Hoofd-halstumoren

Initiatief: NVKNO Aantal modules: 80

Slikfunctiebehoud via prehabilitatie en revalidatie

Publicatiedatum: 28-01-2026
Beoordeeld op geldigheid: 28-01-2026

Uitgangsvraag

Wat is het optimale behandelprotocol voor slikfunctiebehoud of -herstel (startende voor, tijdens of na de kankerbehandeling) in geval van te verwachten slikproblemen na hoofd-hals oncologische behandeling?

Aanbeveling

Verwijs patiënten met hoofd-halskanker die vóór, tijdens of na hun oncologische behandeling slikproblemen ervaren naar een logopedist uit het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam of naar een KNO-arts/laryngoloog uit de tweede of derde lijn en/of logopedist met ervaring in hoofd-halskanker uit het eerstelijns gezondheidsnetwerk.

 

Overweeg zorgvuldig het specifieke doel en de intensiteit van de slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie, de belastbaarheid en motivatie van de patiënt met betrekking tot prehabilitatie en revalidatie en de anatomische veranderingen als gevolg van de oncologische behandeling, in nauwe samenwerking met de KNO-arts/laryngoloog, de logopedist en het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam.

 

Verwijs patiënten met hoofd-halskanker en symptomen of aanwijzingen voor complicaties van slikstoornissen vóór, tijdens of na de oncologische behandeling (ondervoeding, psychosociale gevolgen van dysfagie, recidiverende luchtweginfectie, moeilijkheden met re-integratie, etc.) voor nadere diagnostiek en behandeladvies naar de betreffende zorgprofessional(s)(diëtist, MMW – psycholoog, internist, bedrijfsarts, etc.) in de 2e of 3e lijn bij voorkeur in nauwe samenwerking met het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam (zie hiervoor Module Screening & monitoring voor zorgondersteuning en Module Werkhervatting).

Overwegingen

Voor- en nadelen van de interventie en de kwaliteit van het bewijs

De richtlijnwerkgroep heeft een systematisch literatuuronderzoek uitgevoerd om het effect van spiergerichte interventies binnen slikrevalidatie vóór, tijdens of na de oncologische behandeling van patiënten met hoofd-halskanker te evalueren.

 

Verbetering van de slikfunctie werd gedefinieerd als kritische uitkomstmaat, terwijl kwaliteit van leven, mentale gezondheid, aspiratie pneumonie en voedingstoestand werden gedefinieerd als belangrijke uitkomstmaten. Er werden slechts vijftien artikelen geïdentificeerd die spiergerichte interventies binnen slikrevalidatie vergeleken met compensatoire slikstrategieën, placebo (sham) behandeling, gebruikelijke zorg (usual care) of geen behandeling. Van de vijftien geïncludeerde artikelen onderzochten drie artikelen spiergerichte interventies vóór de start van de primaire of adjuvante (chemo)radiotherapie (Mortensen, 2015; Zhang, 2022; Wu, 2023), zes tijdens (Carnaby Man, 2012; Messing, 2017; Kumar, 2016; van den Berg, 2016; Hsiang, 2019; Fredslund Hajdú, 2021) en zes na afronden van de primaire of adjuvante (chemo)radiotherapie of na totale laryngectomie (Chen, 2018a; Tang, 2011; Jansen, 2020; Tuomi, 2022; Dotevall, 2022; Peterson, 2023), allen voor diverse primaire tumorlocaties en ziektestadia. De studies van Wu (2023) en Zhang (2022) zijn geclassificeerd in de categorie spiergerichte interventies vóór de start van (chemo)radiotherapie’, maar het is belangrijk te vermelden dat patiënten in deze studies voorafgaand aan de spiergerichte interventie een chirurgische ingreep hadden ondergaan.

 

Helaas hadden de geïncludeerde studies relatief kleine steekproefgroottes, onvoldoende externe validiteit en een onvoldoende tot slechte methodologische kwaliteit, wat zorgde voor een verhoogd risico op vertekening van de resultaten en onvoldoende interne validiteit. Voor alle uitkomstmaten geldt dat de kwaliteit van het bewijs zeer laag was. Op basis van de literatuur kan er dus geen richting worden gegeven aan de besluitvorming. Hier ligt een kennislacune. De aanbevelingen in deze richtlijnmodule zijn gebaseerd op de mening van experts.

 

Op dit moment is het bewijsniveau voor prehabilitatie en revalidatie van de slikfunctie met behulp van spiergerichte interventies bij patiënten met hoofd-halskanker zeer laag. Dit gebrek aan bewijs kan aan verschillende factoren worden toegeschreven. Een belangrijke reden is dat het uitvoeren van RCTs voldoende financiering vereist, evenals dat studies voldoende statistische power, steekproefgrootte en externe validiteit moeten hebben. Dit is vaak een uitdaging vanwege de heterogeniteit in demografische en oncologische kenmerken binnen de populatie van patiënten met hoofd-halskanker. Daarnaast kan een verminderde tolerantie voor prehabilitatie en revalidatie van de slikfunctie bij patiënten leiden tot voortijdige uitval in RCTs, waardoor de vereiste steekproefgrootte niet wordt bereikt. Het gebrek aan bewijs betekent echter niet dat patiënten met hoofd-halskanker die vóór, tijdens of na hun oncologische behandeling slikproblemen ervaren, geen baat kunnen hebben bij spiergerichte interventies binnen de slikrevalidatie.

 

Bij hoofd-halskankerpatiënten lijkt de tolerantie van de patiënt tijdens de prehabilitatie een belangrijke factor te zijn die het succes van de therapie beïnvloedt (Baudelet, 2023). Dagelijks meerdere keren per dag gedurende weken tot maanden een spiergerichte reeks oefeningen uitvoeren, is voor heel wat patiënten om diverse redenen niet haalbaar (Rowe, 2023). Dit betekent niet dat (preventieve) spiergerichte interventies voor slikrevalidatie niet toegepast zouden moeten worden, maar wel dat de logopedist zorgvuldig moet overwegen hoe deze interventies worden ingezet. Hierbij moet rekening worden gehouden met het specifieke doel en de intensiteit van de training, de tolerantie van de patiënt en de anatomische veranderingen als gevolg van de oncologische behandeling, in nauwe samenwerking met het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam. Het uiteindelijke resultaat blijft echter moeilijk te voorspellen. Daarom is het wenselijk dat de logopedist ervaring heeft met slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie en met de specifieke kenmerken en behoeften van hoofd-halskankerpatiënten.

 

Identificatie van patiënten met dysfagie

De identificatie van ernstige of voor de patiënt belastende dysfagie begint met het afnemen van de medische anamnese, doorgaans uitgevoerd door de hoofd-halschirurg, radiotherapeut of medisch oncoloog tijdens de oncologische follow-up. Na beëindiging van het oncologische follow-up traject wordt dysfagie vaak ontdekt door de huisarts, die de patiënt vervolgens doorverwijst naar een keel-, neus- en oorarts (KNO-arts). De KNO-arts zal, na het uitsluiten van nieuwe maligniteiten, de patiënt doorverwijzen naar een logopedist met ervaring in slikrevalidatie van hoofd-halskankerpatiënten (zie Module Screening & monitoring voor zorgondersteuning voor doorverwijzing naar andere (para)medici).

 

Daarnaast kunnen dysfagie-specifieke vragenlijsten (zie Tabel 1), worden gebruikt bij alle hoofd-halskankerpatiënten om degenen met ernstige of belastende slikproblemen te identificeren. Het is belangrijk op te merken dat de EAT-10 in het Programma Uitkomstgerichte Zorg December 2023 van de Nederlandse Werkgroep Hoofd-Halstumoren (NWHHT) wordt aanbevolen als patiënt gerapporteerde uitkomstinformatie en deze op te nemen in de Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing - Dutch Head and Neck Audit (DICA-DHNA). De DICA-DHNA meet en monitort de kwaliteit van hoofd-halskanker zorg in Nederland (URL: Uitkomstenset - Hoofd-halstumoren | Document | uitkomstgerichtezorg). De EAT-10 is echter niet gevalideerd voor alle subpopulaties van hoofd-halskanker en heeft een lage positief voorspellende waarde. Momenteel is er echter geen beter alternatief voorhanden in de Nederlandse taal.

 

Verwijzing van patiënten met dysfagie

De KNO-arts/laryngoloog kan een uitgebreide klinische beoordeling uitvoeren, waaronder een evaluatie van de hersenzenuwen en een endoscopisch slikonderzoek, om vast te stellen of er een indicatie is voor logopedische slikrevalidatie of chirurgie. Het onderwerp diagnostische onderzoeken voor dysfagie bij patiënten met hoofd-halskanker valt buiten de scope van de huidige module. Toch willen we als richtlijnwerkgroep benadrukken dat het belangrijk is om de aard en de ernst van dysfagie met betrekking tot de onderliggende pathophysiologie goed in kaart te brengen voorafgaande logopedische of chirurgische interventies worden opgestart. Aspiratie en orofaryngeaal residu zijn symptomen van dysfagie. Om ze adequaat te kunnen behandelen moet de oorzaak van deze symptomen worden achterhaald met behulp van zorgvuldig klinisch en logopedisch onderzoek, endoscopische en/of radiologische slikvideo en high resolution manometrie met impedantiemetrie (i.g.v. indicatie myotomie) (Schindler, 2022; Baijens, 2020).

 

De logopedist kan eveneens slikonderzoeken uitvoeren (zie Tabel 1 voor slikfunctie - Clinical assessment of swallowing) om de aard en ernst van de slikstoornis vast te stellen en te beoordelen of prehabilitatie en revalidatie geschikt en haalbaar zijn. Wij raden aan om patiënten met ernstige of belastende dysfagie door te verwijzen naar een logopedist, bij voorkeur binnen het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam of binnen een revalidatieteam met expertise in de behandeling van hoofd-halskankerpatiënten. Logopedisten kunnen de kenmerken en ernst van dysfagie klinisch evalueren en de behandeling starten.

 

Patiënten met slikproblemen na een (faryngo)laryngectomie, glossectomie, maxillectomie en/of (chemo)radiotherapie vormen een laagprevalente maar klinisch zeer complexe groep patiënten in Nederland. Door de ingrijpend veranderde anatomie en de vaak ernstige slikproblemen is enige vorm van slikrevalidatie in deze populatie wenselijk. Recent is een gerandomiseerde studie gepubliceerd die het effect van vroege slikrevalidatie na een totale laryngectomie onderzocht, in vergelijking met een controlegroep zonder revalidatie-interventie. Deze studie van Schipor-Diaconu (2024) is na het sluiten van de zoekperiode gepubliceerd en is daarom niet opgenomen in deze richtlijn. In deze studie werden 92 patiënten geïncludeerd. De interventiegroep startte twee weken postoperatief met slikoefeningen; de controlegroep ontving geen oefentherapie. Hoewel er direct postoperatief geen verschil werd gevonden in slikfunctie tussen beide groepen, was de slikfunctie in de interventiegroep na 3, 6, 9 en 12 maanden significant beter. De betrokkenheid van een logopedist met een uitgebreide ervaring in hoofd-halsoncologie wordt dan ook als essentieel beschouwd. Deze zorgprofessional dient tevens toegang te hebben tot interdisciplinair overleg met de hoofd-halschirurg of KNO-arts/laryngoloog, met het doel therapieresistente slikproblemen te bespreken en te beoordelen of operatieve interventie geïndiceerd is.

 

Verschillende interventies, vaak een combinatie van verschillende technieken, kan dysfagie bij een aantal hoofd-halskankerpatiënten verbeteren. Het doel van spiergerichte interventies is het verbeteren van de slikfysiologie door de kracht en/of het bewegingsbereik van spieren te vergroten, evenals het verbeteren van de sensorische feedback die verantwoordelijk is voor motorische programmering en uitvoering (in het centraal zenuwstelsel), om de slikveiligheid en -efficiëntie te verbeteren. In de klinische praktijk worden diverse oefeningen toegepast die zich richten op de spieren van de tong, lippen, tongbasis, kaak, zachte gehemelte, larynx en farynx. Spiergerichte interventies onderscheiden zich van compenserende strategieën, die het slikproces veranderen en directe verbetering faciliteren tijdens eten of drinken. Het gebruik van compenserende strategieën, zoals chin-tuck, hoofdrotatie of supraglottische sliktechnieken, kan het slikken tijdens een specifiek moment veiliger maken, maar zal waarschijnlijk geen blijvende veranderingen teweegbrengen in de fysiologie van het slikmechanisme (Easterling, 2017).

 

De doelen van de behandeling zijn:

  1. Het verbeteren van de slikfunctie.
  2. Het verbeteren van de gezondheid-gerelateerde kwaliteit van leven door het genot van eten en drinken en de hiermee gepaard gaande sociale interactie te bevorderen.
  3. Het vergroten van de onafhankelijkheid ten opzichte van zorgprofessionals en mantelzorgers door het verminderen van angst voor uitsluiting als gevolg van slikstoornissen, zichtbaar speekselverlies, hoesten en vergelijkbare problemen.

Het is belangrijk op te merken dat patiënten met dysfagie ook baat kunnen hebben bij doorverwijzing naar andere specialisten, zoals een mondhygiënist voor een droge mond, tandarts maxillofaciale prothetiek m.b.t. palatale augmentatie prothese – klosprothese etc., of een psycholoog voor mentale gezondheidsproblemen die verband houden met sociale interactieproblemen en sociale isolatie door dysfagie (zie Module Screening & monitoring voor zorgondersteuning voor doorverwijzing naar andere (para)medici).

 

Waarden en voorkeuren van patiënten (en evt. hun naasten en/of verzorgers)

Dysfagie is een veelvoorkomende klacht na de behandeling van hoofd-halskanker, met aanzienlijke impact op het dagelijks leven, de sociale participatie en zowel de fysieke als psychologische kwaliteit van leven (Baijens, 2020).

 

De patiënt en hun naasten en/of mantelzorgers moeten goed worden geïnformeerd over de voor- en nadelen (en wat het hen zal opleveren – verwachtingsmanagement) van de interventies voor slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie. Daarnaast worden zij betrokken bij het besluitvormingsproces met betrekking tot de inhoud en duur van de behandeling. Het is ook aan te raden om de naasten en/of mantelzorgers van de patiënt te instrueren, aangezien dit een positieve invloed kan hebben op de effectiviteit van de behandeling en de tolerantie van de patiënt daarvoor. Of zelftraining thuis mogelijk is, hangt af van verschillende factoren en kan al dan niet bijdragen aan het eindresultaat van de behandeling.

 

Kosten (middelenbeslag)

De literatuur over de kosteneffectiviteit van slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie bij patiënten met hoofd-halskanker is schaars. Orofaryngeale dysfagie is een rechtstreeks en cruciaal gevolg van diverse aandoeningen die bekendstaan om hun hoge zorgkosten, waaronder hoofd-halskanker (Gourin, 2015). De aanwezigheid van dysfagie voorspelt doorgaans een ernstiger ziektebeloop en slechtere gezondheidsuitkomsten, wat tevens samenhangt met een hoger zorggebruik (Attrill, 2018). In studies over hoofd-halskanker wordt orofaryngeale dysfagie vaak beschouwd als een secundaire, contextuele uitkomstmaat, en zelden gerapporteerd als primair eindpunt. Hierdoor zijn gegevens over zorgkosten en -gebruik in relatie tot orofaryngeale dysfagie moeilijk toegankelijk, inconsistent gemeten en gerapporteerd, en afhankelijk van variabele onderzoeksdoelen en methodologieën (Attrill 2018).

 

Onderzoek wijst echter uit dat de zorgkosten kunnen worden verlaagd en dat vroege revalidatie van slikstoornissen de financiële gevolgen van de aandoening kan verminderen. Bij geselecteerde populaties blijkt de combinatie van prehabilitatie en vroege revalidatie kosteneffectiever te zijn dan de traditionele, symptoomgerichte benadering (Retel, 2011; Retel, 2016; Martino, 2017). Vanuit een maatschappelijk perspectief, d.w.z. rekening houdend met zowel de zorgkosten als de productiviteitsverliezen, kunnen slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie kostenbesparend zijn in vergelijking met geen revalidatie, dankzij lagere kosten gerelateerd aan nadelige gevolgen van dysfagie (recidiverende pneumonie, ondervoeding, etc.) en betere gezondheidsresultaten inclusief kwaliteit van leven.

 

Aanvaardbaarheid, haalbaarheid en implementatie

Hoofd-halskanker is een zeldzame aandoening, waardoor veel (para)medische zorgprofessionals binnen het eerstelijns gezondheidsnetwerk niet voldoende zijn opgeleid om slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie voor deze patiëntengroep te bieden. Adequate slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie voor patiënten met hoofd-halskanker worden het beste verleend door een interdisciplinair hoofd-halsteam (logopedie, diëtetiek, KNO-arts/laryngoloog, tandarts, etc.) met ervaring in de behandeling van deze ziekte. Revalidatieteams met expertise in hoofd-halskanker zijn beschikbaar in alle Nederlandse universiteitsziekenhuizen en in enkele algemene ziekenhuizen die verbonden zijn aan een universiteitsziekenhuis. Verwijzingen naar universiteitsziekenhuizen voor slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie kunnen echter gepaard gaan met ‘barrières’, zoals reistijd, kosten en logistieke uitdagingen, beperkte gezondheidsgeletterdheid en de voorkeur van patiënten om in hun lokale eerstelijns gezondheidsnetwerk behandeld te worden.

 

Daarnaast moeten hoofd-halschirurgen, radiotherapeuten en medisch oncologen zich bewust zijn van de tekenen, symptomen en gevolgen van belastende dysfagie bij patiënten met hoofd-halskanker. Dit is belangrijk voor een vroege identificatie en daaropvolgende verwijzing naar (para)medische zorgprofessionals voor behandeling (doorgaans KNO-laryngologie & logopedie). Logopedisten en KNO-artsen/laryngologen moeten zich realiseren dat dysfagie een veelvoorkomend gevolg is van hoofd-halskanker en de behandeling daarvan, en moeten kennis hebben van de juiste diagnostische beoordeling en behandelmethoden voor deze patiëntengroep. Slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie dienen bij voorkeur te worden uitgevoerd binnen een interdisciplinair hoofd-halsteam of door een ervaren paramedische zorgprofessional binnen het eerstelijns gezondheidsnetwerk in nauwe samenwerking met het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam (zie Module Screening & monitoring voor zorgondersteuning voor doorverwijzing naar (para)medici).

 

Rationale van de aanbeveling: weging van argumenten voor en tegen de interventies

Op dit moment is het bewijsniveau voor prehabilitatie en revalidatie van de slikfunctie met behulp van spiergerichte interventies bij patiënten met hoofd-halskanker zeer laag. Er waren slechts twee studies met onvoldoende bewijskracht beschikbaar met betrekking tot interventies voor slikprehabilitatie startende vóór de aanvang van de (chemo)radiotherapie. Het gebrek aan bewijs betekent echter niet dat patiënten met hoofd-halskanker die vóór, tijdens of na hun oncologische behandeling slikproblemen ervaren, geen baat kunnen hebben bij revalidatietechnieken op basis van (slik)spieroefeningen voor dysfagie. Er moet rekening worden gehouden met het specifieke doel en de intensiteit van de prehabilitatie en revalidatie, de tolerantie van de patiënt met betrekking tot prehabilitatie en revalidatie en de anatomische veranderingen als gevolg van de oncologische behandeling, in nauwe samenwerking met het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam. Het uiteindelijke resultaat blijft echter moeilijk te voorspellen. Of intensieve (slik)spieroefeningen bij dysfagie effectief zijn zonder aandacht voor algemene fysieke fitheid (zie Module Gecombibeerde beweeg- en voedingsinterventie) is onbekend. De richtlijnwerkgroep veronderstelt echter dat geïsoleerde slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie minder effectief zullen zijn bij personen met een sedentaire leefstijl en risico op kwalitatieve ondervoeding.

 

Daarom is het wenselijk dat de logopedist ervaring heeft met slikprehabilitatie en revalidatie, en met de specifieke kenmerken en behoeften van hoofd-halskanker patiënten zeker in geval van patiënten met ernstige slikstoornissen en/of significante anatomische veranderingen ter hoogte van de bovenste aerodigestieve tractus. Alle zorgprofessionals uit het interdisciplinaire hoofd-halsteam dienen alert te zijn op slikproblemen en de mogelijke ernstige gevolgen daarvan, aangezien deze een negatieve impact kunnen hebben op zowel de kwaliteit van leven als de overleving van patiënten (Webster, 2017; Baijens, 2020).

 

Laagdrempelig interdisciplinair overleg of verwijzing, gebaseerd op de informatie uit Module Screening & monitoring voor zorgondersteuning, kan patiënten met slikstoornissen vóór, tijdens of na de oncologische behandeling op een passende en gepersonaliseerde wijze voorzien van geïntegreerde prehabilitatie en revalidatie. Dit vergt samenwerking tussen disciplines zoals KNO-laryngologie, diëtetiek, logopedie, fysiotherapie, tandarts maxillofaciale prothetiek.

