Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 2769 word(s) 2769 2021-09-09 08:26:20 |
2 update references and layout + 9 word(s) 2778 2021-09-22 11:06:12 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
De Cicco, D. HRQOL in Oral Cancer Patients. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 17 June 2024).
De Cicco D. HRQOL in Oral Cancer Patients. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 17, 2024.
De Cicco, Davide. "HRQOL in Oral Cancer Patients" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 17, 2024).
De Cicco, D. (2021, September 22). HRQOL in Oral Cancer Patients. In Encyclopedia.
De Cicco, Davide. "HRQOL in Oral Cancer Patients." Encyclopedia. Web. 22 September, 2021.
HRQOL in Oral Cancer Patients

The scope of the present entry was to highlight possible sources of bias that could be encountered when evaluating HRQOL (Health-Related Quality of Life) in patients treated for oral cancer. The second aim was to lay the foundation of a standardized protocol for cohort selection, data collection, and stratification that could enhance knowledge in the field.

quality of life HRQOL head neck oral cancer oncology

1. Introduction

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide precious information about troubles in everyday life and the perception of psychological and physical wellness from the patient’s perspective. Over recent decades, PROs have gained more relevance in treatment decision making, so much so that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) consider them — including the quality of life — as a relevant end point to approve new therapies [1][2][3]. To approach such a complex topic as the quality of life in oncological patients, they commonly refer to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). A distinction between these concepts has been made to exclude influences from domains that are not related to the patient’s health status [4], at least theoretically.

The concept of “quality of life” was firstly introduced by Heckscher [5], and in 1977 was adopted as a “keyword” by the United States National Library of Medicine [6]. Since then, several definitions have been proposed [7][8]. The WHO defined quality of life as “individuals perceptions of their position in context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goal, expectations, standards, and concerns” [9].

Head and neck tumors and their treatment may negatively affect patients’ HRQOL, which is considered an essential secondary outcome of treatment nowadays [10][11]. For this reason, having reliable evaluation tests is mandatory to better understand how and why specific medical interventions should be chosen and adapted according to individual needs. The quest towards the perfect quality of life evaluation test led researchers to understand some key points to be focused on: a test should be reproducible, sensitive, and easy to understand [12]. Questionnaires developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group are widely used in current literature to address these needs. A core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is associated with site-specific validated modules (EORTC QLQ-H&N35/43), consisting of single- and multi-item scales that measure several head and neck symptoms [13][14].

HRQOL is a complex topic and needs to be analyzed taking into account every potential influencing factor. Various sociodemographic, disease-specific, and treatment-specific aspects have been recognized as affecting HRQOL [12][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Several researchers have investigated its intrinsic multidimensionality, concluding that HRQOL plays a role in treatment decision making, but none have verified what the relevant items are and how this feature is assessed. The scope of the present review was to highlight possible sources of bias that could be encountered when evaluating HRQOL in patients treated for oral cancer. The second aim was to lay the foundation of a standardized protocol for cohort selection, data collection, and stratification that could enhance knowledge in the field.

2. Disease- and Treatment-Specific Variables

2.1. Cancer Site

Although HRQOL in HNC patients has gained great relevance during recent decades, most published studies still have not considered that cancer site might have a significant impact [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Indeed, the most common reason for exclusion in the screened articles was directly related to this aspect (Figure 1). This potential source of bias is scantly contemplated concerning the HNC regions (e.g., oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, etc.), and much less considering oral subsites.
Figure 1. Reasons for the exclusion of the screened articles.
Interestingly, findings reported by Kovacs et al. [22] demonstrated that cancers arising from different oral subsites differently affect HRQOL, while Pierre et al. [24] and van Gemert et al. [27] found no significant variations. Such controversies should be addressed by analyzing larger samples that allow performing a more reliable data stratification. At the same time, it must be highlighted that the cohort selection would overcome this issue by including more homogeneous cases, as performed by some included articles [28][29][30][31][32].

2.2. Cancer Stage

Most likely, the cancer stage represents one of the most challenging variables to correlate with HRQOL, since the multitude of baseline confounding must be considered. For example, compared to early-stage cancers, advanced stages require more frequently adjuvant therapies and they need more extensive surgeries, which may include a mandibular resection, implying more demanding reconstruction strategies. The appraisal of findings reported by Beck-Broichsitter et al. [33] and Becker et al. [34] provided a clear demonstration of possible controversies that could be encountered due to some omitted variable biases. The authors compared the same T-stage subgroups (Tis-2 vs. T3/4) and one found no significant differences, while the other reported worse results for almost all questionnaire items in advanced-stage cancers. Controversies like this are repeatedly presented in the screened papers, some reporting no differences [35][36][37][38], others reporting substantial ones [9][39][21][24].
In our opinion, the cancer stage could be considered in a wider context, including almost all baseline confounding. The only exception is represented by those middle-stage cancers that could or could not be eligible for adjuvant therapies based on clinical and histological features. Future studies will provide adequate piece of evidence to reliably correlate these variables.

