Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology logoLink to International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
. 2014 Dec 5;19(1):46–54. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1395790

Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders after Nonsurgical Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer

Marta Halina Silveira 1, Rogerio A Dedivitis 2,✉, Débora Santos Queija 1, Paulo César Nascimento 3
PMCID: PMC4392544  PMID: 25992151

Abstract

Introduction Radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy can result in severe swallowing disorders with potential risk for aspiration and can negatively impact the patient's quality of life (QOL).

Objective To assess swallowing-related QOL in patients who underwent radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Methods We interviewed 110 patients (85 men and 25 women) who had undergone exclusive radiotherapy (25.5%) or concomitant chemoradiotherapy (74.5%) from 6 to 12 months before the study. The Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders (SWAL-QOL) questionnaire was employed to evaluate dysphagia-related QOL.

Results The QOL was reduced in all domains for all patients. The scores were worse among men. There was a relationship between oral cavity as the primary cancer site and the fatigue domain and also between advanced cancer stage and the impact of food selection, communication, and social function domains. Chemoradiotherapy association, the presence of nasogastric tube and tracheotomy, and the persistence of alcoholism and smoking had also a negative effect on the QOL.

Conclusions According to the SWAL-QOL questionnaire, the dysphagia-related impact on QOL was observed 6 to 12 months after the treatment ended.

Keywords: head and neck neoplasms, dysphagia, deglutition disorders, quality of life, radiotherapy, chemotherapy

Introduction

Use of radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy as primary treatment for cancer of the head and neck has increased over the past decades. Although the primary goal of treatment is to cure, a perceived additional benefit is the preservation of the organs of the head and neck. Thus, swallowing function after treatment is of major interest.1 However, the current literature indicates that, despite the anatomical preservation of the structures, swallowing function is not maintained at normal levels after treatment.2 3 4 Some alternative feeding route can be necessary due to dysphagia during or after the oncological treatment, which can impair the patient's quality of life (QOL).5 6 7

Although many modalities could demonstrate organic dysfunction in swallowing, the patient's subjective self-perception seems the most significant outcome measure. A questionnaire for measuring a patient's perception of dysphagia and its effect on QOL was developed.5 6 7 This tool, known as the Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders (SWAL-QOL)8 9 10 questionnaire, is validated, reliable, and reproducible for assessing the perception of dysphagia and has been validated in Brazilian Portuguese.11 Recently, the psychometric and clinical validity of the SWAL-QOL questionnaire was tested in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer and was found to be reliable, clinically feasible, and useful for evaluating swallowing problems. A difference of 12 points or more in score was considered clinically and statistically relevant in comparing groups of patients.12

The aim of this study is to evaluate swallowing-related QOL in patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for treatment of head and neck tumors.

Methods

This cross-sectional study consisted of 110 previously untreated patients from 21 to 87 years old (median, 61; 77.3% men and 22.7% women) who underwent radiotherapy or concomitant chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The protocol was approved by the research board, and the patients gave their consent for participation in this study. They were prospectively enrolled in the study from 6 to 12 months after the treatment ended. All patients were evaluated between May and August 2012 at the Service of Radiotherapy of the institution in which treatment was performed. All patients completed the study. Their data are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Patient characteristics (n = 110).

Variable Category n (%)
Age (y) Minimum–maximum
25th percentile
50th percentile (median)
75th percentile		 21–87
56.0
62.0
69.0
Sex Female
Male		 25 (22.70)
85 (77.30)
Tumor site Oral cavity
Oropharynx
Nasopharynx
Larynx
Hypopharynx
Unknown primary		 8 (7.30)
33 (30.0)
9 (8.20)
24 (21.80)
10 (9.10)
26 (23.60)
T T0
T1
T2
T3
T4		 2 (1.80)
27 (24.50)
24 (21.80)
28 (25.50)
29 (26.40)
N N0
N1
N2a
N2b
N2c
N3		 63 (57.30)
9 (8.20)
16 (14.50)
10 (9.10)
7 (6.40)
5 (4.50)
Treatment modalities Exclusively conventional radiotherapy
Chemoradiation		 28 (25.50)
82 (74.50)
Nasogastric tube No
During radiotherapy
During and after radiotherapy
In use		 77 (70)
9 (8.20)
16 (14.50)
8 (7.30)
Tracheotomy No
Definitive
During radiotherapy
Under temporary use		 85 (77.30)
8 (7.30)
13 (11.80)
4 (3.60)
Keep smoking No
Yes		 66 (60)
44 (40)
Keep drinking No
Yes		 80 (72.70)
30 (27.30)
Open in a new tab

