R A Schoot1, E A R Theunissen2, O Slater3, M Lopez-Yurda4, C L Zuur2, M N Gaze3,5, Y-C Chang3,5, H C Mandeville6, J E Gains3,5, K Rajput7, B R Pieters8, R Davila Fajardo8, R Talwar9, H N Caron1, A J M Balm2, W A Dreschler10, J H M Merks1. 1. Department of Paediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. 7. Department of Audiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. Department of Audiology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the hearing status of survivors treated for head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma (HNRMS) at long-term follow-up. DESIGN: Cross-sectional long-term follow-up study. SETTING: Tertiary comprehensive cancer centre. PARTICIPANTS: Survivors treated for HNRMS during childhood in two concurrent cohorts; survivors in London had been treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT-based local therapy); survivors in Amsterdam were treated with AMORE (Ablative surgery, MOuld technique afterloading brachytherapy and surgical REconstruction) if feasible, otherwise EBRT (AMORE-based local therapy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed hearing status of HNRMS survivors at long-term follow-up. Hearing thresholds were obtained by pure-tone audiometry. METHODS: We assessed the hearing thresholds, the number of patients with clinically relevant hearing loss and hearing impairment graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv4) and Boston criteria. Furthermore, we compared hearing loss between survivors treated with EBRT-based local therapy (London) and AMORE-based local therapy (Amsterdam). RESULTS: Seventy-three survivors were included (median follow-up 11 years). We found clinically relevant hearing loss at speech frequencies in 19% of survivors. Multivariable analysis showed that survivors treated with EBRT-based treatment and those with parameningeal tumours had significantly more hearing impairment, compared to survivors treated with AMORE-based treatment and non-parameningeal tumours. CONCLUSIONS: One in five survivors of HNRMS developed clinically relevant hearing loss. AMORE-based treatment resulted in less hearing loss compared to EBRT-based treatment. As hearing loss was highly prevalent and also occurred in survivors with orbital primaries, we recommend systematic audiological follow-up in all HNRMS survivors.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the hearing status of survivors treated for head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma (HNRMS) at long-term follow-up. DESIGN: Cross-sectional long-term follow-up study. SETTING: Tertiary comprehensive cancer centre. PARTICIPANTS: Survivors treated for HNRMS during childhood in two concurrent cohorts; survivors in London had been treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT-based local therapy); survivors in Amsterdam were treated with AMORE (Ablative surgery, MOuld technique afterloading brachytherapy and surgical REconstruction) if feasible, otherwise EBRT (AMORE-based local therapy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed hearing status of HNRMS survivors at long-term follow-up. Hearing thresholds were obtained by pure-tone audiometry. METHODS: We assessed the hearing thresholds, the number of patients with clinically relevant hearing loss and hearing impairment graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv4) and Boston criteria. Furthermore, we compared hearing loss between survivors treated with EBRT-based local therapy (London) and AMORE-based local therapy (Amsterdam). RESULTS: Seventy-three survivors were included (median follow-up 11 years). We found clinically relevant hearing loss at speech frequencies in 19% of survivors. Multivariable analysis showed that survivors treated with EBRT-based treatment and those with parameningeal tumours had significantly more hearing impairment, compared to survivors treated with AMORE-based treatment and non-parameningeal tumours. CONCLUSIONS: One in five survivors of HNRMS developed clinically relevant hearing loss. AMORE-based treatment resulted in less hearing loss compared to EBRT-based treatment. As hearing loss was highly prevalent and also occurred in survivors with orbital primaries, we recommend systematic audiological follow-up in all HNRMS survivors.
Authors: Christopher L Tinkle; Alberto Pappo; Jianrong Wu; Shenghua Mao; Chia-Ho Hua; Barry L Shulkin; M Beth McCarville; Sue C Kaste; Andrew M Davidoff; Armita Bahrami; Daniel M Green; Kirsten K Ness; Thomas E Merchant; Sheri L Spunt; Matthew J Krasin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sophia Marie Häußler; Carmen Stromberger; Heidi Olze; Georg Seifert; Steffen Knopke; Arne Böttcher Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Eva Clemens; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Renée L Mulder; Leontien C M Kremer; Melissa M Hudson; Roderick Skinner; Louis S Constine; Johnnie K Bass; Claudia E Kuehni; Thorsten Langer; Elvira C van Dalen; Edith Bardi; Nicolas-Xavier Bonne; Penelope R Brock; Beth Brooks; Bruce Carleton; Eric Caron; Kay W Chang; Karen Johnston; Kristin Knight; Paul C Nathan; Etan Orgel; Pinki K Prasad; Jan Rottenberg; Katrin Scheinemann; Andrica C H de Vries; Thomas Walwyn; Annette Weiss; Antoinette Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen; Richard J Cohn; Wendy Landier Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 54.433