| Literature DB >> 33802971 |
Wen Song1, Felix Caffier1, Tadeus Nawka1, Tatiana Ermakova2, Alexios Martin3, Dirk Mürbe1, Philipp P Caffier1.
Abstract
Patients with unilateral vocal fold cancer (T1a) have a favorable prognosis. In addition to the oncological results of CO2 transoral laser microsurgery (TOLMS), voice function is among the outcome measures. Previous early glottic cancer studies have reported voice function in patients grouped into combined T stages (Tis, T1, T2) and merged cordectomy types (lesser- vs. larger-extent cordectomies). Some authors have questioned the value of objective vocal parameters. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory prospective study was to investigate TOLMS-associated oncological and vocal outcomes in 60 T1a patients, applying the ELS protocols for cordectomy classification and voice assessment. Pre- and postoperative voice function analysis included: Vocal Extent Measure (VEM), Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI), auditory-perceptual assessment (GRB), and 9-item Voice Handicap Index (VHI-9i). Altogether, 51 subjects (43 male, eight female, mean age 65 years) completed the study. The 5-year recurrence-free, overall, and disease-specific survival rates (Kaplan-Meier method) were 71.4%, 94.4%, and 100.0%. Voice function was preserved; the objective parameter VEM (64 ± 33 vs. 83 ± 31; mean ± SD) and subjective vocal measures (G: 1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 1.3 ± 0.7; VHI-9i: 18 ± 8 vs. 9 ± 9) even improved significantly (p < 0.001). The VEM best reflected self-perceived voice impairment. It represents a sensitive measure of voice function for quantification of vocal performance.Entities:
Keywords: T1a glottic carcinoma; objective voice diagnostics; transoral laser microsurgery; treatment outcome; vocal extent measure (VEM); vocal function
Year: 2021 PMID: 33802971 PMCID: PMC8002749 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10061250
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Patient characteristics (n = 51) before TOLMS (left) and after TOLMS (right). Unless otherwise specified, data expressed as number of patients and percentage of group.
| Number | % | Number | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Initial cordectomy (via TOLMS) | |||||
| Age | 65 ± 12 | - | Grading of pT1a | |||
| Occurrence of pT1a | Follow-up | 45 ± 26 | - | |||
| Vocal fold involvement | Treatment response | |||||
| Appearance of pT1a | Survival |
Figure 1Videolaryngostroboscopic pictures and videostrobokymographic illustration of vocal fold anatomy and function, preoperative (upper row) vs. postoperative (lower row). Example A (left side): 45-year-old male professional theater actor with a flat hyperkeratotic lesion of the right vocal fold. Example B (right side): 32-year-old female medical doctor with an exophytic tumor of the right vocal fold. Findings three months postoperatively show: pT1a completely removed, healing process finished, vocal folds with straight margin, complete glottal closure, and restored phonatory mobility (A: normalized, regular and symmetric oscillations; B: oscillations with scarring-related reduced amplitude and phase shift).
Figure 2Five-year Kaplan–Meier estimates for recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and disease-specific survival.
Pre- and posttherapeutic parameters of vocal function in all patients and all cordectomy types (mean ± SD), their mean therapeutic differences (Diff) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for changes in vocal measures three months after pT1a removal.