The patients were asked to fill out the SWAL-QOL questionnaire previously validated in Brazilian Portuguese.11 It is a 44-item tool for assessing swallowing-related WOL, using 11 domains, including burden, desire, eating duration, symptoms frequency, food selection, communication, fear, mental health, sleep, social, and fatigue. Scores were calculated from each SWAL-QOL domain on a scale from 0 to 100, with a score of 100 representing the most favorable state.

The questionnaires were filled out once in a cross-sectional analysis by the patient alone or with the help of a relative or an interviewer if the patient was illiterate. Epidemiologic and clinicopathologic details were obtained from the charts.

Central trend and variability measurements were used to describe the numerical variables and the frequency distributions for categorical variables. To investigate associations between numerical variables (measurements) in groups with two categories, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied; with three or more categories, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used. When statistically significant differences were identified, the significance value was adjusted by means of Bonferroni correction. A significance level of 5% was used for all statistical tests, unless adjusted through Bonferroni correction, in which cases new significance values are presented. The IBM-SPSS statistical computer software (IBM-SPSS Statistics GradPack, Armonk, USA), version 21.0, was used to perform the statistical analysis.

Results

The SWAL-QOL questionnaire indicated low median levels, generally with worse scores for desire, mental health, burden, and eating duration domains (Table 2).

Table 2. Quality of life in swallowing disorders (SWAL-QOL).

Variable n min.–max. 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile
Burden 110 0–100 25 50 100
Desire 110 0–100 16 41 66
Eating duration 110 0–100 25 25 75
Symptom frequency 110 3.5–100 44 60 82
Food selection 110 0–100 25 75 100
Communication 110 0–100 25 75 100
Fear 110 6.2–100 37 75 93
Mental health 110 0–100 20 60 100
Social 110 0–100 38 75 100
Sleep 110 0–100 50 100 100
Fatigue 110 0–100 41 75 100
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: max., maximum; min., minimum; SWAL-QOL, Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders questionnaire.

The association between sex and the SWAL-QOL questionnaire was verified and the scores showed higher QOL impact among men in almost all domains, including eating duration (p = 0.003), mental health (p = 0.006), and symptom frequency (p = 0.022). Other domains also presented differences of more than 12 points but lacked statistical significance (desire, communication, fear, and sleep; Table 3).

Table 3. Association between SWAL-QOL and sex.

Variable Sex n min.–max. 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile p
Burden Female 25 0–100 50 62 100 0.038a
Male 85 0–100 25 50 93.75
Total 110 0–100 25 50 100
Desire Female 25 16.60–100 29 41 75 0.120
Male 85 0–100 16 33 66
Total 110 0–100 16 41 66
Eating duration Female 25 25–100 25 50 100 0.003a
Male 85 0–100 25 50 50
Total 110 0–100 25 25 75
Symptom frequency Female 25 26.70–100 53 76 83 0.022a
Male 85 3.50–100 39 57 78
Total 110 3.50–100 44 60 82
Food selection Female 25 25–100 25 75 100 0.287
Male 85 0–100 25 75 100
Total 110 0–100 25 75 100
Communication Female 25 0–100 50 75 100 0.204
Male 85 0–100 25 75 100
Total 110 0–100 25 75 100
Fear Female 25 25–100 46 81 100 0.111
Male 85 6.20–100 34 75 87
Total 110 6.20–100 37 75 93
Mental health Female 25 10–100 55 90 100 0.006a
Male 85 0–100 12 50 100
Total 110 0–100 20 60 100
Social Female 25 25–100 70 85 100 0.034a
Male 85 0–100 35 70 100
Total 110 0–100 38 75 100
Sleep Female 25 0–100 87 100 100 0.051
Male 85 0–100 50 100 100
Total 110 0–100 50 100 100
Fatigue Female 25 25–100 70 83 100 0.043a
Male 85 0–100 33 75 100
Total 110 0–100 41 75 100
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: max., maximum; min., minimum; SWAL-QOL, Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders questionnaire.