 

De logopedist moet eveneens laagdrempelig toegang hebben tot interdisciplinair overleg met de hoofd-halschirurg of KNO-arts/laryngoloog om (oefen)therapieresistente slikproblemen te bespreken en na te gaan of er een indicatie is voor operatieve interventies (Baijens, 2020). Het onderwerp operatieve interventies voor dysfagie bij patiënten met hoofd-halskanker valt buiten de scope van de huidige module.

Onderbouwing

One of the most significant challenges in the head and neck cancer trajectory are the often-severe swallowing difficulties experienced by 30-50% of the patients before, during and/or after cancer treatment (which may involve surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, or combinations there-of). Tissue damage caused by the primary tumor, advanced-stage nodal disease, and cancer treatment can lead to neuromuscular and/or sensory input damage. This damage can negatively impact any stage of the swallowing process. In particular, various safety mechanisms involved in swallowing, such as laryngeal elevation, glottal closure, the cough reflex, etc. can be adversely affected by head and neck cancer and/or its treatment, potentially resulting in (silent) aspiration and adverse events such as aspiration pneumonia and profound weight loss.

 

The current bottlenecks include variations in practice concerning the treatment of dysphagia (before, during, and/or after head and neck cancer treatment), limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of existing therapy options for dysphagia, and the acceptability and feasibility of these therapy options for patients (Baijens, 2020). Other important bottlenecks are the lack of attention to the psychosocial aspects of dysphagia and/or xerostomia and the long-term effects of cancer treatment and aging on swallowing function (more than five years after cancer treatment) (Baijens, 2020).

A. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia before the start of cancer treatment consisting of (chemo)radiotherapy (prehabilitation)

Swallowing function, HRQOL, and nutritional status

Very Low

GRADE

The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of dysphagia prehabilitation, utilizing exercises, on swallowing function, HRQOL, and nutritional status when compared to usual care or no exercise in adult patients scheduled for (chemo)radiotherapy

 

Sources: Mortensen, 2015; Zhang, 2022; Wu, 2023

Mental health

No

GRADE

No evidence was found regarding the effect of dysphagia prehabilitation, utilizing exercises, on mental health in adult patients scheduled to be treated for head and neck cancer.

 

Source: -

Aspiration pneumonia

No

GRADE

No evidence was found regarding the effect of dysphagia prehabilitation, utilizing exercises, on aspiration pneumonia in adult patients scheduled for (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Source: -

Very low

GRADE

The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of dysphagia prehabilitation, utilizing exercises, on aspiration pneumonia when compared to usual care in adult patients after surgery for head and neck cancer and prior to the initiation postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Source: Wu, 2023

B. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia during cancer treatment consisting of (chemo)radiotherapy (prehabilitation)

Swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status

Very low

GRADE

The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of dysphagia prehabilitation, utilizing exercises, on swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status when compared to compensatory strategies, sham (placebo) exercise, usual care or no exercise in adult patients during (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Sources: Carnaby-Mann, 2012; Kumar, 2016; Van den Berg, 2016; Messing, 2017; Hsiang, 2019; Fredslund Hadju, 2021

C. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia after completion of cancer treatment consisting of (chemo)radiotherapy or total laryngectomy

Swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status

Very low

GRADE

The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of dysphagia rehabilitation, utilizing exercises, on swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status when compared to compensatory strategies, sham (placebo) exercise, usual care or no exercise in adult patients after completion of (chemo)radiotherapy or total laryngectomy.

 

Source: Tang, 2011; Chen, 2018a; Jansen, 2020; Dotevall 2022; Tuomi 2022; Petersson, 2023;

Description of studies

All of the included publications investigated various types of swallowing exercises for dysphagia, such as range of motion, strengthening, resistance, coordination, and stretch exercises, and combinations thereof. Lip, tongue, masticatory, pharyngeal, laryngeal, and neck muscles were targeted. Also, swallow maneuvers such as the Mendelsohn maneuver, supraglottic maneuver, super-supraglottic maneuver, effortful swallow maneuver, and Masako maneuver were applied in protocols for muscle exercises.

 

In accordance with the PICO framework, the included studies were categorized into three groups based on the timing of the intervention relative to cancer treatment: (1) swallowing exercises initiated prior to the start of (chemo)radiotherapy, (2) exercises conducted during (chemo)radiotherapy, and (3) exercises administered following the completion of (chemo)radiotherapy or total laryngectomy. The studies by Wu (2023) and Zhang (2022) were classified within the first category; however, it is important to note that in both studies, patients underwent surgical procedures prior to the initiation of swallowing exercises.

 

Table 2. Study characteristics

#

First author (year), country

Cancer diagnosis and treatment

Number of subjects - Intervention (I)/Control group (C)

Population characteristics

Intervention (timing, content & frequency)

Control (timing, content & frequency)

Outcome (timing & effect) measures

Gender and age

Cancer staging

Cancer treatment characteristics

Start of the intervention before the initiation of cancer treatment.

1

Wu, 2023

Oral cavity or oropharyngeal carcinoma – surgery

I/C: 59/62

Male/Female:

I: 40/19
C: 44/18

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 51.5 (13.8)

C: 49.4 (14.2)

 

 

 

Primary tumor location:

Buccal:

I: 8/59

C: 10/62

 

Mouth floor:

I: 2/59

C: 4/62

 

Tongue:

I: 13/59

C: 14/62

 

Root of tongue:

I: 0/59

C: 1/62

 

Palate:

I: 9/59

C: 9/62

 

Maxillary gingiva:

I: 10/59

C: 10/62

 

Mandibular gingiva:

I: 17/59

C: 14/62

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 10/59

C: 16/62

 

Stage II:

I: 17/59

C: 17/62

 

Stage III:

I: 11/59

C: 13/62

 

Stage IV:

I: 18/59

C: 16/62

 

Stage unclear/missing:

I: 2/59

C: 0/62

 

Stage not reported by authors:

I: 1/59

C:0/62

Surgery:

I: 59/59

C: 62/62

 

 

 

Content:

Nurses performed oral sensory and active motor training on patients once a day in the morning and afternoon; passive motor training was added on the eighth postoperative day.

The exercises began on the 6th day after surgery and ended on the 15th day after surgery. So, before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy if this was indicated.

 

Frequency:

Two sessions/day.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Ten days.

 

Adherence:

Guidance and supervision by expert nurse – no specific information.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Content:

The control group received routine nursing measures and swallowing- related health education after surgery; that is, patients were closely observed for changes in their condition after surgery to maintain their oral cavity hygiene and diet, and ensure effective coughing.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Unclear.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Battery of measures at baseline (6th day after surgery) and 15th day and 1 month after surgery before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy if this was indicated.

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Mann Swallowing Assessment-oral cancer (MASA-OC)

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-UW-QoL v4

 

Aspiration pneumonia:

-Chest X-ray

 

Nutritional status:

Weight:

-Kg

Tube feeding:

-Time of nasogastric tube removal

 

 

2

Zhang, 2022

Oral cavity or oropharyngeal carcinoma – surgery

I/C: 34/34

Male/Female:

I: 23/11
C: 22/12

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 51.00 (13.12)

C: 54.32 (12.04)

 

 

 

Primary tumor location:

Buccal:

I: 7/34

C: 4/34

 

Mouth floor:

I: 3/34

C: 2/34

 

Tongue:

I: 8/34

C: 7/34

 

Palate:

I: 6/34

C: 5/34

 

Maxillary gingiva:

I: 3/34

C: 5/34

 

Mandibular gingiva:

I: 7/34

C: 11/34

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 1/34

C: 2/34

 

Stage II:

I: 10/34

C: 11/34

 

Stage III:

I: 10/34

C: 8/34

 

Stage IV:

I: 9/34

C: 10/34

 

Stage unclear/missing:

I: 4/34

C: 3/34

Surgery:

I: 34/34

C: 34/34

 

 

Timing:

The exercises began on the 6th day after surgery and ended on the 15th day after surgery. So, before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Content:

Swallowing education, monitoring oral hygiene, guiding eating, carrying out effective coughing, and conducting supraglottic swallowing training for patients with coughing after eating and drinking and targeted oral sensory stimulation and targeted oral exercise training.

 

Frequency:

Two sessions/day.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Ten days.

 

Adherence:

Guidance and supervision by expert nurse – no specific information.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Timing:

Unclear.

 

Content:

Swallowing education, monitoring oral hygiene, guiding eating, carrying out effective coughing, and conducting supraglottic swallowing training for patients with coughing after eating and drinking.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Unclear.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Battery of measures at baseline (6th day after surgery) and 15th day and 1 month after surgery before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy if this was indicated.

 

Swallowing function:

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Mann Swallowing Assessment-oral cancer (MASA-OC)

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-UW-QOLv4; only at 1 month after surgery

 

Nutritional status:

Weight:

-Kg

 

Tube feeding:

-Duration

3

Mortensen, 2015

Oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal or unknown primary carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy

I/C: 19/20

Male/Female:

I: 17/2
C: 17/3

 

Median age (range):

I: 58 (39–77)

C: 59 (40–74)

 

 

Primary tumor location:

Oral cavity:

I: 0/19

C: 4/20

 

Pharynx:

I: 11/19

C: 10/20

 

Larynxc:

I: 3/19

C: 4/20

 

Unknown primary:

I: 5/19

C: 2/20

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 0/19

C: 1/20

 

Stage II:

I: 2/19

C: 1/20

 

Stage III:

I: 1/19

C: 3/20

 

Stage IV:

I: 16/19

C: 15/20

Conventional radiotherapy or IMRT (hyperfractionated):

I: 19/19

C: 20/20

 

Concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 12/19

C: 7/20

Timing:

Before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy and up to eight months after cancer treatment.

 

Content:

Range of motion drills to maintain and improve the range of motion of relevant structures and muscle groups, and resistance exercises to strengthen the same muscles.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: 10-15 min per session.

 

Total duration:

Approximately 10-11 months.

 

Adherence:

Patients were seen by an experienced and dedicated occupational therapist at nine different time points.

Study dairy/home records on exercise-execution were fully complete for 51% (n =22) of the exercise group.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists and patients.

Blinding of study staff.

Timing:

Before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy and up to eight months after cancer treatment.

 

Content:

Usual care, i.e., individualized dietary advice and videofluoroscopic imaging as needed to determine the need for interventions, instructions to continue oral food intake.

Battery of measures at baseline (before (chemo)radiotherapy) and 1, 3, 5 weeks after the start of (chemo)radiotherapy), and 2 weeks, 2, 5, 8, and 11 months after the completion of (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Clinician-reported outcome):

-DAHANCA morbidity scoring system for dysphagia

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Mouth opening (baseline (before (chemo)radiotherapy) and 2, 5, 8, and 11 months after the completion of (chemo)radiotherapy)

 

Swallow imaging:

-Videofluoroscopic imaging: Swallowing Performance Status Scale (SPSS), aspiration (0-2), penetration, cough, residue (baseline (before (chemo)radiotherapy) and 2, 5, and 11 months after the completion of (chemo)radiotherapy)

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-EORTC QLQ-C30

-EORTC QLQ-H&N35

 

Nutritional status:

Weight

Tube feeding

Start of the intervention during cancer treatment.

4

Fredslund Hajdú, 2021

Oral cavity, oro- or hypopharyngeal, laryngeal or unknown primary carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy with or without surgery

I/C: 120/115

Male/Female:

I: 94/26
C: 97/18

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 63 (9)

C: 63 (9)

Primary tumor location:

Oral cavity:

I: 10/120

C: 5/115

 

Oropharynx:

I: 68/120

C: 72/115

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 11/120

C: 9/115

 

Larynx:

I: 26/120

C: 28/115

 

Unknown primary:

I: 5/120

C: 1/115

Cancer stage grouping (%):

Stage I:

I: 27/120

C: 28/115

 

Stage II:

I: 25/120

C: 17/115

 

Stage III:

I: 19/120

C: 24/115

 

Stage IVa:

I: 42/120C: 43/115

 

Stage IVb:

I: 7/120

C: 3/115

Upfront radiotherapy:

I: 45/120

C: 45/115

 

Upfront concurrent chemoradiotherapy:

I: 63/120

C: 63/115

 

Surgery+(chemo)radiotherapy:

I: 12/120

C: 7/115

Timing:

From the beginning of radiotherapy

 

Content:

Usual care + progressive resistance training (PRT) + supervised swallowing exercise intervention + self-administered swallowing exercises.

The PRT program involved 6 exercises covering lower limbs, upper body and core in a fixed progression model based on repetition maximum.

Exercise programs consisted of all or some of the following 14 exercises: reaching tongue back and forth; tongue to

cheek, tongue to mouth corners, resistance to tongue, gargle, yawn, mouth opening, jaw side-to-side, jaw undershot,

Valsalva, Shaker exercise, Mendelsohn maneuver, Masako

maneuver, Effortful swallow.

 

Frequency: Supervised swallowing exercise intervention three times weekly parallel with twice weekly physiotherapy-led PRT.

Self-administered swallowing exercises at three sessions/day, seven days per week.

 

Total duration: 5-6 weeks

 

Adherence:

From the beginning of radiotherapy supervised swallowing exercise sessions by occupational therapist (OT) were scheduled three times weekly parallel with twice weekly physiotherapy-led PRT.

 

Blinding: -

Content:

Usual care differed between the two treatment centers. At one center the control group did not receive any intervention (non-active control group). At the other center all head and neck cancer patients were offered an individually tailored exercise plan at beginning of radiotherapy with regular OT follow-up averaging to every other week until 2 weeks after end-of-treatment (active control group).

All outcomes were assessed at baseline, end-of-treatment and 2, 6, and 12 months after end-of-treatment except the primary outcome which was assessed at baseline, and 2 and 12 months after treatment.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire

(Patient-reported outcome):

-MDADI

(Clinician-reported outcome ):

-FOIS

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Mouth opening

 

Swallow imaging:

Endoscopic imaging: baseline, 2, and 12 months: -- -Penetration Aspiration Scale

-YPRS

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-EORTC QLQ C-30

-EORTC QLQ-H&N35

 

Mental health:

Affective symptom questionnaire:

-MDI

- SCL-92 Anxiety subscale)

 

Nutritional status:

Tube feeding

-Duration

5

Hsiang, 2019

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinoma – surgerywith or without (chemo)radiotherapy (adjuvant)

I/C:25/25

Male/Female:

I: 24/1
C: 24/1

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 55.6 (8.6)

C: 56.7 (9.0)

Primary tumor location:

Buccal:

I: 9/25

C: 5/25

 

Tongue:

I: 10/25

C: 7/25

 

Lip:

I: 0/25

C: 1/25

 

Upper gum:

I: 1/25

C: 2/25

 

Lower gum:

I: 2/25

C: 1/25

 

Retromolar:

I: 0/25

C: 2/25

 

Hard palate:

I: 1/25

C: 1/25

 

Mouth floor:

I: 2/25

C: 0/25

 

Tonsil (oropharynx):

I: 0/25

C: 4/25

 

Primary tumor location not reported by authors:

I: 0/25

C: 2/25

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 4/25

C: 6/25

 

Stage II:

I: 5/25

C: 4/25

 

Stage III:

I: 7/25

C: 3/25

 

Stage IV:

I: 9/25

C: 12/25

Surgery:

I: 25/25

C: 25/25

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) radiotherapy:

I: 20/25

C: 15/25

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) chemotherapy:

I: 18/25

C: 15/25

Timing:

The exercises began within three weeks after surgery and continued for three months. Probably for the majority of the patients during radio and/or chemotherapy – not clearly reported.

 

Content:

Oral exercises including: range of motion exercises of the lips, jaw, and tongue and resistance exercises of the tongue.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

12 weeks.

 

Adherence:

Compliance in both groups was encouraged through weekly telephone advisement by the nurse specialist for 12 weeks.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Timing:

Unclear. Probably for the majority of the patients during radio and/or chemotherapy – not clearly reported.

 

Content:

Usual care with swallowing positions and bolus modification.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

12 weeks.

 

Adherence:

Compliance in both groups was encouraged through weekly telephone advisement by the nurse specialist for 12 weeks.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Battery of measures at baseline (within three weeks after surgery and three months after the start of the exercise intervention.

 

Swallowing function:

Swallow imaging:

-Videofluoroscopic imaging: baseline and 3 months: Penetration Aspiration Scale; oral and pharyngeal residue.

6

Messing, 2017

Pharyngeal or laryngeal carcinoma - chemoradiotherapy

I/C: 30/30

Male/Female:

I: 28/2
C: 26/4

 

Median age (range):

I: 55 (44 - 78)

C: 58 (39 - 79)

Primary tumor location:

Oropharynx:

I: 24/30

C: 25/30

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 2/30

C: 2/30

 

Both (oro- and hypopharynx):

I: 0/30

C: 1/30

 

Supraglottic:

I: 3/30

C: 1/30

 

Glottic:

I: 1/30

C: 1/30

 

Primary tumor size:

T-stage:

T1:

I: 4/30

C: 5/30

 

T2:

I: 11/30

C: 13/30

 

T3:

I: 12/30

C: 10/30

 

T4:

I: 3/30

C: 2/30

 

Nodal stage:

N-stage:

N1:

I: 3/30

C: 7/30

 

N2a-b-c:

I: 17/30

C: 21/30

 

N3-N3b:

I: 2/30

C: 0/30

Conventional radiotherapy or IMRT (hyperfractionated):

I: 30/30

C: 30/30

 

Concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 30/30

C: 30/30

Timing:

During the course of chemoradiotherapy and up to three months after cancer treatment.

 

Content:

Oro-motor (mandibular, neck, lingual, labial, pharyngeal) strength/stretch exercises and swallow maneuvers combined with dietary modification.

 

Frequency:

Two sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: 20-30 min per session.

 

Total duration:

Approximately 4-5 months.

 

Adherence:

Patients attended a weekly swallow therapy session which included continued instruction on the exercise protocol and swallow interventions as indicated.

Study journals/home records on exercise-execution were fully complete for 66% (n = 19) of the exercise group.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists and patients.

Blinding of study staff.

Timing:

During the course of chemoradiotherapy and up to three months after cancer treatment.

 

Content:

No exercises, instructions on prophylactic use of TheraBite without any monitoring/follow-up.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Approximately 4-5 months.

 

Adherence:

Unclear.

Battery of measures at baseline (before chemoradiotherapy) and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after cancer treatment.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Clinician-reported outcome):

-Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS 1-5 more impaired diet level); baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 months

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Oro-motor assessment containing 69 tasks assessing strength and range of motion of the facial muscles, tongue, and palate

-Mouth opening

 

Swallow imaging:

-Videofluoroscopic imaging: baseline and 3 months: Oropharyngeal Swallow Efficiency (OPSE), Dysphagia Outcomes Severity Scale (DOSS), Penetration Aspiration Scale

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-EORTC QLQ-C30

-EORTC QLQ-H&N35

 

Nutritional status:

Tube feeding

7

Kumar, 2016

Oral cavity, pharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy (upfront or adjuvant)

I/C: 25/25

Male/Female:

I: 19/6
C: 19/6

 

Mean age (SD):

I: -

C: -

Primary tumor location:

Oral cavity:

I: 11/25

C: 12/25

 

Nasopharynx:

I: 1/25

C: 1/25

 

Oropharynx:

I: 6/25

C: 5/25

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 4/25

C: 5/25

 

Larynx:

I: 3/25

C: 2/25

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 0/25

C: 1/25

 

Stage II:

I: 0/25

C: 0/25

 

Stage III:

I: 11/25

C: 12/25

 

Stage IV:

I: 10/25

C: 10/25

Upfront IMRT/IGRT:

I: 2/25

C: 1/25

 

Upfront concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 11/25

C: 12/25

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) IMRT/IGRT:

I: 9/25

C: 9/25

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 3/25

C: 3/25

Timing:

During the course of (chemo)radiotherapy and up to six months after cancer treatment.

 

Content:

Supervised exercises and instructions: (1) Jaw exercise (2) tongue exercise, (3) the Mendelsohn maneuver, (4) shaker exercises, (5) supraglottic exercises (6) tongue hold, (7) mouth opening exercise, (8) range of motion (ROM) exercises.

 

Frequency:

Two sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Approximately 7-8 months.

 

Adherence:

Unclear.

 

Blinding:

Unclear.

Timing:

Not applicable.

 

Content:

No treatment.

