Kay W Chang1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA. kchang@stanfordmed.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To design a grading scale and audiologic protocols to better reflect clinical impact than the currently widely used classifications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. METHODS: Audiologic studies from 130 patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy were analyzed. Pure-tone audiograms were evaluated using the newly proposed grading criteria, Brock criteria, and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The resulting grades were then compared to recommended audiologic interventions. Auditory brainstem response (ABR) data and data on incidences of conductive hearing loss from other multi-institutional studies that the author participated in were compared to data from this cohort. RESULTS: Although the newly proposed, Brock, and CTCAE ototoxicity grades were significantly related to audiologist recommendations for assistive devices (P < .0001), the newly proposed criteria were more specific and allowed better delineation of different patients into distinct subgroups requiring either FM system (grade 2a) or hearing aid (grade 2b or higher). Multi-institutional data review indicated significant problems with ABR evaluations and separating out conductive hearing losses from ototoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The newly proposed grading system needs to be paired with specific recommendations regarding audiologic monitoring protocols as well as active participation by the audiologists implementing the protocol to provide clinically accurate assessment and grading of ototoxicity.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To design a grading scale and audiologic protocols to better reflect clinical impact than the currently widely used classifications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. METHODS: Audiologic studies from 130 patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy were analyzed. Pure-tone audiograms were evaluated using the newly proposed grading criteria, Brock criteria, and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The resulting grades were then compared to recommended audiologic interventions. Auditory brainstem response (ABR) data and data on incidences of conductive hearing loss from other multi-institutional studies that the author participated in were compared to data from this cohort. RESULTS: Although the newly proposed, Brock, and CTCAE ototoxicity grades were significantly related to audiologist recommendations for assistive devices (P < .0001), the newly proposed criteria were more specific and allowed better delineation of different patients into distinct subgroups requiring either FM system (grade 2a) or hearing aid (grade 2b or higher). Multi-institutional data review indicated significant problems with ABR evaluations and separating out conductive hearing losses from ototoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The newly proposed grading system needs to be paired with specific recommendations regarding audiologic monitoring protocols as well as active participation by the audiologists implementing the protocol to provide clinically accurate assessment and grading of ototoxicity.
Authors: Johnnie K Bass; Jie Huang; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Kay W Chang; Shaum P Bhagat; Murali Chintagumpala; Ute Bartels; Sridharan Gururangan; Tim Hassall; John A Heath; Geoffrey McCowage; Richard J Cohn; Michael J Fisher; Giles Robinson; Alberto Broniscer; Amar Gajjar; James G Gurney Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Wendy Landier; Kristin Knight; F Lennie Wong; Jin Lee; Ola Thomas; Heeyoung Kim; Susan G Kreissman; Mary Lou Schmidt; Lu Chen; Wendy B London; James G Gurney; Smita Bhatia Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James G Gurney; Johnnie K Bass; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Jie Huang; Murali Chintagumpala; Eric Bouffet; Tim Hassall; Sridharan Gururangan; John A Heath; Stewart Kellie; Richard Cohn; Michael J Fisher; Atmaram Pai Panandiker; Thomas E Merchant; Ashok Srinivasan; Cynthia Wetmore; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Clinton F Stewart; Gregory T Armstrong; Alberto Broniscer; Amar Gajjar Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Angela C Garinis; Alison Kemph; Anne Marie Tharpe; Joern-Hendrik Weitkamp; Cynthia McEvoy; Peter S Steyger Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Dawn Konrad-Martin; Kristin Knight; Garnett P McMillan; Laura E Dreisbach; Elsa Nelson; Marilyn Dille Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2020 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Kristin R Knight; Lu Chen; David Freyer; Richard Aplenc; Mary Bancroft; Bonnie Bliss; Ha Dang; Biljana Gillmeister; Eleanor Hendershot; Dale F Kraemer; Lanie Lindenfeld; Jane Meza; Edward A Neuwelt; Brad H Pollock; Lillian Sung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Penelope R Brock; Kristin R Knight; David R Freyer; Kathleen C M Campbell; Peter S Steyger; Brian W Blakley; Shahrad R Rassekh; Kay W Chang; Brian J Fligor; Kaukab Rajput; Michael Sullivan; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Dimitrios Colevas; Ruth R Lira; Electra A Colevas; Philip W Lavori; Cato Chan; David B Shultz; Kay W Chang Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Austin L Brown; Philip J Lupo; Mehmet Fatih Okcu; Ching C Lau; Surya Rednam; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.452