Evidence Hub

Parotid gland stem cell sparing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

R. Steenbakkers, M. I. van Rijn-Dekker, M. Stokman, R. Kierkels, A. van der Schaaf, J. V. D. van den Hoek, H. Bijl, M. C. Kramer et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2021

102 participants · 38 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) frequently leads to salivary gland damage and subsequent xerostomia. The radiation response of parotid glands of rats, mice, and patients critically depends on dose to its stem cells, mainly located in the gland's main ducts (stem cell rich (SCR) region). Therefore, this double-blind randomized controlled trial aimed to test the hypothesis that parotid gland stem cell sparing radiotherapy preserves parotid gland function better than currently-used whole parotid gland sparing radiotherapy.

METHODS

HNC patients (n=102) treated with definitive radiotherapy were randomized between standard parotid sparing and stem cell sparing (SCS) techniques. The primary endpoint was >75% reduction in parotid gland saliva production compared to pretreatment production (FLOW12M). Secondary endpoints were several aspects of xerostomia 12 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were assigned to the standard arm and 48 to the SCS arm. Only dose to the SCR regions (contralateral 16 and 11 Gy (p=0.004) and ipsilateral 26 and 16 Gy (p=0.001), standard and SCS arm respectively) and pretreatment patient-rated daytime xerostomia (35% and 13% (p=0.01), standard and SCS arm respectively) differed significantly between the arms. In the SCS arm, 1 patient (2.8%) experienced FLOW12M compared to 2 (4.9%) in the standard arm (p=1.00). However, a trend towards better relative parotid gland salivary function in favor of SCS radiotherapy was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 102 participants or records.

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