Battery of measures at baseline (before (chemo)radiotherapy) and 3 and 6 months after (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Patient-reported outcome):

-MDADI

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-ASHA

 

Swallow imaging:

-Endoscopic imaging: Penetration Aspiration Scale

 

Nutritional status:

Tube feeding

8

Van den Berg, 2016

Oral cavity, pharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy (upfront or adjuvant)

I/C: 60/60

Male/Female:

I: 46/14
C: 43/17

 

Median age (range):

I: 63 (33-83)

C: 60 (40-86)

Primary tumor location:

Oral cavity:

I: 12/60

C: 12/60

 

Nasopharynx:

I: 3/60

C: 3/60

 

Oropharynx:

I: 20/60

C: 16/60

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 5/60

C: 10/60

 

Larynx:

I: 20/60

C: 19/60

 

Primary tumor size:

T-stage:

T1:

I: 0/60

C: 0/60

 

T2:

I: 22/60

C: 20/60

 

T3:

I: 9/60

C: 14/60

 

T4:

I: 29/60

C: 26/60

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 0/60

C: 0/60

 

Stage II:

I: 22/60

C: 20/60

 

Stage III:

I: 9/60

C: 14/60

 

Stage IV:

I: 29/60

C: 26/60

Upfront IMRT/conventional radiotherapy:

I: 38/60

C: 38/60

 

Upfront concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 9/60

C: 10/60

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) IMRT/ conventional radiotherapy:

I: 9/60

C: 9/60

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 4/60

C: 3/60

Timing:

During the course of (chemo)radiotherapy and up to thirty weeks after the start of cancer treatment.

 

Content:

Personalized swallowing therapy: stretching exercises to maximize tongue, jaw and larynx mobility, depending on the specific dysfunction and limited mobility i.c.w. compensatory and swallowing maneuvers, bolus modification, swallowing education, and dietary counseling.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: at least five min. per session.

 

Total duration:

Approximately 30 weeks.

 

Adherence:

Patients were weekly seen by an SLP during cancer treatment and every two months i.c.w. weekly telephone sessions after cancer treatment.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, study staff, and patients.

Timing:

During (chemo)radiotherapy. Further timing information is unclear.

 

Content:

Standard care meaning dietary counseling.

Swallowing therapy was only given on indication following referral of the radiation oncologist.

 

Frequency:

Dietary counseling every week and during the rehabilitation period at least every two months (or more frequently as needed).

 

Total duration:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Unclear.

Battery of measures at week 0 (the first week of (chemo)radiotherapy), week 6 (the last week of treatment), week 10 (one month after treatment), week 18 (three months after (chemo)radiotherapy) and week 30 (six months after treatment).

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Patient-reported outcome):

-MDADI

 

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Clinician-reported outcome):

-Performance Status Scale-Head and Neck Cancer (PSS-H&N)

-Normalcy of Food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Logopedic Part (NFIS-HN-L)

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Swallowing capacity (swallowing velocity and swallowing volume test)

 

Nutritional status:

Clinician-reported outcome: Normalcy of food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Dietetic Part (NFIS-HN-F)

 

BMI:

-Kg/m2

9

Carnaby-Mann, 2012

Oropharyngeal carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy

I/C1/C2: 20/20/18

Male/Female:

I: 18/2
C1: 15/5

C2: 11/7

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 59.0 (10.4)

C1: 54.0 (11.3)

C2: 60.0 (12.2)

Primary tumor location:

Base of tongue:

I: 5/20

C1: 3/20

C2: 3/18

 

Tonsil:

I: 3/20

C1: 9/20

C2: 4/18

 

Unknown:

I: 12/20

C1: 8/20

C2: 11/18

 

Primary tumor size:

Median T-stage (range):

I: 2 (1-4)

C1: 2 (0-4)

C2: 2 (1-4)

 

Cancer stage grouping:

-

Conventional radiotherapy:

I: 9/20

C1: 9/20

C2: 6/18

 

IMRT:

I: 11/20

C1: 11/20

C2: 12/18

 

Concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 6/20

C1: 10/20

C2: 6/18

 

Neck dissection:

I: 8/20

C1: 8/20

C2: 6/18

Timing:

During the course of (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Content:

Standardized high intensity swallowing therapy (“pharyngocise”: e.g., falsetto, tongue press, hard swallow, and jaw resistance/strengthening using the Therabite Jaw Motion Rehabilitation System and dietary modifications) and dietary modification.

 

Frequency:

Two sessions/day

Duration: 45 min per session.

 

Total duration:

Maximum of six weeks.

 

Adherence:

Direct therapy by the SLP.

Patients completed a daily home record of the exercises conducted between treatment sessions.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists and patients.

Blinding of study staff.

C1:

Timing:

During the course of (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Content:

Usual care –no exercise, supervision for feeding and precautions for safe swallowing (e.g., positioning, slowed rate of feeding) by the hospital speech pathology service.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Weekly telephone calls to monitor the swallowing outcome.

 

C2:

Timing:

During the course of (chemo)radiotherapy.

 

Content:

Standardized sham therapy (Buccal extension exercises + dietary modifications).

 

Frequency:

Two sessions/day - 14 sessions/week.

Total sessions: 84

 

Duration:

45 min per session (90 min/day).

 

Total duration:

63 hours in 6 weeks.

 

Adherence:

Direct therapy by the SLP.

Patients completed a daily home record of the exercises conducted between treatment sessions.

Battery of measures at baseline (before (chemo)radiotherapy) and 6 weeks, 6 months after randomization.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Clinician-reported outcome):

-Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS)

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Mann Swallowing Assessment (MASA)

-Mouth opening

 

Swallow imaging:

-Videofluoroscopic imaging: scoring unclear

-Endoscopic imaging: scoring unclear

-MRI of swallowing muscles

 

Regarding videofluoroscopic evaluation and endoscopic imaging: No clear description of the measurement or outcome variables is provided; only pre- and post-intervention numerical values are reported. Due to the poor methodological quality, it is unclear what was actually measured, making the results unreliable.

 

Regarding MRI of swallowing muscles: The studies measured changes in muscle size but did not adequately explain whether these changes translated into functional improvements. The methodological quality is poor, suggesting a risk of reporting bias. The clinical relevance for swallowing function is unclear due to methodological limitations.

Aspiration pneumonia:

-Type of assessment unclear

 

Nutritional status:

Weight :

-Kg

Start of the intervention after completion of cancer treatment.

10

Petersson, 2023

Oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy

I/C: 25/27

Male/Female:

I: 18/7
C: 21/6

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 63.7 (8.4)

C: 63.7 (6.7)

Primary tumor location:

Tonsil:

I: 11/25

C: 10/27

 

Base of tongue:

I: 10/25

C: 10/27

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 1/25

C: 3/27

 

Larynx:

I: 3/25

C: 4/27

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 1/25

C: 2/27

 

Stage II:

I: 4/25

C: 2/27

 

Stage III:

I: 1/25

C: 2/27

 

Stage IV:

I: 19/25

C: 21/27

Upfront radiotherapy:

I: 5/25

C: 5/27

 

Upfront brachytherapy:

I: 10/25

C: 7/27

Unclear who received IMRT or brachytherapy (with or without chemotherapy) in I and C as the brachytherapy patients are not representing a separate independent group – otherwise the total N of I/C would be more then 25/27

Upfront induction or concomitant chemoradiotherapy:

I: 20/25

C: 22/27

Unclear who received induction or concomitant chemotherapy in I and C

Timing:

More than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy (range 6-36 months).

 

Time since completion of (chemo)radiotherapy (months):

I: 11.2 (5.9)

 

Content:

Shaker head-lift exercises (isometric & isokinetic) i.c.w. usual care, i.e., advice about food, drinking, head position, or swallowing maneuvers, such as the supraglottic swallow, effortful swallow, and the Mendelsohn maneuver during meals.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Eight weeks.

 

Adherence:

The patients in the intervention group documented the adherence to the recommended exercise in a diary.

The first 2 weeks, the study SLP met with the patient two times per week to monitor training technique. The remainder of the period, technique was supervised once every 2 weeks with follow-ups by telephone in between meetings. Only the intervention group had contact with the study SLP during the initial period.

The mean number of training sessions performed by the intervention group during the 8 weeks was 18.7 (89%). After the 8-week follow-up, participants were recommended to exercise once daily, or a minimum of three sessions per week for 12 months and the mean number of performed training sessions per week was 3.0.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Timing:

More than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy (range 6-36 months).

Time since completion of (chemo)radiotherapy (months):

C: 13.0 (8.1)

 

Content:

Usual care, i.e., advice about food, drinking, head position, or swallowing maneuvers, such as the supraglottic swallow, effortful swallow, and the Mendelsohn maneuver during meals.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Not applicable.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Battery of measures at baseline (more than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy) and at 2 (8 weeks), and at 12 months after completing the exercise intervention.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Patient-reported outcome):

-MDADI

 

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Mouth opening

-Salivary flow

(Measurement method not reported)

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-EORTC QLQ-C30

-EORTC QLQ-H&N35

 

Aspiration pneumonia:

-Type of assessment unclear

 

Nutritional status:

BMI:

- Kg/m2

Tube feeding

-Present/absent

11

Dotevall, 2022

Oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy (upfront)

I/C: 23/24

Male/Female:

I: 16/7
C: 19/5

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 63.0 (8.2)

C: 62.7 (6.4)

Primary tumor location:

Tonsil:

I: 10/23

C: 10/24

 

Base of tongue:

I: 9/23

C: 9/24

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 1/23

C: 2/24

 

Larynx:

I: 3/23

C: 3/24

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 1/23

C: 2/24

 

Stage II:

I: 4/23

C: 2/24

 

Stage III:

I: 0/23

C: 2/24

 

Stage IV:

I: 18/23

C: 18/24

Upfront IMRT/conventional radiotherapy:

I: 23/23

C: 24/24

 

Upfront brachytherapy:

I: unclear

C: unclear

 

Upfront induction chemotherapy:

I: unclear

C: unclear

I+C: 29/47

 

Upfront concomitant chemotherapy:

I: unclear

C: unclear

I+C: 8/47

 

 

 

Timing:

More than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy (range 6-36 months).

 

Time since completion of (chemo)radiotherapy (months):

I: 11.2 (5.9)

 

Content:

Shaker head-lift exercises (isometric & isokinetic) i.c.w. usual care, i.e., advice about food, drinking, head position, or swallowing maneuvers, such as the supraglottic swallow, effortful swallow, and the Mendelsohn maneuver during meals.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Eight weeks.

 

Adherence:

The patients in the intervention group documented the adherence to the recommended exercise in a diary.

During the 8 weeks of training, the patients met the SLP during five sessions for a control of the training performance with telephone follow-ups in between. Adherence to treatment was between 78% and 93% of the recommended training with on average 2.6–2.9 of the prescribed three training sessions per day.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff. Blinded rating of endoscopic imaging.

Timing:

More than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy (range 6-36 months).

 

Time since completion of (chemo)radiotherapy (months):

C: 13.0 (8.1)

 

Content:

Usual care, i.e., advice about food, drinking, head position, or swallowing maneuvers, such as the supraglottic swallow, effortful swallow, and the Mendelsohn maneuver during meals.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Eight weeks.

 

Adherence:

Not applicable.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff. Blinded rating of endoscopic imaging.

Battery of measures at baseline (more than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy) and 2 months after completing the exercise intervention.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Patient-reported outcome):

-EAT-10

 

Swallow imaging:

-Endoscopic imaging: Murray secretion scale, initiation of the pharyngeal swallow, Penetration Aspiration Scale, Yale Pharyngeal Residue Scale, Swallowing Performance Status Scale (SPSS).

12

Tuomi, 2022

Oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy (upfront)

I/C: 25/27

Male/Female:

I: 18/7
C: 21/6

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 63.7 (8.4)

C: 63.7 (6.7)

Primary tumor location:

Tonsil:

I: 11/25

C: 10/27

 

Base of tongue:

I: 9/25

C: 10/27

 

Hypopharynx:

I: 3/25

C: 3/27

 

Larynx:

I: 2/25

C: 4/27

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 2/25

C: 3/27

 

Stage II:

I: 3/25

C: 2/27

 

Stage III:

I: 1/25

C: 4/27

 

Stage IV:

I: 19/25

C: 18/27

Upfront IMRT/conventional radiotherapy:

I: 25/25

C: 27/27

 

Upfront brachytherapy:

I: 10/25

C: 7/27

 

Upfront induction chemotherapy:

I: 4/25

C: 5/27

 

Upfront concomitant chemotherapy:

I: 16/25

C: 17/27

Timing:

More than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy (range 6-36 months).

 

Time since completion of (chemo)radiotherapy (months):

I: 11.2 (5.9)

C: 13.0 (8.1)

 

Content:

Shaker head-lift exercises (isometric & isokinetic) i.c.w. usual care, i.e., advice regarding changing the consistencies of solid food or drinks, head positioning such as chin tuck, swallowing maneuvers such as the supraglottic swallow, effortful swallow or the Mendelsohn maneuver, and eating/drinking slowly, in small sips or bites and with sips of water in between bites.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Eight weeks.

 

Adherence:

The patients in the intervention group documented the adherence to the recommended exercise in a diary.

During the 8 weeks of training, the patients met the SLP during five sessions for a control of the training performance with telephone follow-ups in between. Adherence to treatment was between 80% and 93% of the recommended training with on average 2.6–2.8 of the prescribed three training sessions per day.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff. Blinded rating of videofluoroscopic imaging.

Timing:

More than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy (range 6-36 months).

 

Time since completion of (chemo)radiotherapy (months):

I: 11.2 (5.9)

C: 13.0 (8.1)

 

Content:

Usual care, i.e., advice regarding changing the consistencies of solid food or drinks, head positioning such as chin tuck, swallowing maneuvers such as the supraglottic swallow, effortful swallow or the Mendelsohn maneuver, and eating/drinking slowly, in small sips or bites and with sips of water in between bites.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Eight weeks.

 

Adherence:

Not applicable.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff. Blinded rating of videofluoroscopic imaging.

Battery of measures at baseline (more than 6 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy) and 2 months after completing the exercise intervention.

 

Swallowing function:

Swallow imaging:

-Videofluoroscopic imaging: Penetration Aspiration Scale, Yale Pharyngeal Residue Scale modified for videofluoroscopy, Swallowing Performance Status Scale (SPSS), kinematic variables (anterior hyoid movement, superior hyoid movement, thyrohyoid approximation, maximum width of the UES opening during swallowing).

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-EORTC QLQ-H&N35 : swallowing & social eating domain

13

Jansen, 2020

Larynx carcinoma – primary or salvage laryngectomy

I/C: 46/46

Male/Female:

I: 36/10
C: 41/5

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 65 (7)

C: 64 (9)

Primary tumor location:

Larynx:

I: 46/46

C: 46/46

 

Cancer stage grouping: Unclear

 

Primary laryngectomy:

I: 22/46

C: 21/46

 

Salvage laryngectomy:

I: 24/46

C: 25/46

 

Neck dissection:

I: 31/46

C: 31/46

 

(Chemo)radiotherapy before or after total laryngectomy:

I: 40/46

C: 38/46

Timing:

Mean time since laryngectomy (months - SD):

I: 24 (18)

 

<6 months post-laryngectomy:

I: 10/46

 

6 months – 5 years post-laryngectomy:

I: 36/46

 

Content:

Seven flexibility exercises for the head, neck and shoulders, eight range of-motion exercises for the tongue, lips, and jaw, and, in case of facial lymphedema, five additional lymphedema exercises plus a self-care education program providing information and self-care advice on stoma care, voice prosthesis care, speech, smelling, nutrition, and mobility.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Twelve weeks.

 

Adherence:

The patients in the intervention group documented the adherence to the recommended exercises in a diary.

During the 12 weeks of training, the patients were contacted weekly by the SLP via e-mail or telephone.

Adherence to treatment was high in 20 patients (49%), moderate in 4 patients (10%), and low in 17 patients (41%).

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Timing:

Mean time since laryngectomy (months - SD):

C: 19 (15)

 

<6 months post-laryngectomy:

C: 10/46

 

6 months – 5 years post-laryngectomy:

C: 36/46

 

Content:

A self-care education program providing information and self-care advice on stoma care, voice prosthesis care, speech, smelling, nutrition, and mobility.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Twelve weeks.

 

Adherence: -

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Measures at baseline (immediately after the intervention), and at three and six months follow-up.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Patient-reported outcome):

-SWAL-QOL

 

HRQOL:

HRQOL questionnaire:

-EORTC QLQ-C30

-EORTC QLQ-H&N35

14

Chen, 2018a

Oral cavity carcinoma – (chemo)radiotherapy (adjuvant)

I/C: 38/38

Male/Female:

I: 36/2
C: 37/1

 

Mean age (SD):

I: 53.03 (8.67)

C: 51.13 (7.99)

Primary tumor location:

Lip:

I: 0/38

C: 1/38

 

Buccal mucosa:

I: 9/38

C: 14/38

 

Oral tongue:

I: 19/38

C: 14/38

 

Gingivae:

I: 5/38

C: 3/38

 

Mouth floor:

I: 2/38

C: 2/38

 

Hard palate:

I: 1/38

C: 0/38

 

Retromolar:

I: 2/38

C: 4/38

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Stage I:

I: 3/38

C: 2/38

 

Stage II:

I: 2/38

C: 5/38

 

Stage III:

I: 6/38

C: 7/38

 

Stage IV:

I: 27/38

C: 24/38

Adjuvant (post-surgery) IMRT/ conventional radiotherapy:

I: 8/38

C: 10/38

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) chemotherapy:

I: 1/38

C: 1/38

 

Adjuvant (post-surgery) concomitant chemoradiotherapy:

I: 29/38

C: 27/38

Timing:

More than 3 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy up to six months exercise intervention.

 

Content:

 Swallowing exercise education and practice, including postural changes (chin tuck, head turn, head tilt, and head back), and swallow maneuvers (supraglottic swallow, super-supraglottic swallow, Mendelsohn maneuver, and effortful swallow) i.c.w. bolus modification.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: 15-20 min. per session.

 

Total duration:

Six months.

 

Adherence:

Participants received text messages weekly as reminders, and telephone follow-up was provided biweekly from initiating and participating in this study to 6 months after participating in this study

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Timing:

Unclear

 

Content:

The control group participants were instructed to follow the usual routine-care regimen at the institution.

 

Frequency:

Unclear.

 

Total duration:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Unclear.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists and patients.

Blinding of study staff.

Battery of measures at baseline (more than 3 months post-(chemo)radiotherapy), and 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after completing the exercise intervention.

 

Swallowing function:

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Patient-reported outcome):

-SSQ

-MDADI

 

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire (Clinician-reported outcome):

-Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS)

 

Swallow imaging:

-Videofluoroscopic imaging: Swallowing Performance Status Scale (SPSS)

 

Mental health:

Affective symptom questionnaire:

-HADS

15

Tang, 2011

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma – radiotherapy (upfront)

I/C: 22/21

Male/Female:

I: Unclear
C: Unclear

 

Median age (range):

I: Unclear

C: Unclear

Primary tumor location:

Nasopharynx:

I: 22/22

C: 21/21

 

Cancer stage grouping:

Unclear

Upfront radiotherapy:

I: 22/22

C: 21/21

Timing:

The postradiotherapy interval was 4.6 ± 1.8 years.

 

Content:

The exercises and management of dysphagia include pharyngeal or cervical esophageal dilation, dietary modifications, postural strategies, thermotherapy, swallowing maneuvers, such as the super-supraglottic swallow and the Mendelsohn maneuver, and therapeutic exercises that target strength and range of motion for lips, tongue, and larynx.

 

Frequency:

Three sessions/day, seven days per week.

Duration: unclear.

 

Total duration:

Unclear.

 

Adherence:

Study journals/home records on exercise-execution, an appointed guardian, a rehabilitation calendar. If a patient missed more than 15% of all days, the patient was excluded – number of exclusion unclear.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Timing:

The postradiotherapy interval was 4.8 ± 1.6 years.

 

Content:

No treatment.

 

Frequency:

Not applicable.

 

Total duration:

Not applicable.

 

Adherence:

Not applicable.

 

Blinding:

No blinding of therapists, patients, and study staff.

Battery of measures at baseline (after radiotherapy – unclear definition) and 3 months after the exercise interventions. Also not specified – unclear.

 

Swallowing function:

Clinical assessment of swallowing:

-Water swallowing test – 30 ml within 5 seconds.

-Mouth opening

ASHA, American Speech-language Hearing Association; DAHANCA, Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group; C, control; DOSS, Dysphagia Outcomes Severity Scale; EORTC QLQ-C30, The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core-30; EORTC QLQ-H&N35, The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life Questionnaire Head and Neck 35; FOIS, Functional Oral Intake Scale; EAT-10, Eating Assessment Tool-10; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; I, intervention; MASA(-OC), Mann Swallowing Assessment(–Oral Cancer); MDADI, MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory; NFIS-HN-F, Normalcy of food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Dietetic Part; NFIS-HN-L, Normalcy of Food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Logopedic Part; OPSE, Oropharyngeal Swallow Efficiency; PAS, Penetration Aspiration Scale ; PSS-H&N, Performance Status Scale-Head and Neck Cancer; SPSS, Swallowing Performance Status Scale; SSQ, Sydney Swallowing Questionnaire; UW-QOLv4, University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire version 4; YPRS, Yale Pharyngeal Residue Scale

 

Results

A. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia before the start of cancer treatment (prehabilitation)

In three studies (Wu, 2023; Zhang, 2022; Mortensen, 2015) swallowing exercises were initiated prior to the start of (chemo)radiotherapy. In the studies by Wu (2023) and Zhang (2022) patients underwent surgical procedures prior to the initiation of swallowing exercises.