2.3. Mandibular Resection

Although it has been previously stressed that mandibular resection strongly impairs patients’ HRQOL [16][40], the generic findings of included studies are inconsistent. Becker et al. [34] were the sole researchers reporting worse results in patients undergoing mandibular resection compared to those who did not. A mandibular resection group was also studied distinguishing marginal from segmental resections. Unsurprisingly, the former demonstrated better questionnaire results.
Like most of the selected variables, the controversies observed among included articles suggest the existence of baseline confounding. We suppose that the need for adjuvant therapies (particularly the RT), the reconstruction, the cancer stage, and the extent of surgical resection could be the most probable sources of bias, since the mandible involvement is commonly associated with advanced cancer stages.

2.4. Extent of Resection

Van Gemert et al. [27] were the sole researchers who stratified the studied sample according to the extent of resection (specifically in the horizontal size). Conversely to what was documented elsewhere [16][41], they reported minimal differences. Since the current knowledge in reconstructive techniques allows surgeons to adequately restore even complex and extended defects, the authors suggest that accurate and successful reconstructions could justify these findings. We agree with this hypothesis, despite the fact that surgical complications and secondary surgery must be excluded or carefully examined during data analysis to ensure the absence of possible omitted variable biases. Thus, influences from the aforementioned baseline confounding (see cancer stage paragraph) should be considered.

2.5. Surgical Approach

Within the included studies, the impact of the surgical approach on HRQOL was supposed to explain some of the findings. Ferri et al. [29] were the only ones who considered this variable for data analysis. They compared two different treatment protocols: transoral partial pelviglossectomy followed by a buccinator artery myomucosal flap versus a pull-through partial pelviglossectomy followed by various free flaps. Significantly better results were reported in the former group.
The comparison of different surgical protocols implies taking into account some baseline confounding. For example, the pull-through resection involves various deep structures of the mouth floor that can more likely be restored by using free flaps [42], as clearly recognized by the authors. The cancer stage, adjuvant therapies, and the extent of resection also represent possible baseline confounding variables, since the cancer extent might force the surgeon to choose more invasive surgical approaches.
As reported elsewhere in the literature, the surgical approach seems to impact HRQOL in treated patients. Although disease-free survival still represents the primary outcome, minimally invasive approaches should be considered whenever it is possible, in order to reduce post-operative morbidity [43][44][45][46][47].

2.6. Neck Dissection

Some contradictory results were retrieved from the included studies concerning the ND as an HRQOL determinant. Kovacs et al. [22] described progressively worse results comparing patients who did not receive ND to those treated by selective ND (lev. I–II) and those by type III modified radical ND. We agree with the authors’ opinion about the possibility of baseline confounding since patients undergoing ND most frequently even underwent adjuvant RT. Future studies comparing patients receiving RT/CRT only and those treated by surgery with neck dissection and adjuvant RT/CRT will probably clarify these doubts.

2.7. Reconstruction

Unsurprisingly, reconstruction was the most investigated among surgery-related variables. It is commonly believed that the quality of reconstruction is strictly associated with patients’ functional and aesthetic outcomes and post-treatment HRQOL [48][49]. Knowledge in reconstructive surgery has been taking great strides forward since free flaps were introduced for the restoration of head and neck defects [48][49][50]. Performing a systematic review of the literature on reconstructive strategies in patients not eligible for free flaps, we surprisingly highlighted a growing interest toward more conservative solutions over the last few years [51][52][53].
Despite the huge literature, reconstruction still raises disputes about which surgical reconstructive protocol is the best to restore oral defects [54][55][56][57][58][59]. Similarly, the findings reported by included studies showed widely controversial results. In this regard, it should be noticed that huge differences within the studied populations do not permit a reliable comparison of the observed outcomes. In our opinion, the evaluation of the impact of reconstructive procedures on HRQOL implies several risks of bias that must be considered. For instance, careful attention should be paid to patients who developed surgical complications, by excluding them or by performing an accurate sample stratification. Furthermore, the related complications may heavily impair the functional outcome, requiring a much longer recovery time, long-term rehabilitation programs, or even secondary surgery. Moreover, according to the chosen procedure, free flaps may lead to various donor site morbidity [60][61]. All these aspects should be considered for their potential effects on HRQOL.
Reconstruction strategies are mainly chosen according to the defect size and composition: small to moderate simple defects may benefit from reduced donor site morbidity by performing local flaps, while large and/or composite defects need free or regional flaps to be restored [51][62]. Therefore, the evaluation of the reconstruction as an HRQOL determinant should consider some baseline confounding variables, such as the cancer stage, the extent of resection, the mandibular involvement, and the adjuvant therapies. None of the included studies considered simultaneously all these independent variables during the data analysis. Conversely, many of them investigated various reconstructive procedures grouping different flaps together. In our opinion, a reliable comparison should firstly consider the studied flaps separately to minimize evitable biases.

