Evidence Hub

Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial

E. H. Pow, D. Kwong, A. S. Mcmillan, M. Wong, J. Sham, L. Leung, W. K. Leung

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2006

20 participants · 739 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare directly the effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) vs. conventional radiotherapy (CRT) on salivary flow and quality of life (QoL) in patients with early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-one patients with T2, N0/N1, M0 NPC took part in a randomized controlled clinical study and received IMRT or CRT. Stimulated whole (SWS) and parotid (SPS) saliva flow were measured and Medical Outcomes Short Form 36 (SF-36), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quetionnaire, and EORTC head-and-neck module (QLQ-H&N35) were completed at baseline and 2, 6, and 12 months after radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (88%) were in disease remission 12 months after radiotherapy. At 12 months postradiotherapy, 12 (50.0%) and 20 patients (83.3%) in the IMRT group had recovered at least 25% of preradiotherapy SWS and SPS flow respectively, compared with 1 (4.8%) and 2 patients (9.5%), respectively, in the CRT group. Global health scores showed continuous improvement in QoL after both treatments (p < 0.001). However, after 12 months subscale scores for role-physical, bodily pain, and physical function were significantly higher in the IMRT group, indicating a better condition (p < 0.05). Dry mouth and sticky saliva were problems in both groups 2 months after treatment. In the IMRT group, there was consistent improvement over time with xerostomia-related symptoms significantly less common than in the CRT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, 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. Reported size: 20 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