 

1. Swallowing function

1.1 Dysphagia-specific questionnaires

1.1.1 Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Not reported.

 

1.1.2 Clinician reported outcome measures

One study (Mortensen, 2015) reported on this outcome and used the DAHANCA morbidity scoring system for dysphagia, measured at any time during follow-up. A total of 15 out of 19 patients (79%) in the intervention group versus 16 out of 20 patients (80%) in the control group developed acute severe dysphagia (grade 3–4; corresponding to intake of liquid food only or worse) according to the DAHANCA scoring system at some time during treatment (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI 0.20 to 4.44).

 

1.2 Clinical assessment of swallowing

Three studies (Wu, 2023; Zhang, 2022; Mortensen, 2015) reported on this outcome (Table 3).

 

Table 3. Swallowing function measured by clinical assessment

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
median(range)

Follow-up

median(range)

Difference

N

Baseline
median(range)

Follow-up

median(range)

Difference

Change

CR

Wu, 2023

MASA-OC

Baseline (6th day after surgery)- 15th day after surgery

Exercise + usual care vs. usual care

62

Median (P25-P75)

92.5 (82.0~99.0)

Median (P25-P75)

101.5 (93.0~109.0)

AD -9

59

Median (P25-P75)

89.0(81.0~96.0)

Median (P25-P75)

99.0 (90.5~103.0)

AD -10

AD 1

No

Baseline- 1 month day after surgery

Exercise + usual care vs. usual care

62

Median (P25-P75)

92.5 (82.0~99.0)

Median (P25-P75)

112.0 (107.0~116.0)

AD -19,5

59

Median (P25-P75)

89.0(81.0~96.0)

Median (P25-P75)

103.0 (94.0~109.0)

AD -14

AD 5.5

No

Zhang, 2022

MASA-OC

Baseline (6th day after surgery)- 15th day after surgery before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy

Exercise + usual care vs. usual care

34

Median (P25-P75)

93.00 (78.00 ~ 99.25)

Median (P25-P75)

104.00 (98.25 ~ 109.00)

AD -11

34

Median (P25-P75)

87.00 (77.75 ~ 96.00)

Median (P25-P75)

94.50 (87.75 ~ 104.25)

AD -7.50

AD 3.5

No

Baseline (6th day after surgery)- 1 month after surgery before the start of (chemo)radiotherapy

Exercise + usual care vs. usual care

34

Median (P25-P75)

93.00 (78.00 ~ 99.25)

Median (P25-P75)

113.00(108.75 ~ 116.00)

AD -20

34

Median (P25-P75)

87.00 (77.75 ~ 96.00)

Median (P25-P75)

102.00 (94.75 ~ 108.25)

AD -15

AD 5

No

Mortensen, 2015

Mouth opening (interdental distance in mm)

Pre-treatment-2 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

52 (40–60)

47 (29–59)

AD 5

34

46 (17–69)

43 (28–57)

AD 3

AD 2

No

Mouth opening (interdental distance in mm)

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

52 (40–60)

48 (39–59)

AD 4

34

46 (17–69)

43 (25–61)

AD 3

AD 1

No

Mouth opening (interdental distance in mm)

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

52 (40–60)

50 (31–65)

AD 2

34

46 (17–69)

45 (33–60)

AD 1

AD 1

No

AD, absolute difference; CR, clinically relevant; MASA, Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability-Oral Cance ; N, number of patients; P, percentile

 

1.3 Swallow imaging

One study (Mortensen, 2015) reported on this outcome (Table 4).

 

Table 4. Swallowing function measured by swallow imaging techniques 

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
mean (range)/ %

Follow-up

mean (range)/ %

Difference

 

N

Baseline
mean (range)/ %)

Follow-up

mean (range)/ %

Difference

Change

CR

Mortensen, 2015

Videofluoroscopic imaging:

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

SPSS

Pre-treatment-2months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

1.44 (1–6)

2.36 (1–7)

AD -0.92

20

1.38 (1–4)

2.83 (1–6)

AD -1.45

AD 0.53

No

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

1.44 (1–6)

1.85 (1–6)

AD -0.41

20

1.38 (1–4)

2.45 (1–6)

AD -1.07

AD 0.66

No

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

1.44 (1–6)

1.92 (1–6)

AD -0.48

20

1.38 (1–4)

2.75 (1–5)

AD -1.38

AD 0.9

No

aspiration (0-2)

Pre-treatment-2months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

5.56 %

5.56%

0.00%

20

4.76 %

4.76%

0%

0%

No

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

5.56 %

14.29%

-8.73%

20

4.76 %

16.67%

-12%

3%

No

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

5.56 %

7.69%

-2.13%

20

4.76 %

18.18%

-13%

11%

No

penetration

Pre-treatment-2months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

5.56 %

16.67%

-11.11%

20

14.29 %

12.5%

2%

-13%

No

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

5.56 %

5.56 %

0.00%

20

14.29 %

14.29 %

0%

0%

No

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

5.56 %

28.57 %

-23,01%

20

14.29 %

41.67 %

-27%

4%

No

cough

Pre-treatment-2months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

11.11 %

23.08 %

-11.97%

20

9.52 %

45.45 %

-36%

24%

No

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

11.11 %

42.66 %

-31.55%

20

9.52 %

50 %

-40%

9%

No

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

11.11 %

11.11 %

0.00%

20

9.52 %

9.52 %

0%

0%

No

residue

Pre-treatment-2months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

44.44 %

28.57 %

15.87%

20

28.57 %

58.33 %

-30%

46%

Yes

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

44.44 %

23.08 %

21.36%

20

28.57 %

27.27 %

1%

20%

No

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

44.44 %

33.33 %

11.11%

20

28.57 %

50 %

-21%

33%

Yes

AD, absolute difference; CR, clinically relevant; N, number of patients; na, not applicable; nr, not reported

 

2. HRQOL

Three studies (Wu, 2023; Zhang, 2022; Mortensen, 2015) reported on this outcome (Table 5).

 

Table 5. HRQOL measured by HRQOL questionnaires

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
mean (SD)

Follow-up

mean (SD)

Difference

 

N

Baseline
mean (SD)

Follow-up

mean (SD)

Difference

 

Change

 

CR

Wu, 2023

UW-QoL

v4

Pre-operative-1 month after surgery

Exercise + usual care vs. usual care

62

1094.3 (129.3)

975.8 (139.0)

AD 118.5

59

1061.3 (170.4)

843.4 (149.9)

AD 217.9

AD -99.4

No

Zhang, 2022

UW-QOLv4

1 month after surgery

Exercise + usual care vs. usual care

34

nr

996.39 (75.67)

na

34

nr

809.62 (152.12)

na

MD follow-up 186.77 (129.66 to 243.88)

No

Mortensen, 2015

Global health (median, 25-75)

 

 

Pre-treatment-2months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

median (range)

67 (50; 83)

median (range)

50 (33; 67)

AD 17

20

median (range)

75 (58; 83)

median (range)

71 (67; 88)

AD 4

AD 13

No

Pre-treatment-5 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

median (range)

67 (50; 83)

median (range)

67 (33; 83)

 

AD 0

20

median (range)

75 (58; 83)

median (range)

83 (83; 83)

 

AD 8

AD -8

No

Pre-treatment-11 months

Exercise vs. usual care

19

median (range)

67 (50; 83)

median (range)

83 (75; 88)

AD -16

20

median (range)

75 (58; 83)

median (range)

79 (67; 88)

AD -4

AD -12

No

AD, absolute difference; CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; na, not applicable; nr, not reported; UW-QOLv4, the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire, version 4; SD, standard deviation

 

3. Mental health

Not reported.

 

4. Aspiration pneumonia

One study (Wu, 2023) reported on this outcome. Wu (2023) only reported pneumonia (n, %) in the comparison of postoperative complications between the control and intervention groups. In the intervention group 4 of 62 patients (6.5%) had pneumonia compared to 5 of 59 patients (8.5%) (AD=-2%).

 

5. Nutritional status

5.1 Clinician reported outcomes

Not reported.

 

5.2 BMI

Not reported.

 

5.3 Weight

Three studies (Wu, 2023; Zhang, 2022; Mortensen, 2015) reported on this outcome. Wu (2023) and Zhang (2022) reported the percentage weight loss since the start of the intervention on the 6th day after the operation, at the end of the intervention, on the 15th day after the operation, and 1 month after the operation (Table 6). Mortensen (2015) included weight as a measurement outcome but did not show data and only reported that findings were similar in the two groups at all individual time points and that there was a similar change over time.

 

Table 6. Weight loss

Study

Measure

 

Timing

Comparison

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

CR

N

Mean

Range (P25~P75)

N

Mean

Range (P25~P75)

Wu, 2023

Weight loss (%)

6th vs. 15th day after the operation

Exercise vs. usual care

62

−0.15

−1.40–1.83

59

1.99

0.58–4.04

AD -2,14

N0

6th day vs. 1 month after the operation

Exercise vs. usual care

62

−1.45

−3.25–1.52

59

1.73

−0.47–3.95

AD -3.18

N0

Zhang, 2022

Weight loss (%)

6th vs. 15th day after the operation

Exercise vs. usual care

34

− 0.20

-1.10; 1.09

34

2.45

0.91; 5.43

AD -2.65

N0

6th day vs. 1 month after the operation

Exercise vs. usual care

34

− 1.54

-3.40; 1.12

34

3.33

-0.54; 4.88

AD -4.87

N0

AD, absolute difference; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; SD, standard deviation

 

5.4 Tube feeding

Three studies (Wu, 2023; Zhang, 2022; Mortensen, 2015) reported on this outcome. Wu (2023) and Zhang (2022) reported on time of nasogastric tube removal. In Wu (2023) the mean time of nasogastric tube removal in the intervention group (n=64) was 7.6 (SD 3.2) days compared to 15.9 (SD 12.0) days in the control group (n=59) (MD -8.30 days, 95% CI -11.46 to -5.14). This difference in favor of the intervention group was clinically relevant. Zhang (2022) reported that the removal time in the intervention group (n=34) was 8.38 (7.0–10.0) days after the operation compared to 17.76 (10.0–22.0) days after the operation in the control group (n=34) (AD -9.38 days). This difference in favor of the intervention group was clinically relevant. Mortensen (2015) included the need for tube feeding as a measurement outcome but did not show data and only reported that findings were similar in the two groups.

 

B. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia during cancer treatment (prehabilitation)

In six studies (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Hsiang, 2019; Messing, 2017; Kumar, 2016; Van den Berg, 2016; Carnaby-Mann, 2012) the rehabilitation of dysphagia started during cancer treatment ((chemo)radiotherapy).

 

1. Swallowing function

1.1 Dysphagia-specific questionnaire

1.1.1 Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Three studies (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Kumar, 2016; Van den Berg, 2016) reported on this outcome (Table 7).

 

Table 7. Swallowing function measured by PROMs

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD) or /%

Follow-up

Mean (SD)/%

Difference

Mean (SD)/%

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)/%

Follow-up

Mean (SD)/%

Difference

Mean (SD)/%

Change

Mean (95% CI)/%

CR

Fredslund Hajdu, 2021

MDADI-E

End-of-treatment (6 weeks)

Exercise vs. usual care

98

nr

nr

nr

105

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores; 3.71 (-1.42 to 7.75)

No

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-2.95 (-7.32 to 1.42)

No

6 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

85

nr

nr

nr

80

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-0.96 (-5.87 to 3.96)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-2.25 (-7.07 to 2.58)

No

MDADI-F

End-of-treatment (6 weeks)

Exercise vs. usual care

98

nr

nr

nr

105

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

3.83 (-1.26 to 8.92)

No

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-7.14 (-12.22 to -2.05)

No

6 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

85

nr

nr

nr

80

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

(-7.05 (-13.04 to -1.07)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.22 (-5.54 to 5.98)

No

MDADI-P

End-of-treatment (6 weeks)

Exercise vs. usual care

98

nr

nr

nr

105

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

5.00 (-0.51 to 10.52)

No

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

3.50 (-1.82 to 8.82)

No

6 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

85

nr

nr

nr

80

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-2.72 (-8.74 to 3.31)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-5.43 (-11.25 to 0.39)

No

Kumar, 2016

MDADI

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

25

nr

14

na

25

nr

7.76

na

AD follow-up 6.24

No

Van den Berg, 2016

MDADI-E

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

79 (12)

76 (12)

nr

57

81(10)

78 (11)

nr

-0.4 (-5.0 to 4.2)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

79 (12)

80 (12)

nr

57

81(10)

81 (11)

nr

0.0 (-0.2 to 0.2)

No

MDADI-F

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

78 (11)

76 (15)

nr

57

80 (9)

77 (12)

nr

-0.1 (-5.4 to 5.1)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

78 (11)

79 (11)

nr

57

80 (9)

79 (10)

nr

0.1 (-0.1 to 0.3)

No

MDADI-P

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

76 (19)

65 (17)

nr

57

78 (18)

68 (18)

nr

-0.3 (-6.5 to 5.9)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

76 (19)

74 (17)

nr

57

78 (18

77 (17)

nr

0.0 (-0.3 to 0.3)

No

AD, absolute difference; CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; MDADI, M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory-­E (emotional)/F (functional)/P (physical)(Score 0 to 100; a higher score is better); N, number of patients; na, not applicable; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

1.1.2 Clinician reported outcome measures (CROMs)

Four studies (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Messing, 2017; Van den Berg, 2016; Carnaby-Mann, 2012) reported on this outcome (Table 8).

 

Table 8. Swallowing function measured by CROMs

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)/%

Follow-up

Mean (SD)/%

Difference

Mean (SD)/%

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)/%

Follow-up

Mean (SD)/%

Difference

Mean (SD)/%

Change

Mean (95% CI)/%

CR

Fredslund Hajdu, 2021

FOIS

End-of-treatment (6 weeks)

Exercise vs. usual care

98

nr

nr

nr

105

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.00 (-0.34 to 0.33)

No

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-0.10 (-0.43 to 0.24)

No

6 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

85

nr

nr

nr

80

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.16 (-0.20 to 0.53)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-0.14 (-0.49 to 0.21)

No

Carnaby-Mann, 2012

FOIS

Baseline-6 weeks

Exercise vs. usual care

20

Median (range)

7 (5-7)

Median (range)

5 (2-7)

AD 2

20

Median (range)

7 (5-7)

Median (range)

4 (1-6)

 

AD 3

AD 1

Yes

Baseline-6 weeks

Exercise vs. sham exercise/compensatory strategies

20

Median (range)

7 (5-7)

Median (range)

5 (2-7)

AD 2

18

Median (range)

7 (5-7)

Median (range)

4 (1-7)

 

AD 3

AD 1

Yes

Messing, 2017

FOIS 1-5 (more impaired diet level)

Baseline-3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

0%

50%

AD -50%

30

10%

60%

AD -50%

AD 0

No

Baseline-6 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

0%

27%

AD -27%

30

10%

33%

AD -22%

AD 5%

No

Baseline-12 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

0%

12%

AD -12%

30

10%

4%

AD 6%

AD 18%

No

Van den Berg, 2016

PSS-HN-normalcy of diet

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

78 (26)

59 (25)

nr

57

75 (25)

60 (29)

nr

-5.0 (-16.1 to 6.1)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

78 (26)

85 (21)

nr

57

75 (25)

79 (24)

nr

5.3 ( -4.2 to 14.9)

No

NFIS-HN-L

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

5.5 (0.9)

4.6 (1.3)

nr

57

5.6 (0.6)

4.6 (1.3)

nr

0.0(-0.4 to 0.3)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

5.5 (0.9)

5.6 (0.7)

nr

57

5.6 (0.6)

5.3 (0.7)

nr

0.2 (-0.2 to 0.7)

No

AD, absolute difference; CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; FOIS, MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; NFIS-HN-L, Normalcy of Food Intake Scale-Head and Neck-Logopedic part (Score 1 to 6; a higher score is better); nr, not reported; PSS-HN -Normalcy of diet, Performance Status Scale-Head and Neck-normalcy of diet (Score 0 to 100; a higher score is better); SD, standard deviation

 

1.2 Clinical assessment of swallowing

Five studies (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Messing, 2017; Kumar, 2016; Van den Berg, 2016; Carnaby-Mann, 2012) reported on this outcome (Table 9).

 

Table 9. Swallowing function measured by clinical assessment

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)/ %

Follow-up

Mean (SD) / %

Difference

Mean (SD) / %

N

Baseline
Mean (SD) / %

Follow-up

Mean (SD) / %

Difference

Mean (SD) / %

Change

Mean (95% CI) / %

CR

Kumar, 2016

ASHA

6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

25

nr

6.44 (nr)

na

25

nr

5.8 (nr)

na

AD follow-up 0.64

No

Messing, 2017

Oro-motor assessment

Baseline-3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

13%

24%

-11%

30

16%

9%

5%

16%

No

Baseline-6 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

13%

33%

-20%

30

16%

5%

11%

31%

Yes

Baseline-12 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

13%

12%

-1%

30

16%

8%

8%

9%

No

Carnaby-Mann, 2012

MASA

 

Baseline-6 weeks

Exercise vs. usual care

20

195.1 (5.9)

177.14 (12.5)

17.7 (10.1)

20

195.5 (4.0)

171.5 (14.2)

24.16 (13.4)

-6.46 (-13.81 to 0.89)

 

No

Baseline-6 weeks

Exercise vs. sham exercise/compensatory strategies

20

195.1 (5.9)

177.14 (12.5)

17.7 (10.1)

18

194.7 (3.5)

173.6 (11.8)

20.8 (12.9)

-3.10 (-10.52 to 4.32)

 

No

Van den Berg, 2016

Swallowing capacity (ml/s)

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

18 (10)

17 (10)

AD 1

57

17 (10)

18 (12)

AD -1

-0.0 (-4.0 to 3.8)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

18 (10)

18 (9)

AD 0

57

17 (10)

19 (10)

AD -2

-2.0 (-5.3 to 1.3)

No

Water swallowing (ml)

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

42 (23)

44 (22)

AD 2

57

48 (22)

42 (24)

AD 6

-2.5 (-8.8 to 3.8)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

42 (23)

48 (21)

AD -6

57

48 (22)

46 (23)

AD 2

5.9 (-1.1 to 12.9)

No

Fredslund Hajdu, 2021

Mouth opening

End-of-treatment (6 weeks)

Exercise vs. usual care

98

nr

nr

nr

105

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

2.38 (0.61 to 4.16)

No

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.24 (-1.52 to 1.99)

No

6 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

85

nr

nr

nr

80

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.85 (-1.08 to 2.78)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-0.16 (-1.98 to 1.67)

No

Messing, 2017

Mouth opening (incisal opening in mm)

Baseline-3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

50.7(5.9)

43.2(8.5)

AD 7.5

30

46.4(9.5)

41.9(8.4)

AD 4.5

AD 3

No

Baseline-6 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

50.7(5.9)

43.9(8.5)

AD 6.8

30

46.4(9.5)

39.9(7.3)

AD 6.5

AD 0.3

No

Baseline-12 months post CRT

Exercise vs. usual care

30

50.7(5.9)

46.7(7.4)

AD 4

30

46.4(9.5)

43.8(7.0)

AD 2.6

AD 1.4

No

Carnaby-Mann, 2012

Mouth opening (in mm)

 

Baseline-6 weeks

Exercise vs. usual care

20

41.6 (8.4)

40.05 (8.3)

AD 1.6

20

36.6 (8.05)

32.3 (5.9)

AD 4.3

AD -2.7

No

Baseline-6 weeks

Exercise vs. sham exercise/compensatory strategies

20

41.6 (8.4)

40.05 (8.3)

AD 1.6

18

39.2 (6.4)

34.07 (7.3)

AD 5.1

AD -3.5

No

AD, absolute difference; ASHA, American Speech-language Hearing Association; CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MASA, Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; na, not applicable; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

1.3 Swallow imaging

Five studies (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Hsiang, 2019; Messing, 2017; Kumar, 2016; Carnaby-Mann, 2012) reported on this outcome (Table 10). Carnaby-Mann (2012) only reported that the video endoscopic review demonstrated significant changes in pharyngeal structure across all groups during the study period (baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months) alongside a figure showing the change in anatomy of the oropharynx in the control arm. No clear description of the endoscopic measurement or outcome variables is provided. Due to the poor methodological quality, it is unclear what was actually measured, making the results of the video endoscopic review unreliable.