2.8. Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy

Almost all the included studies agreed about the deteriorating effects of radiotherapy on HRQOL. Kovacs et al. [22] performed an accurate study comparing patients who received adjuvant RT, adjuvant CT, or adjuvant CRT. Interestingly, there were no significant differences between adjuvant RT and adjuvant CRT groups, which both demonstrated significant worse results compared to patients who did not undergo post-surgical therapies.
Some symptom-related items were found to be particularly affected: dry mouth, sticky saliva, and mouth opening were almost always impaired. These findings were in line with those already widely reported in the published literature [63][64][65][66][67][68][69].
The evaluation of HRQOL demonstrated less interest in studying the effects of neoadjuvant therapies and adjuvant CT alone. This could be attributed to the uncommon use of these treatment protocols in HNC and it would be interesting to investigate the existence of different influences on HRQOL between neoadjuvant therapies and post-surgical ones.
Further compelling aspects derive from the adopted RT technique. The accurate analysis performed by Huang et al. [39] underlined that the most recent 3D radiotherapy (3DRT) and the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) result in a better impact on patients’ HRQOL, as largely accepted in the current literature [70][71]. Nevertheless, most included studies did not specify which techniques were used in the studied samples, producing a relevant source of bias.
As mentioned above, adjuvant therapies suffer from several baseline confounding factors that should be always considered during the data appraisal. Nonetheless, the trends in the reported findings overtly suggest that it can be considered as one of the main HRQOL influencing factors.

2.9. Synchronous Lesions, Recurrences, and Metachronous Lesions

Although rare, the presence of synchronous lesions in the oral cavity inevitably requires larger resective surgeries that negatively influence the HRQOL, but only three studies clearly excluded these patients [28][29][38].
On the other hand, it might appear obvious that a recurrence of previously treated tumors or the development of further cancers may strongly impair HRQOL, especially by affecting psychological status and symptoms [72][73][74]. Nevertheless, only 12 of the included papers considered this aspect during cohort selection [33][75][29][39][21][76][37][31][23][24][27][38]. Mair et al. [31] were the only ones who conducted an analysis to compare disease-free patients to those who developed a recurrence. Their results strongly support the initial hypothesis, but we should make a point to note the potential sources of bias that might be encountered. Indeed, progression-free survival strongly depends on the cancer stage, which also reflects the invasiveness of the adopted treatment.

2.10. Major Surgical Complications and Secondary Surgery

Only a minority of the included studies considered these variables. Girod et al. [77] investigated the differences between the reconstruction of OC defects by using split thickness skin graft and acellular dermal matrix. They stratified the results by surgical complications, distinguishing patients who experienced a graft failure from those with regular healing. No significant differences were found, but the small sample size and the missing stratification by other variables might have affected their results.
It is reasonable to believe that post-surgical complications and recurrences may impact the HRQOL. In our opinion, this might be related to the resulting functional and aesthetic impairments or to the need for secondary surgery, which may impair the psychological status and the symptoms [72][73][74]. The included studies did not investigate this relation and it could be an interesting food of thoughts for future studies.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Studies

