BACKGROUND: Acoustic evaluation of speech is the least explored method of speech evaluation in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. The purpose of this study was to explore acoustic parameters of speech and their correlation with questionnaire evaluation and perceptual evaluation in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS: One hundred seventeen subjects (65 consecutive patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer and 52 controls) participated in this study. Formant frequencies (by Linear Predictive Coding), Speech Handicap Index, and London Speech Evaluation scale were used for acoustic evaluation, questionnaire evaluation, and perceptual evaluation, respectively. RESULTS: Men showed significant elevation in second formant (F2) values for patients with oral cavity cancer and those who underwent surgery alone. Female patients with early T classification cancers and those who underwent surgery and chemoradiation showed significant reduction in the mean F2 values. Importantly, however, acoustic evaluation parameters did not correlate with either perceptual evaluation or questionnaire evaluation parameters, although there was moderate correlation between questionnaire evaluation and perceptual evaluation speech parameters. CONCLUSION: Acoustic evaluation modalities have no clear role in the management of patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Acoustic evaluation of speech is the least explored method of speech evaluation in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. The purpose of this study was to explore acoustic parameters of speech and their correlation with questionnaire evaluation and perceptual evaluation in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS: One hundred seventeen subjects (65 consecutive patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer and 52 controls) participated in this study. Formant frequencies (by Linear Predictive Coding), Speech Handicap Index, and London Speech Evaluation scale were used for acoustic evaluation, questionnaire evaluation, and perceptual evaluation, respectively. RESULTS:Men showed significant elevation in second formant (F2) values for patients with oral cavity cancer and those who underwent surgery alone. Female patients with early T classification cancers and those who underwent surgery and chemoradiation showed significant reduction in the mean F2 values. Importantly, however, acoustic evaluation parameters did not correlate with either perceptual evaluation or questionnaire evaluation parameters, although there was moderate correlation between questionnaire evaluation and perceptual evaluation speech parameters. CONCLUSION: Acoustic evaluation modalities have no clear role in the management of patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer.
Keywords:
London Speech Evaluation (LSE) scale; Speech Handicap Index (SHI); acoustic evaluation; head and neck cancer; oral and oropharyngeal cancer; quality of life; speech evaluation