Evidence Hub

Pharyngeal Constrictor Dose-Volume Histogram Metrics and Patient-Reported Dysphagia in Head and Neck Radiotherapy

Paetkau O, Weppler S, Kwok J, Quon HC, Gomes da Rocha C, Smith W, Tchistiakova E, Kirkby C

Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2024

Abstract

AIMS: Head and neck radiotherapy long-term survival continues to improve and the management of long-term side-effects is moving to the forefront of patient care. Dysphagia is associated with dose to the pharyngeal constrictors and can be measured using patient-reported outcomes to evaluate its effect on quality of life. The aim of the present study was to relate pharyngeal constrictor dose-volume parameters with patient-reported outcomes to identify prognostic dose constraints.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 64-patient training cohort and a 24-patient testing cohort of oropharynx and nasopharynx cancer patients treated with curative-intent chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively examined. These patients completed the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory outcome survey at 12 months post-radiotherapy to evaluate late dysphagia: a composite score lower than 60 indicated dysphagia. The pharyngeal constrictor muscles were subdivided into four substructures: superior, middle, inferior and cricopharyngeal. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics for each of the structure combinations were extracted. A decision tree classifier was run for each DVH metric to identify dose constraints optimising the accuracy and sensitivity of the cohort. A 60% accuracy threshold and feature selection method were used to ensure statistically significant DVH metrics were identified. These dose constraints were then validated on the 24-patient testing cohort.

RESULTS: Existing literature dose constraints only had two…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free