Note: p value according to Mann-Whitney test.

a

p < 0.05.

The primary tumor site was significantly correlated between oral cavity tumors and the fatigue domain (p = 0.041). There was a difference of more than 12 points in the communication domain for the larynx in comparison with other sites, which was not statistically significant.

Patients with advanced primary tumors (T4) had the worst results for the food selection (p = 0.037), communication (p = 0.022), and social (p = 0.021) domains. There were more than 12-point differences in scores for the burden, desire, eating duration, and mental health domains, suggesting that those patients had a worse QOL. On the other hand, the association between the regional stage (N) and the SWAL-QOL did not present a statistically significant correlation in the questionnaire domains.

A total of 82 of the 110 patients underwent chemotherapy concomitant to the radiotherapy. The result in the burden domain was worse in this group (p = 0.020) than in the group of exclusive radiotherapy. The scores presented a difference for the communication (50 × 25) and fatigue (27.08 × 50) domains but lacked statistical significance.

The presence of a nasogastric tube impacted on almost all domains, mainly eating duration (p < 0.001), symptom frequency (p < 0.001), food selection (p < 0.001), mental health (p < 0.001), and social (p < 0.001; Table 4). Bonferroni correction showed differences in the eating duration, frequency of symptoms, food selection, and mental health domains. Furthermore, the use of nasogastric tube during and after radiotherapy also interfered with some QOL aspects (Table 5).

Table 4. Association between SWAL-QOL and the presence of nasogastric tube.

Variable Nasogastric tube n min.–max. 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile p
Burden No 77 0–100 25 50 100 0.032a
During RT 9 0–100 0 50 62
During/after RT 16 12–100 25 37 68
In use 8 0–75 0 25 34
Total 110 0–100 25 50 100
Desire No 77 0–100 25 41 75 0.093
During RT 9 0–66 8 41 58
During/after RT 16 0–100 16 41 50
In use 8 0–75 2 12 60
Total 110 0–100 16 4 66
Eating duration No 77 0–100 25 50 81 < 0.001a
During RT 9 0–50 0 25 37
During/after RT 16 0–100 25 25 25
In use 8 0–50 0 0 18
Total 110 0–100 25 25 75
Symptom frequency No 77 7.10–100 52 66 85
During RT 9 25–66 25 46 53 < 0.001a
During/after RT 16 26.70–83.90 38 56 69
In use 8 3.50–71.40 10 22 46
Total 110 3.50–100 44 60 82
Food selection No 77 0–100 25 75 100 < 0.001a
During RT 9 0–100 25 25 75
During/after RT 16 25–100 25 37 75
In use 8 0–50 0 0 43
Total 110 0–100 25 75 100
Communication No 77 0–100 50 75 100 0.031a
During RT 9 0–100 0 50 100
During/after RT 16 0–100 6 62 100
In use 8 0–100 0 18 50
Total 110 0–100 25 75 100
Fear No 77 12.50–100 56 81 100 0.001a
During RT 9 18.70–93.70 25 25 81
During/after RT 16 25–100 32 50 85
In use 8 6.20–93.70 12 25 65
Total 110 6.20–100 37 75 93
Mental health No 77 0–100 40 80 100 < 0.001a
During RT 9 0–75 5 25 60
During/after RT 16 0–100 16 37 73
In use 8 0–50 0 7 23
Total 110 0–100 20 60 100
Social No 77 0–100 57 85 100 < 0.001a
During RT 9 35–75 35 40 72
During/after RT 16 0–100 25 47 82
In use 8 0–35 0 12 25
Total 110 0–100 38 75 100
Sleep No 77 0–100 68 100 100 0.458
During RT 9 25–100 50 87 100
During/after RT 16 25–100 50 93 100
In use 8 12.50–100 50 75 100
Total 110 0–100 50 100 100
Fatigue No 77 0–100 62 83 100 0.001a
During RT 9 0–100 25 50 66
During/after RT 16 0–100 33 75 100
In use 8 0–83.30 8 25 62
Total 110 0–100 41 75 100
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: max., maximum; min., minimum; RT, radiotherapy; SWAL-QOL, Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders questionnaire.