 

Table 10. Swallowing function measured by swallow imaging techniques

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (SD)

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (SD)

Change

Mean (95% CI)

CR

Fredslund Hajdu, 2021

Endoscopic imaging:

Penetration – aspiration (PAS)

PAS - liquid

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.15 (-0.25 to 0.55)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.28 (-0.14 to 0.70)

No

PAS – thickened liquid

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-0.02 (-0.02 to 0.17)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.07 (-0.11 to 0.26)

No

Pharyngeal residue (YPRS)

Vallecula liquid

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.61 (0.10 to 1.12)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.16 (-0.39 to 0.70)

No

Vallecula thickened

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.78 (0.19 to 1.37)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.36 (-0.27 to 0.99)

No

Piriformis liquid

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.85 (0.19 to 1.51)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

-0.04 (-0.73 to 0.65)

No

Piriformis thickened

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

1.21 (0.41 to 2.01)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.52 (-0.32 to 1.37)

No

Hsiang, 2019

Videofluoroscopic imaging:

Penetration – aspiration (PAS)

Overall PAS score

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

2.20 (1.72)

2.00 (1.70)

0.20 (0.40)

20

2.05 (1.88)

2.20 (1.91)

-0.15 (0.65)

0.35 (0.02 to 0.68)

 

No

Oral residue

10 ml thin liquid

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

10.00 (7.75)

7.00 (7.14)

3.00 (4.58)

20

12.50 (9.42)

13.00 (10.05)

-0.50 (9.21)

3.50 (-1.01 to 8.01)

 

Yes

Nectar-like

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

13.50 (8.53)

6.50 (5.72)

7.00 (8.43)

20

9.50 (8.05)

13.50 (9.63)

-4.00 (6.63)

11.00 (6.30 to 15.70)

 

Yes

Honey-like

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

15.50 (8.65)

6.00 (4.90)

9.50 (6.69)

20

11.00 (9.43)

14.00 (8.60)

-3.00 (5.67)

12.00 (8.16 to 15.84)

 

Yes

Pudding-like

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

17.00 (9.54)

6.00 (6.63)

11.00 (9.43)

20

13.50 (9.10)

14.00 (9.70)

-0.50 (2.18)

11.50 (7.26 to 15.74)

 

Yes

Pharyngeal residue

10 ml thin liquid

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

10.00 (8.94)

7.00 (7.81)

3.00 (5.57)

20

6.50 (8.53)

7.50 (8.87)

-1.00 (7.68)

4.00 (-0.16 to 8.16)

 

Yes

Nectar-like

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

16.00 (7.35)

11.00 (5.39)

5.00 (5.00)

20

11.00 (10.44)

12.00 (10.30)

-1.00 (6.24)

6.00 (2.50 to 9.50)

 

Yes

Honey-like

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

18.50 (6.54)

12.00 (7.48)

6.50 (6.54)

20

15.00 (10.25)

15.50 (10.23)

-0.50 (3.84)

7.00 (3.68 to 10.32)

 

Yes

Pudding-like

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

20

20.00 (5.48)

13.50 (7.26)

6.50 (6.54)

20

16.50 (10.62)

17.00 (8.43)

-0.50 (6.69)

7.00 (2.90 to 11.10)

 

Yes

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
%

Follow-up

%

Difference

%

N

Baseline
%

Follow-up

%

Difference

%

Change

%

CR

Messing, 2017

Videofluoroscopic imaging:

OPSE total score (seconds, percentage of abnormal)

Baseline- 3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

11%

15%

-4%

30%

29%

46%

-17%

13%

No

DOSS (percentage of abnormal)

Baseline- 3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

7%

40%

-33%

30%

11%

25%

-14%

19%

No

PAS penetration 2-5

Baseline- 3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

10%

21%

-11%

30%

29%

38%

-9%

2%

No

PAS aspiration 6-8

Baseline- 3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

7%

0%

7%

30%

7%

9%

-2%

9%

No

Kumar, 2016

Endoscopic imaging:

PAS

3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

25

6%

16%

10%

25%

6%

20%

14%

4%

No

6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

25

6%

8%

2%

25%

6%

16%

10%

8%

No

AD, absolute difference; CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; DOSS, Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale (dichotomized as 1–5 vs. 6–7, shows percentage of abnormal (1–5)); MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; OPSE, Oral Pharyngeal Swallow Efficiency (OPSE total score: percentage of abnormal (≤50 total OPSE)); PAS, Penetration–Aspiration Scale (Penetration: Percentage of patients with penetration score of 2–5; Aspiration: Percentage of patients with aspiration score of 6–8); SD, standard deviation; YALE pharyngeal residue severity rating scale (1 = no residue to 5 = severe residue)

 

2. HRQOL

Two studies (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Messing, 2017) reported on this outcome (Table 11).

 

Table 11. HRQOL measured by HRQOL questionnaires

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Absolute difference

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Absolute difference

Change

Mean (95% CI)

CR

Fredslund Hadju, 2021

EORTC QLQ-C30 global QoL

End-of-treatment (6 weeks)

Exercise vs. usual care

98

nr

nr

nr

105

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

4.89 (-1.35 to 11.13)

No

2 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

97

nr

nr

nr

97

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

1.92 (-4.31 to 8.16)

No

6 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

85

nr

nr

nr

80

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

0.87 (-6.11 to 7.85)

No

12 month follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

90

nr

nr

nr

89

nr

nr

nr

Difference in scores;

1.00 (-6.15 to 8.14)

No

Messing, 2017

EORTC QLQ-H&HN35

Baseline-3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

15.1(9.0)

23.2(14.0)

-8.1

30

23.1(16.7)

27.1(10.5)

-4

MD -3.90 (-10.16 to 2.36)

No

Baseline-6 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

15.1(9.0)

17.8(11.3)

-2.7

30

23.1(16.7)

22.6(12.0)

0.5

MD -4.80 (-10.70 to 1.10)

No

CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation; EORTC QLQ-C30 global QoL, The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30; QLQ-H&HN35, The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Quality of Life module

 

3. Mental health

One study reported on this outcome (Fredslund Hadju, 2021). Fredslund Hadju (2021) reported on depression (as measured with the MDI) and anxiety (as measured with the CL-92). Differences in scores (intervention compared to control group) for end-of-treatment; 2 month-follow up; 6-month follow up; and 12 month follow up were -1.28 (95%CI -3.78 to 1.21); 0.29 (95%CI -2.05 to 2.62); -0.75 (95%CI -3.29 to 1.79); -1.45 (95%CI -3.90 to 1.01) for depression, respectively. These changes were not clinically relevant. For anxiety the differences in scores were -0.14 (95%CI -0.27 to -0.01); -0.09 (95%CI -0.21 to 0.03); -0.13 (95%CI -0.26 to 0.00); -0.10 (95%CI -0.22 to 0.03) respectively. These differences were also not clinically relevant.

 

4. Aspiration pneumonia

One study reported on this outcome (Carnaby-Mann, 2012), in which it was only reported that the prevalence of aspiration was low (14%, n = 8) with no statistically significant differences between exercise vs. usual care groups.

 

5. Nutritional status

5.1 Clinician reported outcomes

One study reported on this outcome (van den Berg, 2016) using the Normalcy of food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Dietetic Part (NFIS-HN-F) to measure normalcy of food intake (Table 12).

 

Table 12. Nutritional status

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (MD) (95%CI)

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (MD) (95%CI)

Change

Mean (95% CI)

CR

Van den Berg, 2016

NFIS-HN-F*

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

5.5 (0.9)

5.2 (0.9)

NR

57

5.6 (0.6)

5.6 (1.1)

Nr

0.0 (-0.4; 0.3)

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

5.6 (0.6)

5.6 (0.7)

NR

57

5.6 (0.6)

5.3 (0.7)

Nr

0.2 (-0.2; 0.7)

No

CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; NFIS-HN-F, Normalcy of Food Intake Scale-Head and Neck-Dietetic part (score 1 to 6, a higher score is better); nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

5.2 BMI

One study reported on this outcome (van den Berg, 2016), in which BMI was used as a measure for malnutrition. Malnutrition was defined as the presence of at least one of the following criteria: a) unintentional weight loss of ≥5% in one month and/or ≥10% in six months; b) BMI ≤18.5 in patients under the age of 65; and c) BMI ≤20 in patients age 65 years or older. Results are presented in Table 13.

 

Table 13. Malnutrition

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
N (%)

Follow-up

N (%)

Difference

 

N

Baseline
N (%)

Follow-up

N (%)

Difference

 

Change (%)

CR

Van den Berg, 2016

Malnutrition (%)

3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

15 (26%)

16 (31%)

1 (-5%)

57

6 (10%)

16 (33%)

10 (-23%)

18%

Yes

6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

57

15 (26%)

10 (24%)

5 (2%)

57

6 (10%)

9 (20%)

3 (10%)

8%

No

CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

5.3 Weight

Two studies reported on this outcome (Fredslund Hajdu, 2021; Carnaby-Mann, 2012). Fredslund Hajdu (2021) reported differences in scores (intervention compared to control group) for end-of-treatment; 2 month-follow up; 6-month follow up; and 12 month follow up. These were 0.06 (95%CI -1.43 to 1.55); -0.15 (95%CI -1.59 to 1.30); -0.21 (95%CI -1.78 to 1.36); -0.95 (95%CI -2.45 to 0.55), respectively. These differences were not clinically relevant. Carnaby-Mann (2012) did not report absolute data per study group. They reported that the mean weight loss per patient during the study period was 6.69 kg (meanstandard deviation, 14.754.9 lb). A total of 23 patients (40%) lost >10% of their baseline body weight by the 6- week point. A greater number of subjects receiving CRT (61%) lost >10% of their body weight than those receiving RT alone (38%). The average weight loss was not significantly different among the groups after treatment.

 

5.4 Tube feeding

One study accurately reported on this outcome (Messing, 2017) (Table 14). Kumar (2016) reported on tube feeding but it is unclear what was actually measured in each group, making the results unreliable.

 

Table 14. Tube feeding

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
N (%)

Follow-up

N (%)

Difference

 

N

Baseline
N (%)

Follow-up

N (%)

Difference

 

Change

CR

Messing 2017

PEG in situ (%)

Baseline-3 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

100%

76%

24%

30

100%

61%

39%

-15%

Yes

Baseline-6 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

100%

29%

71%

30

100%

18%

82%

-11%

Yes

Baseline-12 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

100%

14%

86%

30

100%

4%

96%

-10%

Yes

Baseline-24 months post CRT

Exercise vs. no exercise/usual care

30

100%

3%

97%

30

100%

0%

100%

-3%

No

CR, clinically relevant; N, number of patients; PEG, Percutaneous Gastrostomy

 

C. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia after cancer treatment

In six studies (Petersson, 2023; Dotevall, 2022; Tuomi, 2022; Jansen, 2020; Chen, 2018a; Tang, 2011) the rehabilitation of dysphagia started after cancer treatment.

 

1. Swallowing function

1.1 Dysphagia-specific questionnaire

1.1.1 Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Four studies (Petersson, 2023; Dotevall, 2022; Jansen, 2020; Chen, 2018a)reported on this outcome (Table 15).

 

Table 15. Swallowing function measured by PROMs

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (MD) (95%CI)/ Absolute difference (AD)

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (MD) (95%CI)/ Absolute difference (AD)

Change

Mean (95% CI)/ AD

CR

Petersson, 2023

MDADI (total)

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of

(chemo)radiotherapy) - 8 weeks follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25

71.4 (17.9)

79.8 (16.3)

7.0 (1.7;

12.5)

27

73.2 (17.7)

77.7 (15.7)

4.5 (1.7; 7.2)

2.6 (− 3.3;

8.3)

No

Baseline-12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

19

71.4 (17.9)

77.4 (19.1)

3.1 (− 0.8; 7.1)

24

73.2 (17.7)

82.2 (14.9)

7.7 (2.9; 12.6)

− 4.6 (− 11.0; 1.5)

No

Dotevall, 2022

EAT-10

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

23

14.2 (10.3)

10.1 (8.1)

MD −4.1 (−6.9; −1.3)

24

14.0 (9.6)

12.5 (9.9)

MD − 1.5 (− 3.4; 0.6)

2.6 (−0.7; 6.0)

No

Jansen, 2020

SWAL-QOL

Baseline (immediately after the intervention) - 3 months after completing the exercise intervention

 

Exercise vs. usual care

37

29.2 (16.9)

28.4 (16.2)

0.8 (-6.74; 8.34)

44

32.7 (16.3)

31.4 (17.6)

1.30 (-5.79; 8.39)

-0.5

No

 

 

Baseline (immediately after the intervention) - 6 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

36

29.2 (16.9)

25.8 (17.1)

3.40 (-4.45; 11.25)

42

32.7 (16.3)

35.0 (17.9)

-2.30 (-9.62; 5.02)

-5.7

No

Chen, 2018a

SSQ

Baseline-1 month

Exercise vs. usual care

38

585.00 (266.42)

543.68 (248.36)

AD 41.32

38

705.26 (246.67)

679.47 (220.66)

AD 25.79

15.53

No

Baseline-2 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

585.00 (266.42)

587.89 (268.48)

AD -2.89

38

705.26 (246.67)

660.79 (222.95)

AD 44.47

47.36

No

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

585.00 (266.42)

629.74 (239.59)

AD -44.74

38

705.26 (246.67)

645.26 (213.02)

AD 60

104.74

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

585.00 (266.42)

651.84 (272.91)

AD -66.84

38

705.26 (246.67)

629.74 (190.27)

AD 75,52

142.36

No

MDADI (total)

Baseline-1 month

Exercise vs. usual care

38

120.28 (16.16)

80.72 (9.36)

AD 39,56

38

120.83 (13.31)

79.25 (8.09)

AD 41,58

-2.02

No

Baseline-2 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

120.28 (16.16)

80.16 (9.70)

AD 40,12

38

120.83 (13.31)

81.38 (9.15)

AD 39.45

0.67

No

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

120.28 (16.16)

78.16 (9.64)

AD 42,12

38

120.83 (13.31)

81.21 (8.38)

AD 39.62

2.5

No

Baseline-6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

120.28 (16.16)

77.36 (10.73)

AD 42,92

38

120.83 (13.31)

81.17 (8.60)

AD 39.66

3.26

No

AD, Absolute difference; CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; MDADI, MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation; SSQ, Sydney Swallowing Questionnaire

 

1.1.2 Clinician reported outcome measures (CROMs)

Not reported. Chen (2018a) reported only baseline values for the outcome measure FOIS and was therefore not eligible for inclusion in the current analysis.

 

1.2. Clinical assessment of swallowing

Two studies reported on this outcome (Petersson, 2023; Tang, 2011). Results are presented in Table 16. In the study of Tang (2011) patients were asked to drink 30 ml tepid water and given a score 1-5: 1) able to drink the 30 ml water within 5 seconds at one time without coughing or pausing; 2) could finish drinking at one time, but required more than 5 seconds; the patient needed to drink twice, but without coughing or pausing; 3) able to drink the water in one drink, but with choking; 4) able to finish drinking in two drinks with choking; 5) choked and could not drink the water. The pre-treatment score was indicated as N0 and posttreatment score as N1 and differences were classified ranging from excellent to deteriorated. Mouth opening was evaluated by measuring the interincisor distance (IID).

 

Table 16. Swallowing function measured by clinical assessment

 

 

 

 

Intervention group (N=22)

Control group (N=21)

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N0–N1 > 1 excellent

N0–N1 = 1 effective

N0–N1 = 0 ineffective

N0–N1 < 0 deteriorated

N0–N1 > 1 excellent

N0–N1 = 1 effective

N0–N1 = 0 ineffective

N0–N1 < 0 deteriorated

Change

Mean (95% CI)

CR

Tang, 2011

Water swallowing test

3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

0

17

5

0

0

9

8

4

The percentage of patients with excellent and effective result of the rehabilitation group was higher than that of the control group (77% vs. 43%, respectively)

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)/ N (%)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)/

N (%)

Difference

Mean (95%CI) /

%

N

Baseline
Mean (SD) /

N (%)

Follow-up

Mean (SD) /

N (%)

Difference

Mean difference(SD) /

(%)

Change

Mean (95% CI) /

(%)

CR

Petersson, 2023

Mouth opening (trismus; ≤ 35 mm)

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of (chemo)radiotherapy)-12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

3 (12)

4 (21)

9%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

5 (19)

5 (21)

0%

9%

No

Hyposalivation (≤ 0.7 ml/min)

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of (chemo)radiotherapy)-12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

11 (44)

2 (11)

33%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

7 (26)

4 (17)

11%

22%

No

Tang, 2011

Mouth opening (IID), in cm

Baseline-3 months

Exercise vs. usual care

22

1.89 (0.69)

1.7 (0.68)

0.19 (0.5)

21

1.8 (0.56)

1.1 (0.36)

0.69 (0.56)

-0.50 (-0.82, -0.18)

No

CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; IDD, interincisor distance; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

1.3 Swallow imaging

Two studies (Dotevall, 2022; Tuomi, 2022)reported on this outcome (Table 17). Chen (2018a) reported only baseline values for the outcome measure SPSS and was therefore not eligible for inclusion in the current analysis.

 

Table 17. Swallowing function measured by swallow imaging techniques

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (95%CI)/ (SD)

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean difference(95%CI)

Change

Mean (95% CI)

CR

Dotevall, 2022

Endoscopic imaging:

 

Murray secretion scale

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

23

2.0 (1.2)

1.8 (1.0)

-0.3 (-0.9; 0.3)

24

1.9 (1.1)

2.1 (1.2)

0.2 (-0.4; 0.8)

0.5 (-0.3; 1.3)

No

YPRS*, Residue in vallecula: thick 5 ml

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

23

2.7 (0.6)

2.8 (0.7)

0.1 (− 0.2; 0.3)

24

2.9 (0.8)

2.8 (0.8)

− 0.1 (− 0.4; 0.2)

− 0.2 (− 0.5;

0.1)

No

YPRS*, Residue in pyriform sinus: thick 5 ml

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

23

2.0 (0.6)

1.9 (0.5)

− 0.1 (− 0.3; 0.1)

24

2.3 (0.7)

2.1 (0.6)

− 0.1 (− 0.3; 0.2)

0.0 (− 0.3;

0.3

No

Worst PAS overall

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

23

3.9 (2.1)

3.8 (2.0)

0.0 (− 1.1; 1.0)

24

4.6 (1.9)

4.2 (2.1)

− 0.3 (− 1.3; 0.7)

− 0.3 (− 1.7; 1.0)

No

SPSS§

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

23

3.7 (1.1)

3.4 (1.2)

− 0.3 (− 0. 7; 0.1)

24

4.0 (1.4)

3.8 (1.3)

− 0.2 (− 0.7; 0. 4)

0.1 (− 0.6;

0.8)

No

Tuomi, 2022

Videofluoroscopic imaging:

YPRS*, Residue in vallecula: thick 5 ml

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

3.2 (0.9)

3.3 (1.1)

0.1 (0.9)

27

3.4 (1.0)

3.3 (1.2)

-0.1 (0.9)

0 (NR)

No

YPRS*, Residue in pyriform sinus: thick 5 ml

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

2.3 (0.9)

2.0 (0.7)

-0.2 (1.0)

27

2.6 (1.1)

2.6 (1.1)

0.0 (0.8)

0.2 (NR)

No

Worst PAS overall

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

4.3 (2.1)

3.4 (1.8)

-0.9 (2.4)

27

4.2 (2.1)

3.7 (1.7)

-0.5 (1.9)

-0.40 (-1.58, 0.78)

No

SPSS§

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

3.6 (1.2)

3.2 (1.3)

-0.4 (0.9)

27

3.8 (1.5)

3.6 (1.5)

-0.2 (1.0)

-0.20 (-0.72, 0.32)

No

kinematic variables

Anterior hyoid movement (mm) ††

3 ml thin liquid*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

7.7(3.1)

7.7 (3.4)

-0.0 (2.1)

27

7.3 (3.3)

8.2 (3.3)

0.9 (3.1)

0.9 (NR)

No

20 ml thin liquid drink freely*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

7.7 (3.7)

7.6 (2.9)
7.4 (1.9; 12.8)

-0.12 (2.7)

27

9.0 (3.1)

8.2 (3.4)

-0.8 (2.4)

0.4 (NR)

No

5 ml mildly thick liquid*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

7.2 (4.1)

8.0 (3.9)
9.2 (-1.4; 14.7)

0.8 (3.7)

27

8.2 (3.5)

8.3 (3.4)

0.1 (3.1)

0.7 (NR)

No

3 ml extremely thick*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

8.5 (3.8)

8.1 (3.2)

-0.5 (2.8)

27

8.6 (3.6)

8.6 (3.6)

-0.3 (2.9)

0.2 (NR)

No

Cookie*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

9.3 (3.3)

9.3 (3.6)

-0.3 (2.2)

27

8.7 (4.0)

8.8 (3.2)

0.2 (3.5)

0.5 (NR)

No

Superior hyoid movement (mm) ††

3 ml thin liquid

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

10.6 (4.2)

9.2 (3.3)

-1.4 (5.1)

27

11.8 (5.6)

11.8 (5.4)

0.0 (4.5)

1.4 (NR)

No

20 ml thin liquid drink freely

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

8.6 (5.0)

9.3 (4.4)

1.1 (4.6)

27

12.9 (5.3)

12.0 (5.6)

-0.9 (5.0)

2 (NR)

Yes

5 ml mildly thick liquid

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

10.6 (4.7)

10.8 (5.0)

0.6 (4.8

27

13.6 (5.2)

11.7 (5.5)

-1.9 (5.7)

2.7 (NR)

Yes

3 ml extremely thick*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

11.2 (6.3)

10.2 (4.4)

-1.1 (5.2)

27

14.4 (7.6)

13.6 (8.2)

-1.0 (8.4)

0.1 (NR)

No

Cookie*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

13.2 (7.1)

12.4 (5.4)

-0.2 (8.6)

27

14.9 (6.6)

11.5 (5.6)

-2.9 (5.9)

2.7 (NR)

Yes

Thyro-hyoid approximation (mm) §

3 ml thin liquid

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

-12.3 (3.4))

-11.0 (3.6)

1.2 (2.9)

27

-10.1 (5.7)

-9.4 (4.6)

0.8 (3.8)

0.4 (NR)

No

20 ml thin liquid drink freely*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

-13.2 (4.2)

-12.3 (4.7)

0.9 (4.8)

27

-9.8 (4.7)

-10.6 (4.3)

-0.8 (4.7)

1.7 (NR)

Yes

5 ml mildly thick liquid*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

-12.2 (5.3)

-11.9 (5.1)

0.3 (4.9)

27

-10.6 (4.8)

-10.8 (4.8)

0.1 (3.3)

0.2 (NR)

No

3 ml extremely thick*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

-11.9 (3.3)

-12.6 (3.9)

-0.7 (3.2)

27

-10.1 (4.6)

-9.5 (6.7)

0.5 (4.7)

1.2 (NR)

Yes

Maximal upper esophagus sphincter opening (mm) ††

3 ml thin liquid*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

4.5 (2.0)

4.5 (1.6)

-0.1 (1.5)

27

4.4 (1.5)

4.5 (1.7)

0.0 (1.4)

0.1 (NR)

No

20 ml thin liquid drink freely*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

7.2 (2.1)

6.6 (2.2)

-0.4 (1.7)

27

6.8 (1.7)

6.9 (2.3)

0.1 (1.3)

0.5 (NR)

YesS

5 ml mildly thick liquid*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

5.8 (1.5)

5.9 (1.7)

0.2 (1.7)

27

5.4 (1.7)

5.6 (1.9)

0.2 (1.4)

0 (NR)

No

3 ml extremely thick*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

4.3 (1.4)

4.1 (1.5)

-0.2 (1.7)

27

3.8 (1.5)

4.6 (1.8)

0.7 (1.7)

0.9 (NR)

Yes

Cookie*

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

3.9 (1.4)

4.0 (1.7)

0.1 (1.3)

27

3.7 (1.5)

3.8 (1.3)

-0.1 (1.8)

1 (NR)

Yes

CI, confidence intervals; CR, clinically relevant; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; NR, not reported; SD, standard deviation

† Secretions before swallow (1–4): 1 indicates no visible or some transient bubbles of secretion in the vallecula and hypopharynx. A higher value indicates worse swallowing function.

*Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Scale (1-5): 1 indicates no residue in the vallecula and pyriform sinuses. A higher value indicates worse swallowing function.

‡PAS (1–8): 1 indicates swallowing without penetration/aspiration. A higher score indicates worse swallowing function.

§SPSS (1–7), a higher score indicates worse swallowing function. Grades 5–7 indicate dysphagia with aspiration

 

2. HRQOL

Three studies (Petersson, 2023; Tuomi, 2022; Jansen, 2020) reported on this outcome (Table 18).

 

Table 18. HRQOL measured by HRQOL questionnaires

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean (95%CI)

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Difference

Mean difference(95%CI)

Change

Mean (95% CI)

CR

Petersson, 2023

EORTC QLQ-C30 (global)

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of

(chemo)radiotherapy)-8 weeks follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25

75.0 (22.0)

80.7 (19.4)

2.7 (− 3.6;

9.0)

27

72.8 (19.4)

75.6 (17.4)

2.8 (− 2.5 to 8.3)

2.9 (− 5.8t to 11.7)

No

Baseline-12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

19

75.0 (22.0)

82.5 (20.4)

5.7 (− 1.7; 12.9)

24

72.8 (19.4)

78.5 (19.2)

4.5 (− 4.2 to 13.0)

2.9 (− 7.5 to 13.5)

No

Petersson, 2023

EORTC QLQ-H&N35 – swallowing

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of

(chemo)radiotherapy)-8 weeks follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25

28.7 (23.5)

21.3 (21.0)

− 7.3 (− 14.2; − 0.7)

27

29.6 (23.3)

23.8 (23.2)

− 5.9 (− 13.5; 1.9)

− 1.5 ( 11.4; 8.9)

No

Baseline-12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

19

28.7 (23.5)

24.6 (23.8)

− 0.9 (− 9.4; 7.23)

24

29.6 (23.3)

17.0 (16.4)

− 8.3 (− 22.2; 5.6)

7.5 (− 3.8; 18.9)

No

EORTC QLQ-H&N35 – social eating

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of

(chemo)radiotherapy)-8 weeks follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25

24.3 (25.0)

19.3 (26.1)

− 5.0 (− 11.7; 1.7)

27

21.0 (18.7)

18.5 (23.5)

− 2.5 (− 7.6; 3.0)

− 2.5 (− 11.1; 5.8)

No

Baseline-12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

19

24.3 (25.0)

18.9 (25.3)

− 1.8 (− 11.9; 8.3)

24

21.0 (18.7)

12.8 (15.3)

− 6.9 (− 13.6; − 0.0)

5.2 (− 6.5; 16.7)

No

Tuomi, 2022

EORTC QLQ-H&N35 – swallowing

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

28.67 (23.46)

21.33 (20.98)

-7.33 (16.55)

27

29.63 (23.27)

23.77 (23.19)

-5.86 (19.31)

-1.47 (-11.22 to 8.28)

No

EORTC QLQ-H&N35 – social eating

Baseline (6 months post therapy) - 2 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

25

24.33 (24.99)

19.33 (26.10)

-5.00 (16.32)

27

20.99 (18.69)

18.52 (23.49)

-2.47 (14.02)

-2.53 (-10.83 to 5.77)

No

Jansen, 2020

EORTC QLQ-C30 (global)

Baseline (immediately after the intervention) - 3 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

45

77.4 (17.7)

76.6 (22.0) (n=37)

0.80 (-7.97; 9.57)

45

71.9 (19.7)

71.8 (20.4) (n=44)

0.10 (-8.23; 8.43)

0.70 (NR)

No

EORTC QLQ-H&N35-swallowing

Baseline (immediately after the intervention) - 6 months after completing the exercise intervention

Exercise vs. usual care

45

13.5 (15.8)

14.6 (20.1) (n=36)

-1.10 (-9.13; 6.93)

45

15.7 (15.2)

16.6 (22.5) (n=42)

-0.90 (-9.03; 7.23)

0.20 (NR)

No

3. Mental health

One study (Chen, 2018a) reported on this outcome measured with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)–depression subscale (Table 19).

 

Table 19. Mental health

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Absolute difference

N

Baseline
Mean (SD)

Follow-up

Mean (SD)

Absolute difference

Change

 

CR

Chen, 2018a

HADS- depression

Baseline – 6 months

Exercise vs. usual care

38

2.54 (2.12)

1.95 (1.18)

0.59

38

2.84 (2.00)

2.95 (1.23)

-0.11

0.7

No

AD, absolute difference; CR, clinically relevant; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

4. Aspiration pneumonia

One study (Petersson, 2023) reported on this outcome (Table 20).

 

5. Nutritional status

5.1 Clinician reported outcomes

Not reported.

 

5.2 BMI

One study (Petersson, 2023) reported on this outcome in three categories: Under weight (< 18.5); Normal weight (18.5–24.9); and Over weight (> 25) (Table 20).

 

5.3 Weight

Not reported.

 

5.4 Tube feeding

One study (Petersson, 2023) reported on this outcome (Table 20).

 

Table 20. Weight and tube feeding

 

 

 

 

Intervention group

Control group

Comparison between groups

 

Study

Measure

Timing of measurement

Comparison

N

Baseline
N(%)

Follow-up

N(%)

Absolute difference %

N

Baseline
N(%)

Follow-up

N(%)

Absolute difference %

Change %

CR

Petersson, 2023

Aspiration pneumonia (yes)

Baseline (6–36 months after completion of

(chemo)radiotherapy)- 12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

3 (12)

1 (5)

7%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

1 (4)

0 (0)

1%

6%

NO

Under weight (< 18.5)

Baseline

- 12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

4 (16)

1 (5)

11%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

3 (11)

4 (17)

6%

5%

No

Normal weight (18.5–24.9)

Baseline

- 12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

18 (72)

11 (58)

14%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

17 (63)

12 (50)

13%

1%

No

Over weight (> 25)

Baseline

- 12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

3 (12)

7 (37)

5%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

7 (26)

8 (33)

-7%

-12%

Yes

Feeding tube use

Baseline

- 12 months follow-up

Exercise vs. usual care

25 (baseline)/19 (follow-up)

1 (4)

2 (11)

7%

27(baseline)/24 (follow-up)

4 (15)

1 (4)

11%

-3%

No

AD, absolute difference; CR, clinically relevant; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MD, mean difference; N, number of patients; nr, not reported; SD, standard deviation

 

Level of evidence of the literature

The level of evidence for all outcome measures was based on randomized controlled trials and therefore started high.

 

1. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia before the start of cancer treatment (prehabilitation)

Swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, nutritional status

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure of swallowing function (critical) was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (risk of bias by allocation concealment, selective reporting, no blinding/missing outcome data, -1); and not reaching the optimal information size (imprecision, -2).

 

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measures of HRQOL, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status (important) was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (risk of bias by allocation concealment, selective reporting, no blinding/missing outcome data, -1); and not reaching the optimal information size (imprecision, -2).

 

For the outcome mental health (important) no GRADE could be given, because none of the studies reported on these outcomes.

 

2. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia during cancer treatment (prehabilitation)

Swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, nutritional status

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure of swallowing function (critical) was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (risk of bias by allocation concealment, selective reporting, no blinding/missing outcome data/other bias, -1), and because of not reaching the optimal information size (imprecision, -2).

 

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measures of HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status (important) was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (risk of bias by allocation concealment, selective reporting, no blinding/missing outcome data/other bias, -1); and not reaching the optimal information size (imprecision, -2).

 

3. Initiation of the rehabilitation of dysphagia after completion of cancer treatment

Swallowing function, HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, nutritional status

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measure of swallowing function (critical) was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (risk of bias by allocation concealment, selective reporting, no blinding/missing outcome data/other bias, -1); and not reaching the optimal information size (imprecision, -2).

 

The level of evidence regarding the outcome measures of HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status (important) was downgraded by three levels to very low because of study limitations (risk of bias by allocation concealment, selective reporting, no blinding/missing outcome data/other bias, -1); and not reaching the optimal information size (imprecision, -2).

What are the effects of swallowing exercises (initiated pre-, during- or post-cancer treatment) compared to compensatory strategies, sham (placebo) treatment or no (p)rehabilitation in patients with head and neck cancer?

P: Adult patients (scheduled to be) treated for head and neck cancer
I1: Pre-cancer treatment swallowing exercise for the rehabilitation of dysphagia (prehabilitation)
I2: During-cancer treatment swallowing exercise for the rehabilitation of dysphagia (prehabilitation)
I3: Post-cancer treatment swallowing exercise for the rehabilitation of dysphagia
C: Compensatory strategies, sham* (placebo) treatment, usual care, no treatment or healthy control group
O: Swallowing function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), mental health, aspiration pneumonia, nutritional status (tube-feeding)

*sham treatment: A non-active swallowing exercise intended to closely simulate the active procedure being examined in a clinical trial. Unlike the active procedure, the sham

procedure does not focus on strengthening the swallowing muscles but instead incorporates low-intensity, general exercises for the head and neck

 

Relevant outcome measures

The guideline development group considered swallowing function as critical outcome measure for decision making; and HRQOL, mental health, aspiration pneumonia, and nutritional status as important outcome measures for decision making.

 

A priori, the guideline development group did not predefine the outcome measures listed above but instead used the definitions of the outcome measures employed in the included studies (Table 1). To evaluate the effects of swallowing exercises, the included studies described different measurement methods. The guideline development group defined minimal clinically important differences for patients with head and neck cancer per outcome measure as follows:

 

Table 1. Outcome measures and minimal clinically important differences

Outcome

Measurement method

Outcome parameter/measure

Minimal clinically important difference*

Swallowing function

(critical)

Dysphagia-specific questionnaire

Patient-reported outcome (PROM)

Sydney Swallowing Questionnaire (SSQ) (Wallace 2000)

Range of scores (1-1700)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) – physical (Chen 2001)

Four subscales (0-100)

A change of 10 points in total score (Hutcheson 2016)

Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) (Belafsky 2008)

Range of scores (0-40)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Swallowing quality of life questionnaire (SWAL-QOL) (Rinkel 2009; Rinkel 2014)

Range of scores (0-100)

A change of 12 points in total score (Rinkel 2014)

Clinician-reported outcome (CROM)

Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) (Crary 2005)

Ordinal scale (1-7)

A change of 1 point in total score (Messing 2017)

Performance Status Scale-Head and Neck Cancer (PSS-H&N) (List 1990)

A change of 10 points (Berg 2015)

Normalcy of Food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Logopedic Part (NFIS-HN-L) (Kalf 2012; Van den Berg 2012)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) morbidity scoring system for dysphagia (DAHANCA 2012; Mortensen 2013)

Ordinal scale (0-4)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Clinical assessment of swallowing

American Speech-language Hearing Association National Outcome Measurement System (ASHA NOMS) (ASHA 1998)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Oro-motor assessment containing 69 tasks assessing strength and range of motion of the facial muscles, tongue, and palate

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Mann Swallowing Assessment (MASA) – Oral Cancer (MASA-OC) (Chen 2018b)

A change of >10 points (Carnaby 2012)

Swallowing capacity (swallowing velocity in ml/s and swallowing volume test in ml)(Altamimi 2024)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Water swallowing test – 30 ml within 5 seconds

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Mouth opening/incisal opening in mm

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Swallow imaging

Videofluoroscopic imaging

Oropharyngeal Swallow Efficiency (OPSE) (Rademaker 1994)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Dysphagia Outcomes Severity Scale (DOSS) (O’Neil 1999)

Ordinal scale 1-7 (normal diet)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Swallowing Performance Status Scale (SPSS) (Karnell 1994)

Ordinal scale 1-7 (severe impairment)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) (Rosenbek 1996)

Ordinal scale 1-8

A change of one point in the PAS score (Tuomi 2022, Dotevall 2022)

Aspiration

Ordinal scale 1-3

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Penetration

Present/absent

a difference of 10% (RR <0.91 or >1.10; RD 0.10)

Cough

Present/absent

a difference of 10% (RR <0.91 or >1.10; RD 0.10)

Oral and pharyngeal residue

Present/absent or ordinal scale 1-5

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Yale Pharyngeal Residue Scale (YPRS) modified for videofluoroscopy (Neubauer 2015)

Ordinal scale 1-5

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score (Tuomi 2022)

Kinematic variables (anterior hyoid movement, superior hyoid movement, thyrohyoid approximation, maximum width of the UES opening during swallowing)

Millimeter

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Endoscopic imaging

Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) (Colodny 2002)

Ordinal scale 1-8

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Yale Pharyngeal Residue Scale (YPRS) (Neubauer 2015)

Ordinal scale 1-5

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Murray secretion scale (Murray 1996)

Ordinal scale 1-4

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Initiation of the pharyngeal swallow

Ordinal scale 1-4

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

MRI

Size, composition, relaxation time of oral cavity and pharyngeal muscles (i.e., genioglossus, hyoglossus, mylohyoideus, etc.) identified by T2-weighted MRI

Millimeter

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL)

(important)

HRQOL questionnaire

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)

A change of ≥ 10 points

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life Questionnaire Head and Neck 35 (EORTC QLQ-H&N35)

A change of ≥ 10 points

University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire version 4 (UW-QOLv4)

Twelve subscales (0-100)

Mental health (important)

Affective symptom questionnaire

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond 1983)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Major Depression Inventory (MDI)

0 to 50 with a higher score representing a high level of depressive symptoms (Olsen 2003)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Symptom Check List (SCL-92 Anxiety subscale) (Videbech 2003; Olsen 2004)

0 to 40 with a higher score representing a high level of anxiety

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

Aspiration pneumonia (important)

Unclear

Present/absent

a difference of 10% (RR <0.91 or >1.10; RD 0.10)

Nutritional status (important)

Clinician-reported outcome

Normalcy of food Intake Scale for Head and Neck Dietetic Part (NFIS-HN-F)

Unclear - a change of 25% in the score

BMI

Kg/m2

 

Weight

Kg

< or > 10% in six months

< or > 5% in one month

Tube feeding

Present/absent; duration

a difference of 10% (RR <0.91 or >1.10; RD 0.10)

*Unclear - a change of 25% in the score was used as the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID). This threshold was determined based on clinical reasoning in cases where the MCID for the specific outcome parameter in patients with head and neck cancer was not reported in the literature

 

Search and select (Methods)

The databases Medline (via OVID) and Embase (via Embase.com) were searched with relevant search terms until 14-12-2023. The detailed search strategy is available on request (info@richtlijnendatabase.nl). The systematic literature search resulted in 878 hits. Studies were selected based on the following criteria:

  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs) published after 2009.
  • Interventions for swallowing exercise were compared to compensatory strategies, sham (placebo) treatment, usual care, no treatment or healthy control group.
  • At least one of the reported outcome measures should be related to swallowing function.
  • N>20 subjects included per arm.

In total 36 SRs were initially found based on title and abstract screening. After full-text assessment of the SRs, five SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion. From these five SRs, nine RCTs were included. Subsequently, 31 additional RCTs published after the last search date in the SRs (i.e., January 2022) that were initially found were assessed, resulting in the selection of six additional RCTs. In total, 56 publications were excluded based on full text reading (see the Table with reasons for exclusion under the tab Methods), and 15 publications were included.

 

Results

After applying the inclusion criteria of the current guideline's literature review a total of 15 RCTs were included. Nine RCTs were detected via five SRs in the literature review for the present guideline (Banda, 2021; Yang, 2021; Zhang, 2022; Niu, 2021; Xu, 2023) and six additional RCTs were included. The assessment of the risk of bias of these eleven studies is summarized in the risk of bias tables. Study characteristics of each RCT are presented in Table 1.