The number of controversies found in the current literature demonstrates a substantial lack of evidence regarding HRQOL determinants in HNC patients. Therefore, none of the potential influencing variables should be excluded from data analysis based on the authors’ opinion only.
Currently, many of the published articles considered a minority of potential determinants. The data analysis is commonly performed on the basis of each independent variable individually. By approaching such a complex and multidimensional aspect as the HRQOL in this way, the reliability of the reported findings might be strongly weakened due to several selection and omitted variable biases that could be encountered. Since the EORTC Quality of Life Group was founded in 1980, a standardized guideline for cohort selection is still lacking. Thus, the crucial task to avoid the described biases is charged to examiners’ knowledge only.
We strongly believe that almost all the identified determinants should be investigated. This implies that much larger samples and much more data must be collected. At the same time, particular attention should be paid to cohort selection to achieve better comparability among the studies. This scope will probably be attained by creating a shared and standardized online data set.
Considering the complex net of baseline confounding highlighted in this manuscript, a suitable strategy could be the use of further evaluation tools, scales, and indexes that condenses many variables in a single score. In our opinion, the benefits from this approach are twofold: a simplification of data analysis and a minimization of omitted variable biases. In this regard, an interesting investigation was performed by Tribius et al. [78] regarding the influence of sociodemographic variables on HRQOL in HNC patients. This study used an adapted version of a composite social class indicator [79] that considered three different sociodemographic variables (educational level, type of occupation, and household income) to differentiate the socio-economic status as high, moderate, or low. Other examples were reported within the discussion of this review (G8, ACE-27, KFI, HADS), but those were related to sociodemographic and psychological variables. To the best of our knowledge, no scoring systems that condense the selected DT-specific variables have been developed yet. Our recommendation for future research is to consider these features simultaneously, rather than individually, addressing the baseline confounding described above, and to select cohorts that are as homogeneous as possible. An example of this protocol is given by Ferri et al. [29] and Canis et al. [28], who performed some accurate cohort selections resulting in quite a small sample size, but one that was highly homogeneous and reproducible.
As observed by Borggreven et al. [35], patients usually present compromised HRQOL at the baseline, probably due to preexisting impairments related to comorbidity status or cancer diagnosis. We believe that this issue could be addressed by evaluating only the differences between baseline and post-treatment questionnaires in a longitudinal study design, rather than in absolute scores compared to a reference population in a cross-sectional fashion, even though the interquestionnaire analysis may highlight interesting insights [80].
As a result of this approach, more homogeneous, reproducible, and comparable cohorts will be expected, enhancing the level of evidence in the field.


