Multi-Domain Screening:Identification of Patient’s Risk Profile Prior to Head-and-Neck Cancer Treatment

Background: Head-and-neck cancer (HNC) can give rise to oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD), malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty. Early identification of these phenomena in newly diagnosed HNC patients is important to reduce the risk of complications and to improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was (1) to determine the prevalence of the risk of OD, malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty; and (2) to investigate the relation between these phenomena and patients’ age, performance status, and cancer group staging. Methods: Patients (N = 128) underwent multi-domain screening consisting of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 for OD, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire and BMI for malnutrition, Short Physical Performance Battery and Hand Grip Strength for sarcopenia, and Distress Thermometer and Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for frailty. Results: 26.2%, 31.0%, 73.0%, and 46.4% of the patients were at risk for OD, malnutrition, sarcopenia, or frailty, respectively. Patients with an advanced cancer stage had a significantly higher risk of OD and high levels of distress prior to cancer treatment. Conclusions: This study identified the risk profile of newly diagnosed HNC patients using a standardized ‘quick and easy’ multi-domain screening prior to cancer treatment.</p

FEES protocol derived estimates of sensitivity: aspiration in dysphagia patients

Aspiration is a common phenomenon in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. It can be studied using fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). FEES is well known and widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of swallowing disorders. However, various protocols exist, and there is no consensus on the examination protocol. The objective of this prospective study was to determine the FEES protocol derived estimates of sensitivity (Se') to detection of aspiration in dysphagic patients. The study estimated the probability of aspiration as a function of the number of swallow trials in dysphagic patients using FEES. The derived sensitivity was calculated based on presence or absence of aspiration in a ten-swallow trial protocol as arbitrary 'gold standard'. Eighty-four persons were included, comprising two patient populations with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia in one group was due to head and neck cancer and possible oncological treatment effects on swallowing; in the other it was a result of neurological disease. All patients underwent a standardized FEES examination using ten swallows of thin liquid followed by ten swallows of thick liquid, all in boluses of 10 cc each. FEES recordings were rated for aspiration by an expert panel blinded to patients' identity and clinical history. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis techniques, and Log Rank/Mantel–Cox tests were used. In both patient populations the aspiration risk was underestimated when using a limited number (three or four) of swallow trials. The oncology and neurology patients differed significantly in the number of swallow trials required to determine aspiration for thin liquids (median values 2 and 7 respectively, P = 0.006). FEES protocols using a limited number of swallow trials can underestimate the aspiration risk in both oncological and neurological patients suffering from oropharyngeal dysphagia, especially when using boluses with a thin liquid consistency

The effect of surface electrical stimulation on swallowing in dysphagic Parkinson patients

Surface electrical stimulation has been applied on a large scale to treat oropharyngeal dysphagia. Patients suffering from oropharyngeal dysphagia in the presence of Parkinson’s disease have been treated with surface electrical stimulation. Because of controversial reports on this treatment, a pilot study was set up. This study describes the effects of a single session of surface electrical stimulation using different electrode positions in ten patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (median Hoehn and Yahr score: II) and oropharyngeal dysphagia compared to ten age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects during videofluoroscopy of swallowing. Three different electrode positions were applied in random order per subject. For each electrode position, the electrical current was respectively turned “on” and “off” in random order. Temporal, spatial, and visuoperceptual variables were scored by experienced raters who were blinded to the group, electrode position, and status (on/off) of the electrical current. Interrater and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Only a few significant effects of a single session of surface electrical stimulation using different electrode positions in dysphagic Parkinson patients could be observed in this study. Furthermore, significant results for temporal and spatial variables were found regardless of the status of the electrical current in both groups suggesting placebo effects. Following adjustment for electrical current status as well as electrode positions (both not significant, P > 0.05) in the statistical model, significant group differences between Parkinson patients and healthy control subjects emerged. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the potential therapeutic effect and mechanism of electrical stimulation in dysphagic patients with Parkinson’s disease

ESSD Commentary on Dysphagia Management During COVID Pandemia

Since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic a Global Public Health Emergency, experts in swallowing are seeking guidance on service delivery and clinical procedures. The European Society for Swallowing Disorders provides considerations to support experts in swallowing disorders in clinical practice. During the COVID-19 pandemic, assessment and treatment of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia should be provided, while at the same time balancing risk of oropharyngeal complications with that of infection of patients and healthcare professionals involved in their management. Elective, non-urgent assessment may be temporarily postponed and patients are triaged to decide whether dysphagia assessment is necessary; instrumental assessment of swallowing is performed only if processing of the instruments can be guaranteed and clinical assessment has not provided enough diagnostic information for treatment prescription. Assessment and management of oropharyngeal dysphagia is a high-risk situation as it must be considered an aerosol-generating procedure. Personal protective equipment (PPE) should be used. Telepractice is encouraged and compensatory treatments are recommended

Maximum phonation time: variability and reliability

The objective of the study was to determine maximum phonation time reliability as a function of the number of trials, days, and raters in dysphonic and control subjects. Two groups of adult subjects participated in this reliability study: a group of outpatients with functional or organic dysphonia versus a group of healthy control subjects matched by age and gender. Over a period of maximally 6 weeks, three video recordings were made of five subjects' maximum phonation time trials. A panel of five experts were responsible for all measurements, including a repeated measurement of the subjects' first recordings. Patients showed significantly shorter maximum phonation times compared with healthy controls (on average, 6.6 seconds shorter). The averaged interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) over all raters per trial for the first day was 0.998. The averaged reliability coefficient per rater and per trial for repeated measurements of the first day's data was 0.997, indicating high intrarater reliability. The mean reliability coefficient per day for one trial was 0.939. When using five trials, the reliability increased to 0.987. The reliability over five trials for a single day was 0.836; for 2 days, 0.911; and for 3 days, 0.935. To conclude, the maximum phonation time has proven to be a highly reliable measure in voice assessment. A single rater is sufficient to provide highly reliable measurements