Submandibular Gland Transfer for the Prevention of Postradiation Xerostomia in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Current management of xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients

Radiotherapy (RT) continues to play a key role in the management of head and neck cancer (HNC). Xerostomia remains a principal detriment to the quality of life (QoL) for 80 % of surviving patients receiving head and neck radiation. Radiation-induced injury to the salivary glands is dose-dependent, and thus efforts have been focused on decreasing radiation to the salivary glands. Decreased saliva production reduces both short-term and long-term quality of life in head and neck survivors by impacting on taste and contributing to dysphagia. Several radioprotective agents to the salivary gland have been investigated. Although not widely practiced, surgical transfer of the submandibular gland prior to RT is the mainstay of surgical options in preventing xerostomia. This review focuses on the strategies to improve xerostomia following radiation therapy in head and neck cancers.

Submandibular gland transfer for the prevention of radiation-induced xerostomia in oropharyngeal cancer: Dosimetric impact in the intensity modulated radiotherapy era

BACKGROUND

Submandibular gland (SMG) transfer decreased radiation-associated xerostomia in the 2/3-dimensional radiotherapy era. We evaluated the dosimetric implications of SMG transfer on modern intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans.

METHODS

Eighteen oropharynx cancer patients underwent SMG transfer followed by IMRT; reoptimized plans using the baseline SMG location were generated. Mean salivary gland, oral cavity, and larynx doses were compared between clinical plans and reoptimized plans.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in mean SMG dose (27.53 Gy vs. 29.61 Gy) or total salivary gland dose (26.12 Gy vs. 26.41 Gy) was observed with or without SMG transfer (all p > 0.05). Mean oral cavity and larynx doses were not statistically different. Neither tumor site, target volume crossing midline, stage, nor salivary gland volumes were associated with mean doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Salivary gland doses were similar with or without SMG transfer. IMRT likely decreases the benefit of SMG transfer on the risk of radiation-associated xerostomia.

Radiotherapy-Induced Digestive Injury: Diagnosis, Treatment and Mechanisms

Radiotherapy is one of the main therapeutic methods for treating cancer. The digestive system consists of the gastrointestinal tract and the accessory organs of digestion (the tongue, salivary glands, pancreas, liver and gallbladder). The digestive system is easily impaired during radiotherapy, especially in thoracic and abdominal radiotherapy. In this review, we introduce the physical classification, basic pathogenesis, clinical characteristics, predictive/diagnostic factors, and possible treatment targets of radiotherapy-induced digestive injury. Radiotherapy-induced digestive injury complies with the dose-volume effect and has a radiation-based organ correlation. Computed tomography (CT), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), ultrasound (US) and endoscopy can help diagnose and evaluate the radiation-induced lesion level. The latest treatment approaches include improvement in radiotherapy (such as shielding, hydrogel spacers and dose distribution), stem cell transplantation and drug administration. Gut microbiota modulation may become a novel approach to relieving radiogenic gastrointestinal syndrome. Finally, we summarized the possible mechanisms involved in treatment, but they remain varied. Radionuclide-labeled targeting molecules (RLTMs) are promising for more precise radiotherapy. These advances contribute to our understanding of the assessment and treatment of radiation-induced digestive injury.

Salivary Gland Hypofunction and Xerostomia in Head and Neck Radiation Patients

BACKGROUND

The most manifest long-term consequences of radiation therapy in the head and neck cancer patient are salivary gland hypofunction and a sensation of oral dryness (xerostomia).

METHODS

This critical review addresses the consequences of radiation injury to salivary gland tissue, the clinical management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia, and current and potential strategies to prevent or reduce radiation injury to salivary gland tissue or restore the function of radiation-injured salivary gland tissue.

RESULTS

Salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia have severe implications for oral functioning, maintenance of oral and general health, and quality of life. Significant progress has been made to spare salivary gland function chiefly due to advances in radiation techniques. Other strategies have also been developed, e.g., radioprotectors, identification and preservation/expansion of salivary stem cells by stimulation with cholinergic muscarinic agonists, and application of new lubricating or stimulatory agents, surgical transfer of submandibular glands, and acupuncture.

CONCLUSION

Many advances to manage salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by radiation therapy still only offer partial protection since they are often of short duration, lack the protective effects of saliva, or potentially have significant adverse effects. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and its next step, proton therapy, have the greatest potential as a management strategy for permanently preserving salivary gland function in head and neck cancer patients.Presently, gene transfer to supplement fluid formation and stem cell transfer to increase the regenerative potential in radiation-damaged salivary glands are promising approaches for regaining function and/or regeneration of radiation-damaged salivary gland tissue.

The efficacy of positioning stents in preventing Oral complications after head and neck radiotherapy: a systematic literature review

Background

Positioning stent in head and neck radiotherapy seems to have benefit to prevent oral complications but it hasn’t been summarized by an evidence-based method.

Objectives

This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of positioning stents in preventing oral complications after radiotherapy.

Methods

We conducted an electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CDSR, and Cochrane CENTRAL database for randomized-controlled clinical trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies that assessed oral complications after head and neck radiotherapy with positioning stents. Two reviewers extracted information on radiotherapy, follow-up period, oral complications and assessments independently.

Results

Three RCTs and two cohort studies were included in this review. Oral complications such as mucositis, xerostomia, taste alteration, trismus, salivary changes, dysphagia and pain on swallowing were assessed by different methods in these studies.

Conclusions

Oral complications were common in patients after head and neck radiotherapy. There is insufficient evidence that positioning stents have a preventive effect against xerostomia, and it needs more high-quality and prospective trials with long-term follow-up to support it.

Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets.

Methods

Studies comparing the EARR between orthodontic patients using self-ligating or conventional brackets were identified through electronic search in databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and SIGLE, and manual search in relevant journals and reference lists of the included studies until Apr 2016. The extraction of data and risk of bias evaluation were conducted by two investigators independently. The original outcome underwent statistical pooling by using Review Manager 5.

Results

Seven studies were included in the systematic review, out of which, five studies were statistically pooled in meta-analysis. The value of EARR of maxillary central incisors in the self-ligating bracket group was significantly lower than that in the conventional bracket group (SMD −0.31; 95% CI: −0.60–−0.01). No significant differences in other incisors were observed between self−ligating and conventional brackets.

Conclusions

Current evidences suggest self-ligating brackets do not outperform conventional brackets in reducing the EARR in maxillary lateral incisors, mandible central incisors and mandible lateral incisors. However, self-ligating brackets appear to have an advantage in protecting maxillary central incisor from EARR, which still needs to be confirmed by more high-quality studies.