  1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association National Outcome Measurement System (NOMS). Adult Speech-Language Pathology training manual. Rockville: ASHA; 1998.
  2. Attrill S, White S, Murray J, Hammond S, Doeltgen S. Impact of oropharyngeal dysphagia on healthcare cost and length of stay in hospital: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Aug 2;18(1):594. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3376-3. PMID: 30068326; PMCID: PMC6090960.
  3. Baijens LWJ, Walshe M, Aaltonen LM, Arens C, Cordier R, Cras P, Crevier-Buchman L, Curtis C, Golusinski W, Govender R, Eriksen JG, Hansen K, Heathcote K, Hess MM, Hosal S, Klussmann JP, Leemans CR, MacCarthy D, Manduchi B, Marie JP, Nouraei R, Parkes C, Pflug C, Pilz W, Regan J, Rommel N, Schindler A, Schols AMWJ, Speyer R, Succo G, Wessel I, Willemsen ACH, Yilmaz T, Clavé P. European white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Feb;278(2):577-616. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06507-5. Epub 2020 Dec 19. PMID: 33341909; PMCID: PMC7826315.
  4. Banda KJ, Chu H, Kao CC, Voss J, Chiu HL, Chang PC, Chen R, Chou KR. Swallowing exercises for head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2021 Feb 1;114:103827.
  5. Baudelet M, Van den Steen L, Duprez F, Goeleven A, Nuyts S, Nevens D, Vandenbruaene C, Massonet H, Vergauwen A, Vauterin T, Verstraete H, Wouters K, Vanderveken O, De Bodt M, Van Nuffelen G; members of the Belgian PRESTO-group. Prophylactic Swallowing Therapy During Head-and-Neck Cancer Radiotherapy: Effect of Service-Delivery Mode and Overall Adherence Level on Swallowing Function and Muscle Strength-the PRESTO Trial. Dysphagia. 2024 Apr;39(2):267-281. doi: 10.1007/s00455-023-10609-7. Epub 2023 Aug 8. PMID: 37550571; PMCID: PMC10957706.
  6. Belafsky PC, Mouadeb DA, Rees CJ, Pryor JC, Postma GN, Allen J, Leonard RJ. Validity and reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008 Dec;117(12):919-24. doi: 10.1177/000348940811701210. PMID: 19140539.
  7. van den Berg MG, Kalf JG, Hendriks JC, Takes RP, van Herpen CM, Wanten GJ, Drenth JP, Kaanders JH, Merkx MA. Normalcy of food intake in patients with head and neck cancer supported by combined dietary counseling and swallowing therapy: a randomized clinical trial. Head & neck. 2016 Apr;38(S1):E198-206.
  8. Carnaby-Mann G, Crary MA, Schmalfuss I, Amdur R. "Pharyngocise": randomized controlled trial of preventative exercises to maintain muscle structure and swallowing function during head-and-neck chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):210-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1954. Epub 2011 Oct 17. PMID: 2014959.
  9. Chen AY, Frankowski R, Bishop-Leone J, Hebert T, Leyk S, Lewin J, Goepfert H. The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M. D. Anderson dysphagia inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Jul;127(7):870-6. PMID: 11448365.
  10. Chen SC, Huang BS, Chung CY, Lin CY, Fan KH, Chang JT, Wu SC. Effects of a swallowing exercise education program on dysphagia-specific health-related quality of life in oral cavity cancer patients post-treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2018a Aug;26(8):2919-2928. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4148-7. Epub 2018a Mar 15. PMID: 29546525.
  11. Chen SC, Huang BS, Hung TM, Chang YL, Lin CY, Chung CY, Wu SC. Swallowing ability and its impact on dysphagia-specific health-related QOL in oral cavity cancer patients post-treatment. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2018b Oct;36:89-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2018.07.002. Epub 2018b Sep 5. PMID: 30322515.
  12. Colodny N. Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (fees) using the penetration-aspiration scale: a replication study. Dysphagia. 2002 Fall;17(4):308-15. doi: 10.1007/s00455-002-0073-4. PMID: 12355146.
  13. Crary MA, Mann GD, Groher ME. Initial psychometric assessment of a functional oral intake scale for dysphagia in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1516-20. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.11.049. PMID: 16084801.
  14. DAHANCA (Internet): Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (updated 2012; cited 19-9-2012). www.dahanca.dk.
  15. Diaconu ET, Bejenaru PL, Antonie CB, Bertesteanu GS, Cirstea AI, Oasa ID, Taher BP, Rujan SA, Nedelcu RI, Enea AG, Milkov MP. Nutritional Assessment of Patients Operated on for Head and Neck Cancer. Balkan ORL-HNS. 2024 Jan 31;1(1):23-31.
  16. Dotevall H, Tuomi L, Petersson K, Löfhede H, Bergquist H, Finizia C. Treatment with head-lift exercise in head and neck cancer patients with dysphagia: results from a randomized, controlled trial with flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Supportive Care in Cancer. 2023 Jan;31(1):56.
  17. Easterling C. 25 Years of Dysphagia Rehabilitation: What Have We Done, What are We Doing, and Where are We Going? Dysphagia. 2017 Feb;32(1):50-54. doi: 10.1007/s00455-016-9769-8. Epub 2017 Jan 2. PMID: 28044204.
  18. Fredslund Hajdú S, Wessel I, Dalton SO, Eskildsen SJ, Johansen C. Swallowing Exercise During Head and Neck Cancer Treatment: Results of a Randomized Trial. Dysphagia. 2022 Aug;37(4):749-762. doi: 10.1007/s00455-021-10320-5. Epub 2021 Jun 11. PMID: 34117531; PMCID: PMC9345844.
  19. Gourin CG, Starmer HM, Herbert RJ, Frick KD, Forastiere AA, Quon H, Eisele DW, Dy SM. Quality of care and short- and long-term outcomes of laryngeal cancer care in the elderly. Laryngoscope. 2015 Oct;125(10):2323-9. doi: 10.1002/lary.25378. Epub 2015 May 22. PMID: 26010671.
  20. Hsiang CC, Chen AW, Chen CH, Chen MK. Early Postoperative Oral Exercise Improves Swallowing Function Among Patients With Oral Cavity Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ear Nose Throat J. 2019 Jul;98(6):E73-E80. doi: 10.1177/0145561319839822. Epub 2019 May 15. PMID: 31088304.
  21. Hutcheson KA, Barrow MP, Lisec A, Barringer DA, Gries K, Lewin JS. What is a clinically relevant difference in MDADI scores between groups of head and neck cancer patients? Laryngoscope. 2016 May;126(5):1108-13. doi: 10.1002/lary.25778. Epub 2015 Nov 6. PMID: 26542529; PMCID: PMC4842113.
  22. Jansen F, Eerenstein SE, Cnossen IC, Lissenberg-Witte BI, de Bree R, Doornaert P, Halmos GB, Hardillo JA, van Hinte G, Honings J, van Uden-Kraan CF. Effectiveness of a guided self-help exercise program tailored to patients treated with total laryngectomy: Results of a multi-center randomized controlled trial. Oral Oncology. 2020 Apr 1;103:104586.
  23. Kalf JG VdBM, Kaanders JAHM, Merkx MAW. Preliminary analysis of a ‘normalcy of food intake’ scale for head and neck oncology. Dysphagia 2011;26. Springer US 2011 0179-051X.
  24. Karnell M, Maccracken E, Moran W, Vokes E, Haraf D, Panje W. Swallowing function following multispecialty organ preservation treatment of advanced head and neck-cancer. Oncol Rep. 1994 May;1(3):597-601. doi: 10.3892/or.1.3.597. PMID: 21607410.
  25. Kumar R, Gupta H, Konwar K, Sharma R, Anand AK, Sachdeva S. Impact of early dysphagia intervention on swallowing function and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy or image guided radiation therapy with or without surgery/chemotherapy. 2015. Asian Journal of Oncology, 1(01), 037-043.
  26. List MA, Ritter-Sterr C, Lansky SB. A performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer. 1990 Aug 1;66(3):564-9. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900801)66:3<564::aid-cncr2820660326>3.0.co;2-d. PMID: 2364368.
  27. Martino R, Ringash J, Durkin L, Greco E, Huang SH, Xu W, Longo CJ. Feasibility of assessing patient health benefits and incurred costs resulting from early dysphagia intervention during and immediately after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Curr Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(6):e466-e476. doi: 10.3747/co.24.3543. Epub 2017 Dec 20. PMID: 29270055; PMCID: PMC5736485.
  28. Messing BP, Ward EC, Lazarus CL, Kim M, Zhou X, Silinonte J, Gold D, Harrer K, Ulmer K, Merritt S, Neuner G, Levine M, Blanco R, Saunders J, Califano J. Prophylactic Swallow Therapy for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy: A Randomized Trial. Dysphagia. 2017 Aug;32(4):487-500. doi: 10.1007/s00455-017-9790-6. Epub 2017 Apr 25. PMID: 28444488; PMCID: PMC5515964.
  29. Mortensen HR, Jensen K, Aksglæde K, Lambertsen K, Eriksen E, Grau C. Prophylactic Swallowing Exercises in Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy. Dysphagia. 2015 Jun;30(3):304-14. doi: 10.1007/s00455-015-9600-y. Epub 2015 Feb 19. PMID: 25690840.
  30. Mortensen HR, Overgaard J, Jensen K, Specht L, Overgaard M, Johansen J, Evensen JF, Andersen E, Andersen LJ, Hansen HS, Grau C; DAHANCA Group. Factors associated with acute and late dysphagia in the DAHANCA 6 & 7 randomized trial with accelerated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013 Oct;52(7):1535-42. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.824609. PMID: 24047339.
  31. Murray J, Langmore SE, Ginsberg S, Dostie A. The significance of accumulated oropharyngeal secretions and swallowing frequency in predicting aspiration. Dysphagia. 1996 Spring;11(2):99-103. doi: 10.1007/BF00417898. PMID: 8721067.
  32. Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale: An Anatomically Defined and Image-Based Tool. Dysphagia. 2015 Oct;30(5):521-8. doi: 10.1007/s00455-015-9631-4. Epub 2015 Jun 7. PMID: 26050238.
  33. Niu M, Combs SE, Linge A, Krause M, Baumann M, Lohaus F, Ebert N, Tinhofer I, Budach V, von der Grün J, Rödel F. Comparison of the composition of lymphocyte subpopulations in non-relapse and relapse patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck before, during radiochemotherapy and in the follow-up period: a multicenter prospective study of the German Cancer Consortium Radiation Oncology Group (DKTK-ROG). Radiation oncology. 2021 Jul 31;16(1):141.
  34. Olsen LR, Mortensen EL, Bech P. The SCL-90 and SCL-90R versions validated by item response models in a Danish community sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2004 Sep;110(3):225-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2004.00399.x. PMID: 15283743.
  35. Olsen LR, Jensen DV, Noerholm V, Martiny K, Bech P. The internal and external validity of the Major Depression Inventory in measuring severity of depressive states. Psychol Med. 2003 Feb;33(2):351-6. doi: 10.1017/s0033291702006724. PMID: 12622314.
  36. O'Neil KH, Purdy M, Falk J, Gallo L. The Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale. Dysphagia. 1999 Summer;14(3):139-45. doi: 10.1007/PL00009595. PMID: 10341109.
  37. Petersson K, Finizia C, Pauli N, Dotevall H, Tuomi L. A randomized controlled study evaluating the head-lift exercise in head and neck cancer patients with radiation-induced dysphagia: effect on swallowing function and health-related quality of life over 12 months. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2023 Dec;280(12):5445-57.
  38. Rademaker AW, Pauloski BR, Logemann JA, Shanahan TK. Oropharyngeal swallow efficiency as a representative measure of swallowing function. J Speech Hear Res. 1994 Apr;37(2):314-25. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3702.314. PMID: 8028312.
  39. Retèl VP, van der Molen L, Hilgers FJ, Rasch CR, L'Ortye AA, Steuten LM, van Harten WH. A cost-effectiveness analysis of a preventive exercise program for patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with concomitant chemo-radiotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2011 Nov 3;11:475. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-475. PMID: 22051143; PMCID: PMC3237585.
  40. Retèl VP, van der Molen L, Steuten LM, van den Brekel MW, Hilgers FJ. A cost-effectiveness analysis of using TheraBite in a preventive exercise program for patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with concomitant chemo-radiotherapy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Mar;273(3):709-18. doi: 10.1007/s00405-015-3541-9. Epub 2015 Feb 11. PMID: 25666587.
  41. Rinkel RN, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Langendijk JA, van Reij EJ, Aaronson NK, Leemans CR. The psychometric and clinical validity of the SWAL-QOL questionnaire in evaluating swallowing problems experienced by patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009 Aug;45(8):e67-71. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.003. Epub 2009 May 12. PMID: 19442567.
  42. Rinkel RN, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, van den Brakel N, de Bree R, Eerenstein SE, Aaronson N, Leemans CR. Patient-reported symptom questionnaires in laryngeal cancer: voice, speech and swallowing. Oral Oncol. 2014 Aug;50(8):759-64. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.05.009. Epub 2014 Jun 20. PMID: 24954064.
  43. Rosenbek JC, Robbins JA, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996 Spring;11(2):93-8. doi: 10.1007/BF00417897. PMID: 8721066.
  44. Rowe EA, Dunton J, Cooke S, Laparidou D, Patterson JM. Adherence to swallowing recommendations during (chemo)radiotherapy in head and neck cancer survivors: a scoping review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Jun 1;31(3):171-179. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000882. Epub 2023 Mar 2. PMID: 36912234.
  45. Schindler A, Baijens LWJ, Geneid A, Pizzorni N. Phoniatricians and otorhinolaryngologists approaching oropharyngeal dysphagia: an update on FEES. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Jun;279(6):2727-2742. doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-07161-1. Epub 2021 Nov 15. PMID: 34779927; PMCID: PMC8591442.
  46. Tang Y, Shen Q, Wang Y, Lu K, Wang Y, Peng Y. A randomized prospective study of rehabilitation therapy in the treatment of radiation-induced dysphagia and trismus. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011 Jan;187(1):39-44. doi: 10.1007/s00066-010-2151-0. Epub 2010 Dec 10. PMID: 21136031.
  47. Tuomi L, Dotevall H, Bergquist H, Petersson K, Andersson M, Finizia C. The effect of the Shaker head‐lift exercise on swallowing function following treatment for head and neck cancer: Results from a randomized, controlled trial with videofluoroscopic evaluation. Head & Neck. 2022 Apr;44(4):862-75.
  48. van den Berg MG, Kalf JG, Hendriks JC, Takes RP, van Herpen CM, Wanten GJ, Drenth JP, Kaanders JH, Merkx MA. Normalcy of food intake in patients with head and neck cancer supported by combined dietary counseling and swallowing therapy: A randomized clinical trial. Head Neck. 2016 Apr;38 Suppl 1:E198-206. doi: 10.1002/hed.23970. Epub 2015 Jun 16. PMID: 25533021.
  49. van den Berg M, Kalf J, Kaanders J, Merkx M. Psychometric analysis of a `normalcy of food intake` scale for head-neck cancer oncology. Clin Nutr suppl 2012;7(1).
  50. Videbech M, Carlsson PS, Jensen NC, Videbech P. Måling af praeoperativ angst med tre selvrapporteringsskalaer: State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Symptoms CheckList 92 og visuel analogskala [Measuring of preoperative anxiety by three self-reporting scales: State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Symptoms CheckList 92 and visual analogue scale]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2003 Feb 3;165(6):569-74. Danish. PMID: 12608024.
  51. Wallace KL, Middleton S, Cook IJ. Development and validation of a self-report symptom inventory to assess the severity of oral-pharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology. 2000 Apr;118(4):678-87. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(00)70137-5. PMID: 10734019.
  52. Webster KT, Tippett D, Simpson M, Abrams R, Pietsch K, Herbert RJ, Eisele DW, Gourin CG. Speech-language pathology care and short- and long-term outcomes of oropharyngeal cancer treatment in the elderly. Laryngoscope. 2018 Jun;128(6):1403-1411. doi: 10.1002/lary.26950. Epub 2017 Oct 23. PMID: 29057504.
  53. Wu Z, Han Y, Wan Y, Hua X, Chill SS, Teshome K, Zhou W, Liu J, Wu D, Hutchinson A, Jones K. Oral microbiome and risk of incident head and neck cancer: A nested case-control study. Oral oncology. 2023 Feb 1;137:106305.
  54. Xu J, Zhu Y, Wu H, Yang C, Zhang J, Yang Y. Early swallowing intervention after free flap reconstruction for oral cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Head & Neck. 2023 Jun;45(6):1430-44.
  55. Yang W, Nie W, Zhou X, Guo W, Mou J, Yong J, Wu T, Liu X. Review of prophylactic swallowing interventions for head and neck cancer. International journal of nursing studies. 2021 Nov 1;123:104074.
  56. Zhang J, Wu HY, Lu Q, Shan XF, Cai ZG, Zhang L, Wei L, Yang Y. Effects of personalized swallowing rehabilitation in patients with oral cancer after free flap transplantation: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Oral Oncol. 2022 Nov;134:106097. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106097. Epub 2022 Sep 18. PMID: 36126603.
  57. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. PMID: 6880820.

Risk of bias Table

Risk of bias assessment was mostly extracted from the systematic reviews.

Study

Risk of bias

Reason

Start of the intervention before the initiation of cancer treatment.

Wu, 2023

Some concerns

 

Zhang, 2022

High

Blinding, of participants

Mortensen, 2015

Some concerns

 

Start of the intervention during cancer treatment.

Fredslund Hajdú, 2021

High

Blinding of participants, missing outcome data,

Hsiang, 2019

High

Blinding of participants (some concerns due to allocation concealment and other bias)

Messing, 2017

Some concerns

 

Kumar, 2015

High

Blinding of participants

Van den Berg, 2016

Some concerns

 

Carnaby-Mann, 2012

Some concerns

 

Start of the intervention after completion of cancer treatment.

Petersson, 2023

Some concerns

 

Dotevall, 2022

Some concerns

 

Tumoi, 2022

Some concerns

 

Jansen, 2020

Some concerns

 

Chen, 2018

High

Blinding of participants

Tang, 2011

Some concerns

 

Table of excluded studies

Reference

Reason for exclusion

SRs

 

Barbon CE, Steele CM. Efficacy of thickened liquids for eliminating aspiration in head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Feb;152(2):211-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599814556239. Epub 2014 Oct 30. PMID: 25358345; PMCID: PMC4321780.

Wrong I/C

Benfield JK, Everton LF, Bath PM, England TJ. Does Therapy With Biofeedback Improve Swallowing in Adults With Dysphagia? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Mar;100(3):551-561. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.04.031. Epub 2018 May 30. PMID: 29859178.

wrong comparison: effectiveness biofeedback

Blyth KM, McCabe P, Madill C, Ballard KJ. Speech and swallow rehabilitation following partial glossectomy: a systematic review. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;17(4):401-10. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2014.979880. Epub 2014 Dec 17. PMID: 25515427.

inclusion of wrong publication types; on-experimental design.

Brady R, McSharry L, Lawson S, Regan J. The impact of dysphagia prehabilitation on swallowing outcomes post-chemoradiation therapy in head and neck cancer: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2022 May;31(3):e13549. doi: 10.1111/ecc.13549. Epub 2021 Dec 28. PMID: 34964185.

relevant studies included via Banda

Campo F, Iocca O, De Virgilio A, Mazzola F, Mercante G, Pichi B, Holsinger FC, Di Maio P, Ramella S, Pellini R. Treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Is swallowing quality better after TORS or RT? Radiother Oncol. 2023 Jun;183:109547. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109547. Epub 2023 Feb 20. PMID: 36813176.

Wrong focus

Constantinescu G, Rieger J, Seikaly H, Eurich D. Adherence to Home-Based Swallowing Therapy Using a Mobile System in Head and Neck Cancer Survivors. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021 Nov 4;30(6):2465-2475. doi: 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00026. Epub 2021 Aug 31. PMID: 34463544.

wrong publication type (not an RCT or SR)

Cousins N, MacAulay F, Lang H, MacGillivray S, Wells M. A systematic review of interventions for eating and drinking problems following treatment for head and neck cancer suggests a need to look beyond swallowing and trismus. Oral Oncol. 2013 May;49(5):387-400. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.12.002. Epub 2013 Jan 4. PMID: 23291294.

Wrong prublication type

De Pasquale G, Mancin S, Matteucci S, Cattani D, Pastore M, Franzese C, Scorsetti M, Mazzoleni B. Nutritional prehabilitation in head and neck cancer: A systematic review of literature. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2023 Dec;58:326-334. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2023.10.033. Epub 2023 Oct 31. PMID: 38057023.

focus nutritionalcounseling

Dziegielewski PT, Ho ML, Rieger J, Singh P, Langille M, Harris JR, Seikaly H. Total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation and free flap reconstruction: objective functional outcomes and systematic review of the literature. Laryngoscope. 2013 Jan;123(1):140-5. doi: 10.1002/lary.23505. Epub 2012 Sep 5. PMID: 22952109.

wrong aim; behavior change

Fong R, Ward EC, Rumbach AF. Dysphagia after chemo-radiation for nasopharyngeal cancer: A scoping review. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Apr 10;6(1):10-24. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2020.02.005. PMID: 32426699; PMCID: PMC7221212.

Not a systematic review (scoping review)

Govender R, Smith CH, Taylor SA, Barratt H, Gardner B. Swallowing interventions for the treatment of dysphagia after head and neck cancer: a systematic review of behavioural strategies used to promote patient adherence to swallowing exercises. BMC Cancer. 2017 Jan 10;17(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2990-x. PMID: 28068939; PMCID: PMC5223405.

wrong aim; patient adherence

Govender R, Smith CH, Taylor SA, Grey D, Wardle J, Gardner B. Identification of behaviour change components in swallowing interventions for head and neck cancer patients: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 20;4:89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0077-4. PMID: 26088597; PMCID: PMC4474547.

wrong aim; behavior change

Greco E, Simic T, Ringash J, Tomlinson G, Inamoto Y, Martino R. Dysphagia Treatment for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Radiation Therapy: A Meta-analysis Review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jun 1;101(2):421-444. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.097. Epub 2018 Feb 6. PMID: 29726363.

more recent SRs available (e.g., Banda)

Hutcheson K, McMillan H, Warneke C, Porsche C, Savage K, Buoy S, Wang J, Woodman K, Lai S, Fuller C. Manual Therapy for Fibrosis-Related Late Effect Dysphagia in head and neck cancer survivors: the pilot MANTLE trial. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 4;11(8):e047830. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047830. PMID: 34348950; PMCID: PMC8340274.

Betreft een studie protocol van een pilot studie (beoogd 24 included), betreft daarnaast manuele therapie en dus niet een van de gedefinieerde exercise types, vermoed daarom hier exclusie

Hutchison AR, Cartmill B, Wall LR, Ward EC. Dysphagia optimized radiotherapy to reduce swallowing dysfunction severity in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: A systematized scoping review. Head Neck. 2019 Jun;41(6):2024-2033. doi: 10.1002/hed.25688. Epub 2019 Feb 5. PMID: 30723986.

wrong publication type (not an RCT or SR)

Kamstra JI, van Leeuwen M, Roodenburg JLN, Dijkstra PU. Exercise therapy for trismus secondary to head and neck cancer: A systematic review. Head Neck. 2017 Nov;39(11):2352-2362. doi: 10.1002/hed.24859. Epub 2017 Jul 14. Erratum for: Head Neck. 2017 Jan;39(1):160-169. doi: 10.1002/hed.24366. PMID: 29044879.

trismus/ limited mouth opening

Kraaijenga SA, van der Molen L, van den Brekel MW, Hilgers FJ. Current assessment and treatment strategies of dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review of the 2012/13 literature. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014 Jun;8(2):152-63. doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000050. PMID: 24743298.