Note: p value according to Kruskal-Wallis test.

a

p < 0.05.

Table 5. Association between SWAL-QOL and the presence of nasogastric tube.

Variable Not during radiotherapy Not during/after radiotherapy Not in use During radiotherapy or during/after radiotherapy During radiotherapy or in use During/after radiotherapy or in use
Burden 0.156 0.237 0.011 0.626 0.372 0.036
Eating duration 0.015 0.061 < 0.001a 0.305 0.138 0.006a
Symptom frequency 0.003a 0.030 < 0.001a 0.084 0.092 0.009
Food selection 0.021 0.046 < 0.001a 0.373 0.070 0.006a
Communication 0.139 0.253 0.007 0.638 0.455 0.166
Fear 0.013 0.139 0.002 0.228 0.324 0.059
Mental health 0.005a 0.020 < 0.001a 0.392 0.155 0.016
Social 0.004a 0.009 < 0.001a 0.886 0.001a 0.011
Fatigue 0.008a 0.317 0.001a 0.144 0.241 0.024
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: max., maximum; min., minimum; RT, radiotherapy; SWAL-QOL, Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders questionnaire.

Note: p value according to Bonferroni correction (p = 0.008512).

The questionnaire also identified a statistically significant impact of the definitive tracheotomy in the communication domain (p < 0.001; Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6. Association between SWAL-QOL and the presence of tracheotomy.

Variable Tracheotomy n min.–max. 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile p
Burden No 85 0–100 25 50 100 0.042a
Definitive 8 0–100 0 6 43
Temporary during RT 13 12.50–100 25 37 50
Temporary use 4 0–87.50 6 50 84
Total 110 0–100 25 50 100
Desire No 85 0–100 20 41 70 0.133
Definitive 8 0–50 8 16 43
Temporary during RT 13 0–100 12 41 75
Temporary use 4 0–83.30 2 24 72
Total 110 0–100 16 41 66
Eating duration No 85 0–100 25 25 75 0.153
Definitive 8 0–75 6 25 43
Temporary during RT 13 0–100 25 25 37
Temporary use 4 0–100 0 12 81
Total 110 0–100 25 25 75
Symptom frequency No 85 7.10–100 48 60 85
Definitive 8 3.50–91 24 44 63 0.042a
Temporary during RT 13 26.70–75 39 50 60
Temporary use 4 8.90–78.50 12 46 75
Total 110 3.50–100 44 60 82
Food selection No 85 0–100 25 75 100 0.019a
Definitive 8 0–75 25 25 25
Temporary during RT 13 0–100 25 50 87
In temporary use 4 0–75 12 56 71
Total 110 0–100 25 75 100
Communication No 85 0–100 50 100 100 < 0.001a
Definitive 8 0–100 6 50 50
Temporary during RT 13 0–100 0 25 62
Temporary use 4 0–25 0 0 18
Total 110 0–100 25 75 100
Fear No 85 12.50–100 46 81 100 0.022a
Definitive 8 6.20–93.70 25 31 57
Temporary during RT 13 25–100 28 37 87
Temporary use 4 25–100 25 46 92
Total 110 6.20–100 37 75 93
Mental health No 85 0–100 25 70 100 0.054
Definitive 8 5–100 6 15 25
Temporary during RT 13 10–100 20 45 75
Temporary use 4 0–100 0 35 92
Total 110 0–100 20 60 100
Social No 85 0–100 40 75 100 0.003a
Definitive 8 15–75 22 32 53
Temporary during RT 13 0–100 15 40 87
Temporary use 4 0–85 17 72 82
Total 110 0–100 38 75 100
Sleep No 85 0–100 50 100 100 0.207
Definitive 8 50–100 50 62 8
Temporary during RT 13 25–100 68 100 100
Temporary use 4 12.50–100 21 75 100
Total 110 0–100 50 100 100
Fatigue No 85 0–100 58 75 100 0.199
Definitive 8 25–100 25 37 75
Temporary during RT 13 0–100 29 83 100
Temporary use 4 0–100 0 37 93
Total 110 0–100 41 75 100
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: max., maximum; Min., minimum; RT, radiotherapy; SWAL-QOL, Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders (SWAL-QOL) questionnaire.

Note: p value according to Kruskal-Wallis test.

a

p < 0.05.

Table 7. Association between SWAL-QOL and the permanence of tracheotomy.

Variable Not definitively Not temporarily during RT Not in temporary use Definitively or temporarily during RT Definitively in temporary use Temporarily during RT in temporary use
Burden 0.115 0.116 0.0525 0.051 0.332 0.908
Symptom frequency 0.068 0.032 0.0212 0.514 0.865 0.821
Food selection 0.005a 0.0190 0.199 0.091 0.275 0.773
Communication 0.019 0.002a 0.002a 0.628 0.059 0.110
Fear 0.009 0.068 0.346 0.239 0.481 0.818
Social 0.002a 0.022 0.308 0.636 0.267 0.690
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: max., maximum; Min., minimum; RT, radiotherapy; SWAL-QOL, Quality of Life in Swallowing Disorders questionnaire.

Note: p value according to Mann-Whitney test adjusted by Bonferroni correction.

a

p = 0.008512.

Alcohol consumption had a negative influence on QOL in the domains of communication (p = 0.020) and mental health (p = 0.031). The burden (25 × 9.38), social (40 × 33.75), and fatigue (52 × 33.3) domains were identified via differences in scores as well. On the other hand, patients who continued to smoke presented worse results on the burden (p = 0.003), mental health (p = 0.030), and fatigue (p = 0.028) domains.

Discussion

The incidence of posttreatment dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer has previously been reported to be between 50 and 60%.13 14 Furthermore, it has been estimated that 30 to 50% of patients with head and neck cancer demonstrate some degree of malnutrition.5 The combination of dysphagia with poor nutrition, significant weight loss, and impaired immune function often results in cachexia, fatigue, high susceptibility to infection, poor wound healing, or death.5 15

The most common acute side effects of chemoradiotherapy are mucositis, pain, dermatitis, xerostomia, loss of taste, hoarseness, weight loss, myelosuppression, nausea, and dysphagia. The most frequent late side effects are xerostomia, loss of taste, fibrosis, trismus, and dysphagia. Dysphagia has a potential for aspiration and death due to aspiration pneumonia.5 16 Thus, it is important to evaluate the short-, medium-, and long-term functional outcomes of radiotherapy treatment associated or not with chemotherapy. Some factors related to pretreatment status, such as weight, staging, primary tumor site, and treatment modality, interfere in the outcome and the QOL.17 18 19

We found the median scores of SWAL-QOL for the whole group showed some loss in almost all domains, even 6 to 12 months following treatment completion. Some aspects specifically related to feeding, such as desire, eating duration, burden, food selection, and fear, seemed to have relevance for those patients, jeopardizing their mental health. A person with dysphagia spends a longer time eating, presents lower skill to eat varied food, and can be afraid, constrained, and/or incapable of eating in public, remaining socially isolated and depressed.14

Men are more prone to be affected than women, showing a greater difficulty to adapt.

Dysphagia is common after the treatment of head and neck cancer; mucositis, nausea, loss of eating desire, taste changing, and xerostomia can make eating difficult and cause fatigue, jeopardizing the QOL.20 The fatigue domain presented a higher impact among patients with oral cancer. In fact, eating for a longer time can cause a feeling of fatigue. On the other hand, laryngeal cancer showed an impact on communication, due to mucosa dryness, fibrosis, muscular atrophy, and edema, which are consequent to radiotherapy and can affect vocal production.21 22 23 In addition, tumor location itself has some importance.

