This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gayle E. Woodson, MD; Clark A. Rosen, MD; Thomas Murry, PhD; Ram Madasu, MD; Frank Wong, MD; Arne Hengesteg; K. Thomas Robbins, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122(8):858-864.

Abstract
Objective
To identify objective parameters that could serve as valid indicators of vocal function in evaluating patients treated at multiple centers for head and neck cancer.

Design
Objective measures of voice were validated against functional outcome measures of voice and communication.

Setting
A multidisciplinary university-based ambulatory head and neck cancer clinic.

Subjects
Fifteen patients at varying posttreatment intervals after chemoradiation therapy for head and neck cancer and 5 volunteers with no cancer but with a history of heavy smoking and drinking.

Main Outcome Measures
Acoustic and aerodynamic parameters were measured in patients with head and neck cancer after treatment with combined chemotherapy and irradiation and in control subjects. Communicative function was assessed by perceptual assessment of recorded voice samples, by a clinician-based communication score, and by patient self-rating of voice and communication.

Results
Both perceptual analyis and communication score were concordant with patient self-rating of voice and communication ability. Acoustic measures were abnormal in patients, and jitter scores correlated with listener ratings of perceived voice quality. However, acoustic measures did not relate to communication function, as assessed by either the patient or the clinician. Laryngeal resistance demonstrated a significant correlation with both patient and observer assessments of voice quality and communication function. Laryngeal resistance was on average twice as high in patients who complained of voice fatigue, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions
Laryngeal resistance, determined during standardized phonation, is a reliable objective parameter of vocal function after chemoradiation therapy for head and neck cancer. A standardized clinician-based communication scale holds promise as a useful tool. Acoustic measures reflect the sound of the voice but not the ability to communicate effectively.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122:858-864

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Otolaryngology, University of Tennessee, Memphis.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Voice-Related Quality of Life After Treatment of Laryngeal Cancer
Oridate et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;135:363-368.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Voice and Swallowing in Patients Enrolled in a Larynx Preservation Trial
Carrara-de Angelis et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:733-738.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality-of-Life Assessment After Supradose Selective Intra-arterial Cisplatin and Concomitant Radiation (RADPLAT) for Inoperable Stage IV Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Ackerstaff et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1185-1190.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Evolving Role of Combined Modality Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer
Robbins
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:265-269.
FULL TEXT  

Acoustic and Perceptual Evaluation of Voice and Speech Quality: A Study of Patients With Laryngeal Cancer Treated With Laryngectomy vs Irradiation
Finizia et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:157-163.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT