OBJECTIVES:Perceptual judgments and patients' perception of voice and speech after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for advanced head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. METHODS: A standard Dutch text and a diadochokinetic task were recorded. Expert listeners rated voice and speech quality (based on Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain), articulation (overall, [p], [t], [k]), and comparative mean opinion scores of voice and speech at three assessment points calculated. A structured study-specific questionnaire evaluated patients' perception pretreatment (N=55), at 10-week (N=49) and 1-year posttreatment (N=37). RESULTS: At 10 weeks, perceptual voice quality is significantly affected. The parameters overall voice quality (mean, -0.24; P=0.008), strain (mean, -0.12; P=0.012), nasality (mean, -0.08; P=0.009), roughness (mean, -0.22; P=0.001), and pitch (mean, -0.03; P=0.041) improved over time but not beyond baseline levels, except for asthenia at 1-year posttreatment (voice is less asthenic than at baseline; mean, +0.20; P=0.03). Perceptual analyses of articulation showed no significant differences. Patients judge their voice quality as good (score, 18/20) at all assessment points, but at 1-year posttreatment, most of them (70%) judge their "voice not as it used to be." In the 1-year versus 10-week posttreatment comparison, the larynx-hypopharynx tumor group was more strained, whereas nonlarynx tumor voices were judged less strained (mean, -0.33 and +0.07, respectively; P=0.031). Patients' perceived changes in voice and speech quality at 10-week post- versus pretreatment correlate weakly with expert judgments. CONCLUSION:Overall, perceptual CCRT effects on voice and speech seem to peak at 10-week posttreatment but level off at 1-year posttreatment. However, at that assessment point, most patients still perceive their voice as different from baseline.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Perceptual judgments and patients' perception of voice and speech after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for advanced head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. METHODS: A standard Dutch text and a diadochokinetic task were recorded. Expert listeners rated voice and speech quality (based on Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain), articulation (overall, [p], [t], [k]), and comparative mean opinion scores of voice and speech at three assessment points calculated. A structured study-specific questionnaire evaluated patients' perception pretreatment (N=55), at 10-week (N=49) and 1-year posttreatment (N=37). RESULTS: At 10 weeks, perceptual voice quality is significantly affected. The parameters overall voice quality (mean, -0.24; P=0.008), strain (mean, -0.12; P=0.012), nasality (mean, -0.08; P=0.009), roughness (mean, -0.22; P=0.001), and pitch (mean, -0.03; P=0.041) improved over time but not beyond baseline levels, except for asthenia at 1-year posttreatment (voice is less asthenic than at baseline; mean, +0.20; P=0.03). Perceptual analyses of articulation showed no significant differences. Patients judge their voice quality as good (score, 18/20) at all assessment points, but at 1-year posttreatment, most of them (70%) judge their "voice not as it used to be." In the 1-year versus 10-week posttreatment comparison, the larynx-hypopharynx tumor group was more strained, whereas nonlarynx tumor voices were judged less strained (mean, -0.33 and +0.07, respectively; P=0.031). Patients' perceived changes in voice and speech quality at 10-week post- versus pretreatment correlate weakly with expert judgments. CONCLUSION: Overall, perceptual CCRT effects on voice and speech seem to peak at 10-week posttreatment but level off at 1-year posttreatment. However, at that assessment point, most patients still perceive their voice as different from baseline.
Authors: Judith A E M Zecha; Judith E Raber-Durlacher; Raj G Nair; Joel B Epstein; Sharon Elad; Michael R Hamblin; Andrei Barasch; Cesar A Migliorati; Dan M J Milstein; Marie-Thérèse Genot; Liset Lansaat; Ron van der Brink; Josep Arnabat-Dominguez; Lisette van der Molen; Irene Jacobi; Judi van Diessen; Jan de Lange; Ludi E Smeele; Mark M Schubert; René-Jean Bensadoun Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sophie A C Kraaijenga; Lisette van der Molen; Irene Jacobi; Olga Hamming-Vrieze; Frans J M Hilgers; Michiel W M van den Brekel Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Tanya L Eadie; Holly Durr; Cara Sauder; Kathleen Nagle; Mara Kapsner-Smith; Kristie A Spencer Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: B J Heijnen; R Speyer; B Kertscher; R Cordier; K W J Koetsenruijter; K Swan; H Bogaardt Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 3.411