566
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles: Clinical Oncology

Volumetric changes of the parotid gland during IMRT based on mid-treatment imaging: implications for parotid stem cell sparing strategies in head and neck cancer

, , , , , & ORCID Icon show all
Pages 1069-1074 | Received 14 Apr 2022, Accepted 30 Jul 2022, Published online: 17 Aug 2022

Figures & data

Table 1. Patient characteristics, QoL questionnaire results and parotid gland volumes.

Figure 1. Linear regression showing change in PG volume from baseline to mid-treatment as a function of the planned mean dose to the contralateral parotid gland (a) and ipsilateral parotid gland (b). The corresponding regression lines are shown with accompanying 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 1. Linear regression showing change in PG volume from baseline to mid-treatment as a function of the planned mean dose to the contralateral parotid gland (a) and ipsilateral parotid gland (b). The corresponding regression lines are shown with accompanying 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 2. Scatter plot comparing the mean dose to contralateral parotid vs. mean dose to contralateral parotid SC PRV, based on planned dose from pre-treatment CT. The red circles represent patients who reported severe dry mouth (QoL score 3 or 4), and the black squares represent patients who did not (QoL score 1 or 2).

Figure 2. Scatter plot comparing the mean dose to contralateral parotid vs. mean dose to contralateral parotid SC PRV, based on planned dose from pre-treatment CT. The red circles represent patients who reported severe dry mouth (QoL score 3 or 4), and the black squares represent patients who did not (QoL score 1 or 2).

Figure 3. Logistic dose-response models estimating the risk of severe xerostomia as a function of mean dose to contralateral PG (a) and mean dose to the contralateral PGSC PRV (b), based on planned dose from pre-treatment CT. Patients were binned into four groups by mean dose: <10 Gy, 10–25 Gy, 25–35 Gy, and >35 Gy. Uncertainty bars represent 95% confidence intervals of xerostomia risk (vertical) and mean dose (horizontal) for each bin.

Figure 3. Logistic dose-response models estimating the risk of severe xerostomia as a function of mean dose to contralateral PG (a) and mean dose to the contralateral PGSC PRV (b), based on planned dose from pre-treatment CT. Patients were binned into four groups by mean dose: <10 Gy, 10–25 Gy, 25–35 Gy, and >35 Gy. Uncertainty bars represent 95% confidence intervals of xerostomia risk (vertical) and mean dose (horizontal) for each bin.

Table 2. Univariable logistic regression models of patient-reported severe xerostomia.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material

Download MS Word (4.5 MB)

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.