  1. European Medicines Agency. Pre-Authorisation Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/139391/2004. London. 2005. Available online: (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  2. Apolone, G.; De Carli, G.; Brunetti, M.; Garattini, S. Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and regulatory issues. An assessment of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommendations on the use of HR-QOL measures in drug approval. PharmacoEconomics 2001, 19, 187–195.
  3. Marquis, P.; Caron, M.; Emery, M.-P.; Scott, J.A.; Arnould, B.; Acquadro, C. The Role of Health-Related Quality of Life Data in the Drug Approval Processes in the US and Europe. Pharm. Med. 2011, 25, 147–160.
  4. Ferrans, C.E.P. Definitions and Conceptual Models of Quality of Life. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications; Cambridge University Press (CUP): New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 14–30.
  5. Heckscher, A.L. The quality of American culture. In Goals for Americans: (The Report of the Presidential Commission on National Goals and Chapters Submitted for the Consideration of the Commission of the American Assembly); Prentice-Hall Washington: Washington, DC, USA, 1960; pp. 127–146.
  6. Morton, R.P. Evolution of quality of life assessment in head and neck cancer. J. Laryngol. Otol. 1995, 109, 1029–1035.
  7. Dietz, A.; Meyer, A.; Singer, S. Lebensqualitätsmessungen bei Patienten mit Kopf-Hals-Malignomen. HNO 2009, 57, 857–865.
  8. Shumaker, S.A.; Ellis, S.; Naughton, M. Assessing health-related quality of life in HIV disease: Key measurement issues. Qual. Life Res. 1997, 6, 475–480.
  9. Khandelwal, A.; Neeli, A.; Gadiyar, A.; Khandelwal, A. Assessment of quality of life of patients 1–5 years after treatment for oral cancer. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2017, 28, 538.
  10. Crombie, A.K.; Farah, C.S.; Batstone, M.D. Health-related quality of life of patients treated with primary chemoradiotherapy for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: A comparison with surgery. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 52, 111–117.
  11. Smith, S.C.; Lamping, D.L.; Banerjee, S.; Harwood, R.H.; Foley, B.; Smith, P.; Cook, J.C.; Murray, J.; Prince, M.; Levin, E.; et al. Development of a new measure of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: DEMQOL. Psychol. Med. 2006, 37, 737–746.
  12. Torres-Carranza, E.; Infante-Cossío, P.; Hernández-Guisado, J.M.; Hens-Aumente, E.; Gutierrez-Pérez, J.L. Assessment of quality of life in oral cancer. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2008, 13, E735–E741.
  13. Bjordal, K.; de Graeff, A.; Fayers, P.; Hammerlid, E.; van Pottelsberghe, C.; Curran, D.; Ahlner-Elmqvist, M.; Maher, E.; Meyza, J.; Brédart, A.; et al. A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Eur. J. Cancer 2000, 36, 1796–1807.
  14. Singer, S.; Amdal, C.D.; Hammerlid, E.; Tomaszewska, I.M.; Silva, J.C.; Mehanna, H.; Santos, M.; Inhestern, J.; Brannan, C.; Yarom, N.; et al. International validation of the revised European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43: Phase IV. Head Neck 2019, 41, 1725–1737.
  15. Quinten, C.; Coens, C.; Ghislain, I.; Zikos, E.; Sprangers, M.A.; Ringash, J.; Martinelli, F.; Ediebah, D.E.; Maringwa, J.; Reeve, B.B.; et al. The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer 2015, 51, 2808–2819.
  16. Chandu, A.; Smith, A.C.; Rogers, S.N. Health-Related Quality of Life in Oral Cancer: A Review. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2006, 64, 495–502.
  17. Murphy, B.A.; Ridner, S.; Wells, N.; Dietrich, M. Quality of life research in head and neck cancer: A review of the current state of the science. Crit. Rev. Oncol. 2007, 62, 251–267.
  18. Samuel, S.R.; Maiya, A.G.; Fernandes, D.J.; Guddattu, V.; Saxena, P.P.; Kurian, J.R.; Lin, P.-J.; Mustian, K.M. Effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation on functional capacity and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemo-radiotherapy. Support. Care Cancer 2019, 27, 3913–3920.
  19. So, W.; Chan, R.; Chan, D.; Hughes, B.; Chair, S.; Choi, K.; Chan, C. Quality-of-life among head and neck cancer survivors at one year after treatment—A systematic review. Eur. J. Cancer 2012, 48, 2391–2408.
  20. Talmi, Y.P. Quality of life issues in cancer of the oral cavity. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2002, 116, 785–790.
  21. Infante-Cossio, P.; Torres-Carranza, E.; Cayuela, A.; Hens-Aumente, E.; Pastor-Gaitan, P.; Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. Impact of treatment on quality of life for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 38, 1052–1058.
  22. Kovács, A.; Stefenelli, U.; Thorn, G. Long-term quality of life after intensified multi-modality treatment of oral cancer including intra-arterial induction chemotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiation. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 5, 26–31.
  23. Oates, J.; Clark, J.R.; Read, J.; Reeves, N.; Gao, K.; O’Brien, C.J. Integration of prospective quality of life and nutritional assessment as routine components of multidisciplinary care of patients with head and neck cancer. ANZ J. Surg. 2008, 78, 34–41.
  24. Pierre, C.S.; Dassonville, O.; Chamorey, E.; Poissonnet, G.; Ettaiche, M.; Santini, J.; Peyrade, F.; Benezery, K.; Sudaka, A.; Bozec, A. Long-term quality of life and its predictive factors after oncologic surgery and microvascular reconstruction in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2013, 271, 801–807.
  25. Bozec, A.; Poissonnet, G.; Chamorey, E.; Casanova, C.; Vallicioni, J.; Demard, F.; Mahdyoun, P.; Peyrade, F.; Follana, P.; Bensadoun, R.-J.; et al. Free-Flap Head and Neck Reconstruction and Quality of Life: A 2-Year Prospective Study. Laryngoscope 2008, 118, 874–880.
  26. Leeuw, I.M.V.-D.; Buffart, L.M.; Heymans, M.; Rietveld, D.H.; Doornaert, P.; de Bree, R.; Buter, J.; Aaronson, N.K.; Slotman, B.J.; Leemans, C.R.; et al. The course of health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients treated with chemoradiation: A prospective cohort study. Radiother. Oncol. 2014, 110, 422–428.
  27. van Gemert, J.; Holtslag, I.; van der Bilt, A.; Merkx, M.A.; Koole, R.; Van Cann, E. Health-related quality of life after segmental resection of the lateral mandible: Free fibula flap versus plate reconstruction. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 43, 658–662.
  28. Canis, M.; Weiss, B.G.; Ihler, F.; Hummers-Pradier, E.; Matthias, C.; Wolff, H.A. Quality of life in patients after resection of pT3 lateral tongue carcinoma: Microvascular reconstruction versus primary closure. Head Neck 2014, 38, 89–94.
  29. Ferri, A.; Perlangeli, G.; Montalto, N.; Lizarazo, J.L.C.; Bianchi, B.; Ferrari, S.; Nicolai, P.; Sesenna, E.; Grammatica, A. Transoral resection with buccinator flap reconstruction vs. pull-through resection and free flap reconstruction for the management of T1/T2 cancer of the tongue and floor of the mouth. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 48, 514–520.
  30. Lin, N.-C.; Lin, S.-L.; Tsai, K.-Y. Barrel-shaped design of the forearm free flap for lower lip reconstruction: A pilot case-control study. BMC Surg. 2020, 20, 132.
  31. Mair, M.D.; Nair, S.; Nikam, S.; Nair, D.; Agarwal, J.P.; Chaturvedi, P. Longitudinal and cross-sectional assessment of quality of life in surgically treated advanced (T4) cancer of the buccal mucosa. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2017, 124, 529–536.
  32. Petruson, K.; Mercke, C.; Lundberg, L.-M.; Silander, E.; Hammerlid, E. Longitudinal evaluation of patients with cancer in the oral tongue, tonsils, or base of tongue—Does interstitial radiation dose affect quality of life? Brachytherapy 2005, 4, 271–277.
  33. Beck-Broichsitter, B.E.; Huck, J.; Küchler, T.; Hauke, D.; Hedderich, J.; Wiltfang, J.; Becker, S.T. Self-perception versus professional assessment of functional outcome after ablative surgery in patients with oral cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 143, 305–311.
  34. Becker, S.T.; Menzebach, M.; Küchler, T.; Hertrampf, K.; Wenz, H.-J.; Wiltfang, J. Quality of life in oral cancer patients—Effects of mandible resection and socio-cultural aspects. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 40, 24–27.
  35. Borggreven, P.A.; Aaronson, N.K.; Leeuw, I.M.V.-D.; Muller, M.J.; Heiligers, M.L.; de Bree, R.; Langendijk, J.A.; Leemans, C.R. Quality of life after surgical treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer: A prospective longitudinal assessment of patients reconstructed by a microvascular flap. Oral Oncol. 2007, 43, 1034–1042.
  36. Bozec, A.; Majoufre, C.; De Boutray, M.; Gal, J.; Chamorey, E.; Roussel, L.-M.; Philouze, P.; Testelin, S.; Coninckx, M.; Bach, C.; et al. Oral and oropharyngeal cancer surgery with free-flap reconstruction in the elderly: Factors associated with long-term quality of life, patient needs and concerns. A GETTEC cross-sectional study. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 35, 81–88.
  37. Klug, C.; Neuburg, J.; Gläser, C.; Schwarz, B.; Kermer, C.; Millesi, W. Quality of life 2–10 years after combined treatment for advanced oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2002, 31, 664–669.
  38. Yoshimura, R.-I.; Shibuya, H.; Miura, M.; Watanabe, H.; Ayukawa, F.; Hayashi, K.; Toda, K. Quality of Life of Oral Cancer Patients After Low-Dose-Rate Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2009, 73, 772–778.
  39. Huang, T.-L.; Tsai, W.-L.; Chien, C.-Y.; Lee, T.-F.; Fang, F.-M. Quality of life for head and neck cancer patients treated by combined modality therapy: The therapeutic benefit of technological advances in radiotherapy. Qual. Life Res. 2010, 19, 1243–1254.
  40. Schliephake, H.; Neukam, F.W.; Schmelzeisen, R.; Varoga, B.; Schneller, H. Long-term quality of life after ablative intraoral tumour surgery. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 1995, 23, 243–249.
  41. Hartl, D.M.; Dauchy, S.; Escande, C.; Bretagne, E.; Janot, F.; Kolb, F. Quality of life after free-flap tongue reconstruction. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2008, 123, 550–554.
  42. Zhang, P.-P.; Meng, L.; Shen, J.; Liu, H.; Zhang, J.; Xiang, X.; Yan, Y.-B. Free radial forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction of hemiglossectomy defects: A comparison of quality of life. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 46, 2157–2163.
  43. Goh, H.K.C.; Ng, Y.H.; Teo, D.T.W. Minimally invasive surgery for head and neck cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 281–286.
  44. Hartl, D.M.; Ferlito, A.; Silver, C.E.; Takes, R.P.; Stoeckli, S.J.; Suárez, C.; Rodrigo, J.P.; Sesterhenn, A.M.; Snyderman, C.H.; Terris, D.J.; et al. Minimally invasive techniques for head and neck malignancies: Current indications, outcomes and future directions. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2011, 268, 1249–1257.
  45. Rauso, R.; Colella, G.; Franco, R.; Ronchi, A.; Chirico, F. Ossified Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma in accessory lobe of parotid gland: Complexity in clinical, imaging and histologic diagnosis and minimally invasive surgery. Oral Oncol. 2019, 92, 95–98.
  46. Hsu, D.; Sayan, A.; Ramchandani, P.; Ilankovan, V. Minimally-invasive neck dissection and free flap reconstruction in patients with cancer of the head and neck. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 55, 46–49.
  47. Madhura, M.G.; Rao, R.; Patil, S.; Alhazmi, Y.A.; Jafer, M.; Habib, S.R.; Awan, K.H. Minimally invasive procedures for the recognition and diagnosis of oral precancer and cancer. Disease-a-Month 2020, 66, 101033.
  48. Gilbert, R.W. Reconstruction of the oral cavity; past, present and future. Oral Oncol. 2020, 108, 104683.
  49. Lam, L.; Samman, N. Speech and swallowing following tongue cancer surgery and free flap reconstruction—A systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2013, 49, 507–524.
  50. Saint-Cyr, M.; Wong, C.; Schaverien, M.; Mojallal, A.; Rohrich, R.J. The Perforasome Theory: Vascular Anatomy and Clinical Implications. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 124, 1529–1544.
  51. Colella, G.; Rauso, R.; De Cicco, D.; Boschetti, C.E.; Iorio, B.; Spuntarelli, C.; Franco, R.; Tartaro, G. Clinical management of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue: Patients not eligible for free flaps, a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 2021, 21, 9–22.
  52. Rauso, R.; Chirico, F.; Federico, F.; Nicoletti, G.F.; Colella, G.; Fragola, R.; Pafundi, P.C.; Tartaro, G. Maxillo-facial reconstruction following cancer ablation during COVID-19 pandemic in southern Italy. Oral Oncol. 2021, 115, 105114.
  53. Joseph, S.; Naveen, B.S.; Mohan, M.T.; Tharayil, J. Comparison of islanded facial artery myomucosal flap with fasciocutaneous free flaps in the reconstruction of lateral oral tongue defects. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 49, 1000–1006.
  54. Gao, R.W.; Nuyen, B.A.; Divi, V.; Sirjani, D.; Rosenthal, E.L. Outcomes in Head and Neck Resections That Require Multiple-Flap Reconstructions. JAMA Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2018, 144, 746–752.
  55. Sukato, D.C.; Timashpolsky, A.; Ferzli, G.; Rosenfeld, R.M.; Gordin, E.A. Systematic Review of Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap vs Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2018, 160, 215–222.
  56. Rauso, R.; Tartaro, G.; Califano, L.; Rugge, L.; Chirico, F.; Colella, G. Pedicled palatal flap for surgical repair of oro-nasal fistula. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2018, 32, 1565–1567.
  57. Halama, D.; Dreilich, R.; Lethaus, B.; Bartella, A.; Pausch, N.C. Donor-site morbidity after harvesting of radial forearm free flaps—Comparison of vacuum-assisted closure with conventional wound care: A randomized controlled trial. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 47, 1980–1985.
  58. Hu, S.; Fan, C.; Bs, B.P.; Rosenberg, J.D. Submental island flap vs free tissue transfer in oral cavity reconstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 2020, 42, 2155–2164.
  59. Ling, X.F.; Peng, X. What Is the Price to Pay for a Free Fibula Flap? A Systematic Review of Donor-Site Morbidity following Free Fibula Flap Surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 129, 657–674.
  60. Lakhiani, C.; DeFazio, M.V.; Han, K.; Falola, R.; Evans, K. Donor-Site Morbidity Following Free Tissue Harvest from the Thigh: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Complications. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2016, 32, 342–357.
  61. Ettyreddy, A.R.; Chen, C.L.; Zenga, J.; Simon, L.; Pipkorn, P. Complications and Outcomes of Chimeric Free Flaps: A Systematic Review. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2019, 161, 568–575.
  62. Rauso, R.; Nicoletti, G.F.; Sesenna, E.; Faro, C.L.; Chirico, F.; Fragola, R.; Giudice, G.L.; Tartaro, G. Superficial Temporal Artery Perforator Flap: Indications, Surgical Outcomes, and Donor Site Morbidity. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 117.
  63. Chambers, M.S.; Garden, A.S.; Kies, M.S.; Martin, J.W. Radiation-induced Xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer: Pathogenesis, impact on quality of life, and management. Head Neck 2004, 26, 796–807.
  64. De Felice, F.; Pranno, N.; Papi, P.; Brugnoletti, O.; Tombolini, V.; Polimeni, A. Xerostomia and Clinical Outcomes in Definitive Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Versus Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis. In Vivo 2020, 34, 623–629.
  65. Jensen, S.B.; Pedersen, A.M.L.; Vissink, A.; Andersen, E.; Brown, C.G.; Davies, A.N.; Dutilh, J.; Fulton, J.S.; Jankovic, L.; Lopes, N.N.F.; et al. A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: Management strategies and economic impact. Support. Care Cancer 2010, 18, 1061–1079.
  66. Marta, G.N.; Silva, V.; De Andrade Carvalho, H.; de Arruda, F.F.; Hanna, S.A.; Gadia, R.; da Silva, J.L.F.; Correa, S.F.M.; Vita Abreu, C.E.C.; Riera, R. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother. Oncol. 2014, 110, 9–15.
  67. O’Sullivan, B.; Rumble, R.; Warde, P. Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 24, 474–487.
  68. Rademaker, A.W.; Vonesh, E.F.; Logemann, J.A.; Pauloski, B.R.; Liu, D.; Lazarus, C.L.; Newman, L.A.; Ma, A.H.M.; Ms, E.M.; Gaziano, J.; et al. Eating ability in head and neck cancer patients after treatment with chemoradiation: A 12-month follow-up study accounting for dropout. Head Neck 2003, 25, 1034–1041.
  69. 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, 365–372.
  70. Klein, J.; Livergant, J.; Ringash, J. Health related quality of life in head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy: A systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2014, 50, 254–262.
  71. Bian, X.; Song, T.; Wu, S. Outcomes of xerostomia-related quality of life for nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by IMRT: Based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35 questionnaires. Expert Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 2014, 15, 109–119.
  72. Arpino, L.; Iavarone, A.; Parlato, C.; Moraci, A. Prognostic role of depression after lumbar disc surgery. Neurol. Sci. 2004, 25, 145–147.
  73. Mathews, A.; Ridgeway, V. Personality and surgical recovery: A review. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 1981, 20, 243–260.
  74. Powell, R.; Scott, N.; Manyande, A.; Bruce, J.; Vögele, C.; Byrne-Davis, L.M.T.; Unsworth, M.; Osmer, C.; Johnston, M. Psychological preparation and postoperative outcomes for adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, CD008646.
  75. Bozec, A.; Poissonnet, G.; Chamorey, E.; Casanova, C.; Vallicioni, J.; Demard, F.; Peyrade, F.; Follana, P.; Bensadoun, R.J.; Benezery, K.; et al. Quality of life after oral and oropharyngeal recon-struction with a radial forearm free flap: Prospective study. J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. = Le J. D’oto-Rhino-Laryngol. Chir. Cervico-Faciale 2009, 38, 401–408.
  76. Kessler, P.A.; Bloch-Birkholz, A.; Leher, A.; Neukam, F.W.; Wiltfang, J. Evaluation of quality of life of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Comparison of two treatment protocols in a prospective study. Radiother. Oncol. 2004, 70, 275–282.
  77. Girod, D.A.; Sykes, K.; Jorgensen, J.; Tawfik, O.; Tsue, T. Acellular dermis compared to skin grafts in oral cavity reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2009, 119, 2141–2149.
  78. Tribius, S.; Meyer, M.S.; Pflug, C.; Hanken, H.; Busch, C.-J.; Krüll, A.; Petersen, C.; Bergelt, C. Socioeconomic status and quality of life in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2018, 194, 737–749.
  79. Winkler, J.; Stolzenberg, H. Social class index in the Federal Health Survey. Gesundh. (Bundesverb. Arzte Offentlichen Gesundh. (Ger.)) 1999, 61, S178–S183.
  80. Peisker, A.; Raschke, G.F.; Guentsch, A.; Roshanghias, K.; Eichmann, F.; Schultze-Mosgau, S. Longterm quality of life after oncologic surgery and microvascular free flap reconstruction in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Medicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal 2016, 21, e420–e424.
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 432
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Sep 2021
Video Production Service