SGT (0.04 mL/minute) versus pilocarpine (0.01 mL/minute), p = .001; median stimulated salivary flow (0.18 mL/minute) for SGT versus (0.05 mL/minute) for pilocarpine, p = .003. Scores (U of W QOL) for amount (p = .017) and consistency of saliva (p = .005) in favor of SGT leading to premature closure of study. CONCLUSIONS: Submandibular SGT procedure is superior to pilocarpine in management of radiation-induced xerostomia.
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: Naresh Jha; Jonathan Harris; Hadi Seikaly; John R Jacobs; A J B McEwan; K Thomas Robbins; John Grecula; Anand K Sharma; K Kian Ang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alice Banh; Nan Xiao; Hongbin Cao; Che-Hong Chen; Peiwen Kuo; Trevor Krakow; Brindha Bavan; Brian Khong; Mike Yao; Chi Ha; Michael J Kaplan; Davud Sirjani; Kristin Jensen; Christina S Kong; Daria Mochly-Rosen; Albert C Koong; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Bruce J Baum; Changyu Zheng; Ilias Alevizos; Ana P Cotrim; Shuying Liu; Linda McCullagh; Corinne M Goldsmith; Nancy McDermott; John A Chiorini; Nikolay P Nikolov; Gabor G Illei Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2009-11-04 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Y Ota; A Morito; K Fujisawa; M Nishida; H Hata; T Ueno; T Yurikusa; T Murata Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 2.520