Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jun 2.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 0):S58–S63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.090

Table 1.

Dosimetric predictors of xerostomia.

Investigator Patients (n)/follow-up (mo) Total prescribed target dose (Gy)* “Functional” endpoints assessed Dose–volume parameters

Unstimulated Stimulated
Blanco et al. (6), 2005 55/6; 29/12 50–71 Stimulated saliva flow Mean dose <25.8 Gy§
Eisbruch et al. (7), 1999 88/1–12 58–72 Saliva flow, stimulated and unstimulated Mean dose ≤22–25 Gy
V15 <66%
V30 <43%
V45 <26%
Mean dose ≤25–26 Gy
V15 <67%
V30 <45%
V45 <24%
Li et al. (9), 2007 142/1–24 60–75 Saliva flow; stimulated and unstimulated# Mean dose <25–30 Gy Mean dose <25–30 Gy
Maes et al. (8), 2002 39/1–4 66–70** SEF††; stimulated flow, 99mTc-pertechnetate scintigraphy Mean dose ≤20 Gy‡‡

Abbreviations: Vx = percentage of gland volume receiving >x Gy; 99mTc = technetium-99 m; SEF = salivary excretion fraction; RT = radiotherapy.

*

All ≈1.8–2.0 Gy/fraction.

1.5–1.8-Gy fractions in low-risk target volumes for intensity-modulated radiotherapy patients.

Grade 4 xerostomia using subjective, objective, management, analytic (SOMA) method; ≤25% of pretreatment level defined as event.

§

Mean dose to single parotid gland to reduce stimulated salivary flow from that gland to <25% of pre-RT saliva.

24 Gy at 1 and 3 months, 22 Gy at 6 months, and 25 Gy at 12 months; threshold dose defined as mean dose above which saliva production appeared to abruptly approach 0.

26 Gy at 1, 3, and 6 months, 25 Gy at 12 months; threshold dose defined as mean dose above which saliva production appeared to abruptly approach 0.

#

Predictors defined as mean doses below which efficient function recovery occurs with time, returning to pre-RT levels by 24 months.

**

66–70 Gy to primary tumor and pathologic nodes; 50–70 Gy to tumor bed if postoperatively; 46–50 Gy to elective nodes.

††

SEF loss ≥50% defined as event.

‡‡

Corresponded to probability of 70% that SEF loss was <50%.