Patients with advanced primary tumor presented worse results. In contrast, the stratification of the patients according to the cervical staging (N) had no relationship with the QOL in our study, but other studies found that bilateral neck irradiation contributes to worse functional outcome.18

Most of our patients (74.5%) underwent concomitant chemoradiotherapy with greater harm on the burden domain. The effects of late radiation-induced toxicity on deglutition and the salivary glands are more intense in the first 12 months after treatment and decrease gradually after 18 to 24 months.24 It should also be mentioned that dysphagia and QOL are damaged in advanced tumors, worsen during chemoradiotherapy, and improve 6 months after the treatment.25 We studied patients whose period after the treatment conclusion varied from 6 to 12 months. When the SWAL-QOL was associated with the type of treatment, the first aspect accentuated was the domain of burden (which is related to dysphagia), followed by the domains of fatigue (related to feeding deficit) and communication (related to the tumor and treatment sequel).

The use of a nasogastric tube had an important impact on all domains of the questionnaire, worsening the QOL. A nasogastric tube changes the daily routine and needs special care. Furthermore, feeding time is longer than habitual, and as a result there are social isolation and mental health aspects to its use. The weight loss during and in the 3 months after radiotherapy is independently associated with the QOL in patients with head and neck cancer.26 The use of tracheotomy also affects the QOL, according to the questionnaire, mainly with regard to communication, mental health, and social life. These three domains are clearly related to each other in patients with tracheotomy. The communication domain showed a higher impact during temporary use and during the radiotherapy performance, whereas the social function and food selection domains more often identified definitive use. Food selection harm can be a consequence of posttreatment edema, which damages the pharyngeal transit and might require dietary adaptation to minimize the treatment sequela.23

Mental health was jeopardized among patients who continued to consume tobacco and alcohol. Such patients are prone to depression. The maintenance of those habits is responsible for a lower QOL.17 18 27 28

Dysphagia is generally underdiagnosed or is not properly considered. Despite not replacing the clinical and instrumental evaluations, QOL questionnaires can contribute to evaluating specific aspects regarding the patient's well-being and can point out some characteristics that are not measured by pathophysiological parameters.29 30

Conclusion

The effects of radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy on swallowing function are relevant on dysphagia-related QOL. The harm caused by dysphagia from 6 to 12 months after treatment is recognized by patients with advanced tumors. The type of treatment (concomitant combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy), use of nasogastric tube, tracheotomy, and continuation of tobacco and alcohol habits contribute to decreased QOL. The SWAL-QOL questionnaire is a useful and sensible tool to detect difficulties and perspectives of patients with head and neck cancer.

Acknowledgment

This study was sponsored by the National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) as Scientific Initiation grant.

References

  • 1.Pauloski B R, Rademaker A W, Logemann J A. et al. Relationship between swallow motility disorders on videofluorography and oral intake in patients treated for head and neck cancer with radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Head Neck. 2006;28(12):1069–1076. doi: 10.1002/hed.20459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Eisbruch A, Lyden T, Bradford C R. et al. Objective assessment of swallowing dysfunction and aspiration after radiation concurrent with chemotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(1):23–28. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02712-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Graner D E, Foote R L, Kasperbauer J L. et al. Swallow function in patients before and after intra-arterial chemoradiation. Laryngoscope. 2003;113(3):573–579. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200303000-00033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kotz T, Costello R, Li Y, Posner M R. Swallowing dysfunction after chemoradiation for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck. 2004;26(4):365–372. doi: 10.1002/hed.10385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Platteaux N, Dirix P, Dejaeger E, Nuyts S. Dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Dysphagia. 2010;25(2):139–152. doi: 10.1007/s00455-009-9247-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nuyts S, Dirix P, Clement P M. et al. Impact of adding concomitant chemotherapy to hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy for advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(4):1088–1095. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nguyen N P, Moltz C C, Frank C. et al. Dysphagia following chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(3):383–388. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdh101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McHorney C A, Bricker D E, Kramer A E. et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: I. Conceptual foundation and item development. Dysphagia. 2000;15(3):115–121. doi: 10.1007/s004550010012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McHorney C A, Bricker D E, Robbins J, Kramer A E, Rosenbek J C, Chignell K A. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. Item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia. 2000;15(3):122–133. doi: 10.1007/s004550010013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McHorney C A, Robbins J, Lomax K. et al. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia. 2002;17(2):97–114. doi: 10.1007/s00455-001-0109-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Portas J G. São Paulo, Brazil: Fundação Antônio Prudente; 2009. Validação para a língua portuguesa-brasileira dos questionários: qualidade de vida em disfagia (SWAL-QOL) e satisfação do paciente e qualidade do cuidado no tratamento da disfagia (SWAL-CARE) [Dissertação] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rinkel R N, Verdonck-de Leeuw I M, Langendijk J A, van Reij E J, Aaronson N K, Leemans C R. The psychometric and clinical validity of the SWAL-QOL questionnaire in evaluating swallowing problems experienced by patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):e67–e71. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gillespie M B, Brodsky M B, Day T A, Lee F S, Martin-Harris B. Swallowing-related quality of life after head and neck cancer treatment. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(8):1362–1367. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200408000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nguyen N P, Frank C, Moltz C C. et al. Impact of dysphagia on quality of life after treatment of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(3):772–778. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.et al. The impact of nutritional status on the prognoses of patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer. 1999;86(3):519–527. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shune S E, Karnell L H, Karnell M P, Van Daele D J, Funk G F. Association between severity of dysphagia and survival in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2012;34(6):776–784. doi: 10.1002/hed.21819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Frowen J, Cotton S, Corry J, Perry A. Impact of demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment factors on swallowing after (chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2010;32(4):513–528. doi: 10.1002/hed.21218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Langendijk J A, Doornaert P, Rietveld D H, Verdonck-de Leeuw I M, Leemans C R, Slotman B J. A predictive model for swallowing dysfunction after curative radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90(2):189–195. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Koiwai K, Shikama N, Sasaki S, Shinoda A, Kadoya M. Validation of the Total Dysphagia Risk Score (TDRS) as a predictive measure for acute swallowing dysfunction induced by chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancers. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97(1):132–135. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.List M A, Siston A, Haraf D. et al. Quality of life and performance in advanced head and neck cancer patients on concomitant chemoradiotherapy: a prospective examination. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(3):1020–1028. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.1020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saltman B, Kraus D H, Szeto H. et al. In vivo and in vitro models of ionizing radiation to the vocal folds. Head Neck. 2010;32(5):572–577. doi: 10.1002/hed.21212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kim J P, Khalmuratova R, Jeon S Y. et al. Quantitative analysis of myosin heavy chain expression change in laryngeal muscle after irradiation in rats. Yonsei Med J. 2011;52(1):158–164. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2011.52.1.158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lazarus C L. Effects of chemoradiotherapy on voice and swallowing. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17(3):172–178. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32832af12f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Langendijk J A, Doornaert P, Verdonck-de Leeuw I M, Leemans C R, Aaronson N K, Slotman B J. Impact of late treatment-related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(22):3770–3776. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Murry T, Madasu R, Martin A, Robbins K T. Acute and chronic changes in swallowing and quality of life following intraarterial chemoradiation for organ preservation in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 1998;20(1):31–37. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0347(199801)20:1<31::aid-hed6>3.0.co;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Langius J AE, van Dijk A M, Doornaert P. et al. More than 10% weight loss in head and neck cancer patients during radiotherapy is independently associated with deterioration in quality of life. Nutr Cancer. 2013;65(1):76–83. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2013.741749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mouw K W, Solanki A A, Stenson K M. et al. Performance and quality of life outcomes for T4 laryngeal cancer patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(10):1025–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.So W K, Chan R J, Chan D N. et al. Quality-of-life among head and neck cancer survivors at one year after treatment—a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(15):2391–2408. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Queija DdosS, Portas J G, Dedivitis R A, Lehn C N, Barros A PB. Swallowing and quality of life after total laryngectomy and pharyngolaryngectomy. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(4):556–564. doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30496-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McHorney C A, Martin-Harris B, Robbins J, Rosenbek J. Clinical validity of the SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcome tools with respect to bolus flow measures. Dysphagia. 2006;21(3):141–148. doi: 10.1007/s00455-005-0026-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology are provided here courtesy of Thieme Medical Publishers

RESOURCES