| Vocal Measure | Total Group | Type I | Type II | Type III | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VEM | Pre | 64.4 ± 32.7 | 65.4 ± 36.9 | 70.3 ± 31.7 | 51.0 ± 18.4 |
| Diff (CI) | 18.4 (9.0; 29.8) *** | 21.3 (5.1; 37.6) * | 11.6 (−3.2; 32.6) * | 23.1 (−5.7; 52.0) * | |
| DSI | Pre | 1.2 ± 2.4 | 1.5 ± 2.4 | 1.4 ± 2.3 | −0.2 ± 2.6 |
| Diff (CI) | 0.3 (−0.2; 1.3) | 0.3 (−0.5; 1.9) | −0.4 (−1.4; 0.6) | 2.0 (0.1; 3.9) * | |
| Jitter (%) | Pre | 0.9 ± 1.1 | 0.8 ± 1.1 | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 1.5 ± 1.6 |
| Diff (CI) | −0.3 (−0.7; −0.02) | −0.2 (−0.7; 0.2) | −0.1 (−0.7; 0.3) | −1.0 (−2.0; 0.1) * | |
| MPT (s) | Pre | 13.3 ± 5.6 | 14.1 ± 5.2 | 12.3 ± 6.6 | 13.3 ± 4.5 |
| Diff (CI) | −0.01 (−1.9; 1.9) | 0.6 (−2.4; 3.6) | −1.4 (−4.6; 1.7) | 1.3 (−3.6; 6.0) | |
| VHI−9i | Pre | 17.7 ± 8.1 | 16.6 ± 8.3 | 17.1 ± 7.1 | 22.1 ± 9.1 |
| Diff (CI) | −8.4 (−10.9; −5.6) *** | −6.1 (−10.5; −2.1) ** | −9.4 (−13.1; −4.9) ** | −12.9 (−20.4; −4.3) * | |
| VHIs | Pre | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 1.9 ± 0.9 | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 2.4 ± 0.5 |
| Diff (CI) | −1.0 (−1.4; −0.8) *** | −0.9 (−1.3; −0.6) *** | −1.1 (−1.7; −0.7) *** | −1.4 (−2.2; −0.6) * | |
| G | Pre | 1.9 ± 0.7 | 1.5 ± 0.8 | 2.2 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.7 |
| Diff (CI) | −0.6 (−0.8; −0.4) *** | −0.5 (−0.8; −0.2) ** | −0.7 (−0.9; −0.4) ** | −0.8 (−1.2; −0.2) * | |
| R | Pre | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 1.5 ± 0.8 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 2.0 ± 0.8 |
| Diff (CI) | −0.6 (−0.8; −0.4) *** | −0.5 (−0.8; −0.2) ** | −0.6 (−0.9; −0.3) ** | −0.7 (−1.2; −0.1) * | |
| B | Pre | 1.0 ± 0.6 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.4 |
| Diff (CI) | −0.4 (−0.6; −0.2) *** | −0.4 (−0.7; −0.1) ** | −0.3 (−0.6; −0.1) ** | −0.5 (−1.1; 0.1) * | |
B: breathiness; DSI: dysphonia severity index; G: (overall) grade of hoarseness; MPT: maximum phonation time; R: roughness; VEM: vocal extent measure; VHI-9i: 9-item voice handicap index, VHIs: self-perceived overall vocal impairment. The level of significance is indicated as follows: * significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01; *** significant at p < 0.001 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
Figure 3Subjective vocal parameters before and after pT1a removal. Upper row: Comparison of pre- and postoperative voice parameters according to the GRB-classification. Lower row: Comparison of pre- and postoperative VHI-9i and VHIs scores.
Figure 4Objective acoustic parameters VEM, DSI, and jitter before and after pT1a removal concerning the total cohort and cordectomy types. Data are compared pre- vs. postoperatively via violin plots, i.e., box plots with kernel density plots rotated and surrounding them on each side. The boxplots display the median, quartiles, and the range of values covered by the data. The density curves display the full distribution of the data including any outliers. The level of significance is indicated as follows: * significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01; *** significant at p < 0.001 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
Published vocal outcomes for T1a glottic cancer treated with TOLMS, taken from representative studies (last 14 years, n > 10 T1a patients operated via TOLMS).
| Study | Numbers | Parameters for Evaluation of Vocal Function | Vocal Outcome after Transoral Lasermicrosurgery (TOLMS) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinician-Rated Assessment | Patient’s Self-Assessment | Acoustic-Aerodynamic Evaluation | |||
| Hamzany et al. (2021) [ | 27 T1a | GRB | VHI | F0, jitter, shimmer, | significant subjective improvement, no objective improvement |
| Strieth et al. (2019) [ | 14 T1a | – | VHI | – | improved voice preservation by KTP-TOLMS (lower VHI scores) compared to CO2-TOLMS (higher VHI scores) |
| Gandhi et al. (2018) [ | 40 T1a + b | GRBAS | VHI | F0, jitter, shimmer, | excellent vocal outcome (G 0.63, VHI 13); no pretherapeutic data |
| Hong et al. (2018) [ | 14 T1a + b | GRBAS | – | F0, jitter, shimmer, | GRB with mild dysphonia, Jitter 2.37%; no pretherapeutic data |
| Lee et al. (2016) [ | 50 T1a | GRBAS | VHI | F0, jitter, shimmer, NHR, | G significantly improved; voice quality improved over time in limited ELS resections (I-II) but not in extended cordectomies (III-V) |
| Fink et al. (2016) [ | 38 T1a | VAS (0–100) | VHI | – | similar or improved voice in limited ELS resections (I-III), VHI improved significantly (VAS n.s.); poorer outcomes in extended resections |
| Kono et al. (2016) [ | 64 T1a | GRBAS | VHI, V-RQOL | F0, jitter, shimmer, | mild to moderate impairment (GRB, VHI, jitter), better improvement over time in focused excision compared to defocused vaporization |
| Berania et al. (2015) [ | 18 T1a | PSS-H&N | VHI-10 | – | favorable functional outcomes (40% mild voice handicap, VHI-10 > 11); no pretherapeutic data |
| Bertino et al. (2015) [ | 135 T1a | degree of dysphonia (acc. Ricci Maccarini) | – | F0, HNR | mild to slight dysphonia in limited ELS resections (I-II), moderate to severe dysphonia in extended resections (III-V); no pretherapeutic data |
| Laoufi et al. (2014) [ | 44 T1a | – | VHI, EORTC QLQ-HN35 | – | VHI score mild to moderate impaired (mean 29); no pretherapeutic data |
| Friedman et al. (2013) [ | 57 T1a | – | V-RQOL | F0, jitter, shimmer, NHR, max. SPL range, max. F0 range, SPL divided by subglottic pressure | significant improvement of subjective (V-RQOL) and most objective (acoustic, aerodynamic) measures |
| Tomifuji et al. (2013) [ | 33 T1a | GRBAS | VHI | jitter, shimmer, HNR, | voice quality differs according to the type of cordectomy; no pretherapeutic data |
| van Gogh et al. (2012) [ | 67 T1a | – | – | F0, jitter, shimmer, NNE | quick voice outcome recovery apart from F0 (remains higher pitched), no significant long-term voice changes |
| Bajaj et al. (2011) [ | 14 T1a + b | GRBAS | VoiSS, UW-QoL | F0, F0 irregularity, | preservation of acceptable vocal function (GRB mild to moderate impaired, low VoiSS score); no pretherapeutic data |
| Keilmann et al. (2011) [ | 11 T1a | RBH | VHI-12 | F0, jitter, shimmer, MPT, | discrepancy over time (VHI deteriorated; RBH and objective measures improved); no pretherapeutic data |
| Lester et al. (2011) [ | 19 T1a + b | – | ordinal scale | F0, jitter, shimmer, MPT | objective acoustic measures showed no significant changes; deterioration of MPT (13s to 12s) and subjective rating score (3 to 2) |
| Motta et al. (2008) [ | 49 T1a | – | – | MPT HNR, | outcomes vary in relation to the main site of the pseudo-glottis, vocal compensation without normal voice quality; no pretherapeutic data |
| Núñez Batalla et al. (2008) [ | 19 T1a | GRBAS | VHI | F0, jitter, shimmer, NNE, MPT | mild to moderate impairment (GRBAS, VHI); no pretherapeutic data |
| Sjögren et al. (2008) [ | 18 T1a | GRBAS | VHI | F0, jitter, shimmer, intensity, MPT, VC, phonation quotient | mild to moderate voice dysfunction (G, B, VHI) in ca. half of patients; no pretherapeutic data |
| Vilaseca et al. (2008) [ | 35 T1a | GRBAS | ordinal scale | F0, jitter, shimmer, NHR, | self-assessed improvement; compared with healthy controls: increase of F0, jitter, shimmer (MPT decrease in extended resections); no pretherapeutic data |
| Roh et al. (2007) [ | 50 T1a | GRBAS | VHI, EORTC QLQ-HN35 | F0, jitter, shimmer, HNR, | improved vocal outcomes, significant in type I and II cordectomies (VHI, G, jitter, shimmer, HNR) |
Legend: CQ—closed quotient, EORTC QLQ-HN35—European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Quality of Life questionnaire; F0—fundamental frequency; GHD—Goettinger Hoarseness Diagram; GRBAS—overall Grade, Roughness, Breathyness, Asthenia, Strain; NHR—harmonics-to-noise ratio; KTP—Potassium titanyl phosphate; MFR—mean flow rate; MPT—maximum phonation time; NHR—noise-to-harmonic ratio; NNE—normalized noise energy; N/S—not specified; PSS-H&N—performance status scale for head & neck cancer patients; RBH—Roughness, Breathyness, (overall grade of) Hoarseness; SNR—signal to-noise ratio; SPI—soft phonation index; SPL—sound pressure level; UW-QoL—University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire; VAS—visual analogue scale; VC—vital capacity; VHI—voice handicap index; VHI-10—10-item VHI; VHI-12—12-item VHI; VoiSS—voice symptom scale; VRP—voice range profile; V-RQOL—Voice-Related Quality-of-Life survey.