Wrong prublication type

Kreeft AM, van der Molen L, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ. Speech and swallowing after surgical treatment of advanced oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009 Nov;266(11):1687-1698. doi: 10.1007/s00405-009-1089-2. PMID: 19756680.

Wrong I/C

Li N, Yin G, Guo W, Huang Z. Relationship between dysphagia and surgical treatment for supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Am J Otolaryngol. 2023 Mar-Apr;44(2):103788. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103788. Epub 2023 Jan 19. PMID: 36706715.

Wrong I/C. Compares different surgical techniques, not interventions for dysfagy

Li P, Constantinescu GC, Nguyen NA, Jeffery CC. Trends in Reporting of Swallowing Outcomes in Oropharyngeal Cancer Studies: A Systematic Review. Dysphagia. 2020 Feb;35(1):18-23. doi: 10.1007/s00455-019-09996-7. Epub 2019 Mar 7. PMID: 30847548.

wrong objective: reporting of swallowing outcomes

McCabe D, Ashford J, Wheeler-Hegland K, Frymark T, Mullen R, Musson N, Hammond CS, Schooling T. Evidence-based systematic review: Oropharyngeal dysphagia behavioral treatments. Part IV--impact of dysphagia treatment on individuals' postcancer treatments. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(2):205-14. PMID: 19533534.

wrong focus

Mohamadi, O., Torabinezhad, F., & Soleimani, B. (2021). Clinical utility and reliability of instruments for measuring oral motor function: A scoping review. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 15(2), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.1932958

Not a systematic review (scoping review)

Perry A, Lee SH, Cotton S, Kennedy C. Therapeutic exercises for affecting post-treatment swallowing in people treated for advanced-stage head and neck cancers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 26;2016(8):CD011112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011112.pub2. PMID: 27562477; PMCID: PMC7104309.

zitten allemaal in Banda

Rodriguez AM, Komar A, Ringash J, Chan C, Davis AM, Jones J, Martino R, McEwen S. A scoping review of rehabilitation interventions for survivors of head and neck cancer. Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Aug;41(17):2093-2107. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1459880. Epub 2018 Jul 6. PMID: 29976091.

wrong publication type (not an RCT or SR)

Scherpenhuizen A, van Waes AM, Janssen LM, Van Cann EM, Stegeman I. The effect of exercise therapy in head and neck cancer patients in the treatment of radiotherapy-induced trismus: A systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2015 Aug;51(8):745-50. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.05.001. Epub 2015 Jun 6. PMID: 26058916.

trismus/ limited mouth opening

Seth I, Bulloch G, Qin KR, Xie Y, Sebastian B, Liew H, Rozen WM, Lee CHA. Pre-rehabilitation interventions for patients with head and neck cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2024 Jan;46(1):86-117. doi: 10.1002/hed.27561. Epub 2023 Oct 28. PMID: 37897197.

wrong design

Shao CH, Chiang CC, Huang TW. Exercise therapy for cancer treatment-induced trismus in patients with head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiother Oncol. 2020 Oct;151:249-255. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.08.024. Epub 2020 Sep 3. PMID: 32890607.

trismus/ limited mouth opening

Steele CM, Alsanei WA, Ayanikalath S, Barbon CE, Chen J, Cichero JA, Coutts K, Dantas RO, Duivestein J, Giosa L, Hanson B, Lam P, Lecko C, Leigh C, Nagy A, Namasivayam AM, Nascimento WV, Odendaal I, Smith CH, Wang H. The influence of food texture and liquid consistency modification on swallowing physiology and function: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2015 Feb;30(1):2-26. doi: 10.1007/s00455-014-9578-x. Epub 2014 Oct 25. Erratum in: Dysphagia. 2015 Apr;30(2):272-3. doi: 10.1007/s00455-015-9603-8. PMID: 25343878; PMCID: PMC4342510.

Wrong I/C

Terlingen LT, Pilz W, Kuijer M, Kremer B, Baijens LW. Diagnosis and treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia after total laryngectomy with or without pharyngoesophageal reconstruction: Systematic review. Head Neck. 2018 Dec;40(12):2733-2748. doi: 10.1002/hed.25508. Epub 2018 Nov 26. PMID: 30478930; PMCID: PMC6587738.

wrong study design and diagnosis and treatment

Yang W, Du Y, Chen M, Li S, Zhang F, Yu P, Xu X. Effectiveness of Home-Based Telerehabilitation Interventions for Dysphagia in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Sep 8;25:e47324. doi: 10.2196/47324. PMID: 37682589; PMCID: PMC10517384.

wrong comparison (tele vs. non-tele?)

Zhu J, Wang X, Chen S, Du R, Zhang H, Zhang M, Shao M, Chen C, Wang T. Improving compliance with swallowing exercise to decrease radiotherapy-related dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2022 Nov 19;10(1):100169. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2022.100169. PMID: 36583099; PMCID: PMC9792737.

wrong outcome

RCTs (published after 2022)

 

Aggarwal VV, Waghmare CM, Lolage SN, Pawar HJ, Ravichandran M, Bhanu A. Subjective and perceptive assessment of speech/voice and swallowing function before and after radiation therapy in patients of head-and-neck squamous cell cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. 2023 Apr;19(Supplement):S0. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_621_21. PMID: 37147961.

no I/C comparison (All patients were taught speech/voice and swallowing exercises before RT)

Amin, D. R. and Philips, R. and Bertoni, D. G. and Mastrolonardo, E. V. and Campbell, D. J. and Agarwal, A. M. and Tekumalla, S. and Urdang, Z. D. and Luginbuhl, A. J. and Cognetti, D. M. and Curry, J. M. Differences in Functional and Survival Outcomes between Patients Receiving Primary Surgery vs Chemoradiation Therapy for Treatment of T1-T2 Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2023; 149 (11) :980-986

wrong I/C / study design

Balbinot, J. and Real, C. S. and Melo, C. C. D. and Dornelles, S. and Costa, S. S. D. Quality of life in tongue cancer treated patients before and after speech therapy: a randomized clinical trial. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2022; 88 (4) :491-496

N=15 per arm

Baudelet M, Van den Steen L, Duprez F, Goeleven A, Nuyts S, Nevens D, Vandenbruaene C, Massonet H, Vergauwen A, Vauterin T, Verstraete H, Wouters K, Vanderveken O, De Bodt M, Van Nuffelen G; members of the Belgian PRESTO-group. Prophylactic Swallowing Therapy During Head-and-Neck Cancer Radiotherapy: Effect of Service-Delivery Mode and Overall Adherence Level on Swallowing Function and Muscle Strength-the PRESTO Trial. Dysphagia. 2024 Apr;39(2):267-281. doi: 10.1007/s00455-023-10609-7. Epub 2023 Aug 8. PMID: 37550571; PMCID: PMC10957706.

wrong I/C comparison (A total of 148 head and neck cancer patients, treated with CRT, were randomly assigned to one of the three SDM's (paper-supported, app-supported, or therapist-supported PSE))

Baudelet, M. and Duprez, F. and Van den Steen, L. and Nuyts, S. and Nevens, D. and Goeleven, A. and Vandenbruaene, C. and Massonet, H. and Vergauwen, A. and Bollen, H. and Deschuymer, S. and Wouters, K. and Peeters, M. and Van Laer, C. and Mariën, S. and Van den Brekel, M. and van der Molen, L. and Vauterin, T. and van Dinther, J. and Verstraete, H. and Hutsebaut, I. and Meersschout, S. and Vanderveken, O. and De Bodt, M. and Van Nuffelen, G. Increasing Adherence to Prophylactic Swallowing Exercises During Head and Neck Radiotherapy: The Multicenter, Randomized Controlled PRESTO-Trial. Dysphagia. 2023; 38 (3) :886-895

wrong I/C comparison (A total of 148 head and neck cancer patients, treated with CRT, were randomly assigned to one of the three SDM's (paper-supported, app-supported, or therapist-supported PSE))

Charters, E. and Bogaardt, H. and Clark, J. and Milross, C. and Freeman-Sanderson, A. and Ballard, K. and Britton, R. and McCabe, N. and Davis, H. and Sullivan, T. and Wu, R. Functional swallowing outcomes related to radiation exposure to dysphagia and aspiration-related structures in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing definitive and postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Head and Neck. 2022; 44 (2) :399-411

wrong I/C comparison

Cheng SW, Leung KHV, Mok KCJ, Yeung KW, Wong SYI, Lam YL, Ip KM, Lok YW, Wong ACL. Improvement in Swallowing Function in Patients with Previous Irradiation for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma by Expiratory Muscle Strength Training. Dysphagia. 2024 Feb;39(1):129-139. doi: 10.1007/s00455-023-10600-2. Epub 2023 Jul 1. PMID: 37392211.

no I/C comparison

El-Shabrawi K, Storck K, Weitz J, Wolff KD, Knopf A. Comparison of T1/2 Tongue Carcinoma with or without Radial Forearm Flap Reconstruction Regarding Post-Therapeutic Function, Survival, and Gender. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 21;15(6):1885. doi: 10.3390/cancers15061885. PMID: 36980773; PMCID: PMC10047362.

wrong study design

Hamamoto T, Sato Y, Yumii K, Chikuie N, Taruya T, Horibe Y, Ishino T, Ueda T, Takeno S, Yoshimura K. Evaluation of the Safety of Percutaneous Sensory Nerve Stimulation in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Chemoradiotherapy. J Pers Med. 2023 Jul 12;13(7):1129. doi: 10.3390/jpm13071129. PMID: 37511742; PMCID: PMC10381452.

wrong study design

Hemmati, M. and Barbon, C. and Mohamed, A. S. R. and van Dijk, L. V. and Moreno, A. C. and Gross, N. D. and Goepfert, R. P. and Lai, S. Y. and Hutcheson, K. A. and Schaefer, A. J. and Fuller, C. D. Optimized decision support for selection of transoral robotic surgery or (chemo)radiation therapy based on posttreatment swallowing toxicity. Cancer Medicine. 2023; 12 (4) :5088-5098

wrong I/C comparison; wrong study design

Jansen, F. and Eerenstein, S. E. J. and Cnossen, I. C. and Lissenberg-Witte, B. I. and de Bree, R. and Doornaert, P. and Halmos, G. B. and Hardillo, J. A. U. and van Hinte, G. and Honings, J. and van Uden-Kraan, C. F. and Leemans, C. R. and Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M. Effectiveness of a guided self-help exercise program tailored to patients treated with total laryngectomy: Results of a multi-center randomized controlled trial. Oral Oncology. 2020; 103 :104586

wrong I/C: Patients were randomized into the intervention group (self-help exercise program with flexibility, range-of-motion and lymphedema exercises and self-care education program) or control group (self-care education program)

Jiang, N. and Zhao, Y. and Stensson, M. and Mårtensson, J. Effects of an integrated supportive program on xerostomia and saliva characteristics in patients with head and neck cancer radiated with a low dose to the major salivary glands: a randomized controlled trial. BMC oral health. 2022; 22 (1) :199

wrong I/C, outcomes

Kwon, D. I. and Villegas, B. C. and Ouyoung, L. M. and Sinha, U. K. Improved swallow outcomes with early intervention using combined swallow therapy in advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Journal of Laryngology and Otology. 2022; 136 (5) :433-438

wrong I/C comparison (Thirty patients with advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma starting combined swallow therapy two weeks after surgery that continued throughout chemoradiotherapy were compared with a matched cohort of 30 patients starting combined swallow therapy after cancer treatment completion)

Li, T. H. and Tseng, W. H. and Chiu, H. L. and Yang, T. L. and Wang, C. P. and Chen, T. C. and Chen, C. N. and Lin, M. C. and Ko, J. Y. and Lou, P. J. Proactive Swallowing Rehabilitation in Patients with Recurrent Oral Cancer Receiving Salvage Treatment: Long-Term Swallowing-Related Outcomes. Dysphagia. 2023; 38 (3) :954-964

no I/C comparison

Manduchi B, Fitch MI, Ringash JG, Howell D, Hutcheson KA, Martino R. Exploring the Acceptability of Behavioral Swallowing Interventions for Head and Neck Cancer Patients During Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Experience. Dysphagia. 2024 Aug;39(4):593-607. doi: 10.1007/s00455-023-10640-8. Epub 2023 Nov 22. PMID: 37991659.

wrong study design

Manduchi B, Fitch MI, Ringash JG, Howell D, Hutcheson KA, Martino R. The Acceptability of Behavioural Swallowing Interventions for Head and Neck Cancer Patients During Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study Exploring Experiences of Clinical Trial Speech-Language Pathologists. Dysphagia. 2024 Jun;39(3):412-423. doi: 10.1007/s00455-023-10625-7. Epub 2023 Nov 1. PMID: 37914886.

wrong study design

Massonet, H. and Goeleven, A. and Van den Steen, L. and Vergauwen, A. and Baudelet, M. and Van Haesendonck, G. and Vanderveken, O. and Bollen, H. and van der Molen, L. and Duprez, F. and Tomassen, P. and Nuyts, S. and Van Nuffelen, G. Home-based intensive treatment of chronic radiation-associated dysphagia in head and neck cancer survivors (HIT-CRAD trial). Trials. 2022; 23 (1) :893

Wrong I/C comparison. This 3-arm multicenter randomized trial aims to compare the efficacy and possible detraining effects of mere strengthening exercises (group 1) with a combination of strengthening exercises and functional swallowing therapy (group 2) and non-invasive brain stimulation added to that combination (group 3) in 105 patients with C-RAD.

Nativ-Zeltzer, N. and Kuhn, M. A. and Evangelista, L. and Anderson, J. D. and Nolta, J. A. and Farwell, D. G. and Canestrari, E. and Jankowski, R. J. and Belafsky, P. C. Autologous Muscle-Derived Cell Therapy for Swallowing Impairment in Patients Following Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer. Laryngoscope. 2022; 132 (3) :523-527

wrong intervention

Pang, P. and Lin, S. and Chen, H. and Shan, Y. and Sun, C. Improving masticatory and swallowing ability of postoperative oral and maxillofacial tumor patients by telerehabilitation-A randomized controlled trial. Clinical rehabilitation. 2023; 37 (9) :1178-1188

wrong study design (aim): to evaluate the effect of telerehabilitation on oral function of oral and maxillofacial tumor patients.

Starmer, H. M. and Klein, D. and Montgomery, A. and Goldsmith, T. and McCarroll, L. and Richmon, J. and Christopher Holsinger, F. and Beadle, B. and Jain, P. Head and Neck Virtual Coach: A Randomized Control Trial of Mobile Health as an Adjunct to Swallowing Therapy During Head and Neck Radiation. Dysphagia. 2023; 38 (3) :847-855

wrong intervention: mobile health. This randomized control trial investigated the impact of head and neck cancer Virtual Coach on adherence as well as swallowing outcomes by comparing those using the mobile app to those receiving only standard clinical care and paper logs.

Su, K. and Wang, Y. J. and Yu, Y. S. and Zheng, X. Y. and Huang, Z. S. Removable partial prosthesis combined with swallowing training is an efficient clinical solution for oral cancer post-operation patients with palatal defect and dysphagia: a prospective study. Clinical oral investigations. 2023; 27 (1) :305-312

no I/C comparison

Tanaka, A. and Uemura, H. and Kimura, T. and Nishimura, A. and Aoki, K. and Otsuka, S. and Ueda, K. and Kitahara, T. Evaluation of usefulness of tongue pressure measurement device for dysphagia associated with treatment of patients with head and neck cancer (ELEVATE). Medicine (United States). 2023; 102 (26) :E33954

wrong intervention

Uttam, A. K. and Yadav, A. K. and Jalota, S. and Singh, R. and Malik, S. and Arya, A. K. A prospective randomized comparative study to evaluate the effect of palliative hypo-fractionated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy versus hypo-fractionated radiotherapy alone in advanced and unresectable head and neck cancer with no metastasis. ecancermedicalscience. 2023; 17 :1541

wrong I/C comparison

Xuewei, Zhu and Minghui, Liu and Minru, Zong and Qianqian, Chen and Jianfeng, Wang Effect of three tongue needles acupoints Lianquan (CV23) and Hegu (LI4) combined with swallowing training on the quality of life of laryngeal cancer patients with dysphagia after surgery. Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan. 2022; 42 (4) :617-621

wrong intervention (acupoints); no I/C comparison

Zhu, X. and Liu, D. and Zong, M. and Wang, J. Effect of swallowing training combined with nutritional intervention on the nutritional status and quality of life of laryngeal cancer patients with dysphagia after operation and radiotherapy. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2022; 49 (7) :729-733

wrong comparision (nurtition); no swallowing outcomes

Beoordelingsdatum en geldigheid

Publicatiedatum  : 28-01-2026

Beoordeeld op geldigheid  : 28-01-2026

Initiatief en autorisatie

Initiatief:
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Keel-Neus-Oorheelkunde en Heelkunde van het Hoofd-Halsgebied
Geautoriseerd door:
  • Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie
  • Nederlandse Internisten Vereniging
  • Nederlandse Vereniging van Revalidatieartsen
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Plastische Chirurgie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiotherapie en Oncologie
  • Verpleegkundigen en Verzorgenden Nederland
  • Ergotherapie Nederland
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Logopedie en Foniatrie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging van Diëtisten
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Mond- Kaak- en Aangezichtschirurgie
  • Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Tandheelkunde
  • Patiëntenvereniging HOOFD HALS
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Arbeidsgeneeskunde

Algemene gegevens

De ontwikkeling/herziening van deze richtlijnmodule werd ondersteund door het Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (www.demedischspecialist.nl/kennisinstituut) en werd gefinancierd door de Stichting Kwaliteitsgelden Medisch Specialisten (SKMS). De financier heeft geen enkele invloed gehad op de inhoud van de richtlijnmodule.

 

Voor meer details over de gebruikte richtlijnmethodologie verwijzen wij u naar de Werkwijze. Relevante informatie voor de ontwikkeling/herziening van deze richtlijnmodule is hieronder weergegeven.

Samenstelling werkgroep

Voor het ontwikkelen van de richtlijnmodule is in 2023 een multidisciplinaire werkgroep ingesteld, bestaande uit vertegenwoordigers van alle relevante specialismen (zie hiervoor de Samenstelling van de werkgroep) die betrokken zijn bij de zorg voor patiënten met hoofd-halskanker.

 

Werkgroep

  • Prof. dr. L.W.J. (Laura) Baijens, voorzitter, Nederlandse Vereniging van Keel-Neus-Oorheelkunde en Heelkunde van het Hoofd-Halsgebied (NVKNO)
  • A.C.P. (Anne) Kauerz-de Rooij, Ergotherapie Nederland (EN)
  • Dr. C.M. (Caroline) Speksnijder, Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap Fysiotherapie (KNGF)         
  • Dr. D.J.M. (Doke) Buurman - Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij tot bevordering der Tandheelkunde (KNMT)
  • Dr. K.S. (Kathelijn) Versteeg, Nederlandse Internisten Vereniging (NIV)
  • Drs. D. (Desiree) Dona, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Arbeids- en Bedrijfsgeneeskunde (NVAB)
  • Dr. A. (Annemieke) Kok, Nederlandse Vereniging van Diëtisten (NVD)
  • Drs. M. (Marieke) Jacobs, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Arbeidsgeneeskunde (NVKA)
  • Dr L. (Lisette) van der Molen, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Logopedie en Foniatrie (NVLF)
  • Dr. L.H.E. (Luc) Karssemakers, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Mondziekten, Kaak- en Aangezichtschirurgie (NVMKA)
  • Dr. J. (Jos) Elbers, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiotherapie en Oncologie (NVRO)
  • R.A. (Rob) Burdorf, Patiëntenvereniging HOOFD-HALS (PvHH)
  • P.S. (Petra) Verdouw, Patiëntenvereniging HOOFD-HALS (PvHH)
  • Drs. M. (Michael) Brouwers, Nederlandse Vereniging van Revalidatieartsen (VRA)
  • Drs. E. (Ellen) Passchier, Verpleegkundigen en Verzorgenden Nederland (V&VN)
  • Drs. N. (Narda) Hendriks, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Plastische Chirurgie (NVPC) 

Klankbordgroep

  • Prof. dr. R. (Remco) de Bree, Nederlandse Vereniging van Keel-Neus-Oorheelkunde en Heelkunde van het Hoofd-Halsgebied (NVKNO)
  • Dr. P. (Pim) de Graaf, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie (NVvR)
  • Dr. D.S.V.M. (Dominique) Clément, Nederlandse Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen (NVMDL)
  • J. (Jesmin) Poelstra, Beroepsvereniging van Professionals in Sociaal Werk (BPSW)
  • Dr. G. (Gerben) van Hinte, Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap Fysiotherapie (KNGF)
  • Drs. A. (Anne) Arens, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Nucleaire Geneeskunde (NVNG)
  • Dr. F. (Femke) Jansen, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychosociale Oncologie (NVPO)

Met ondersteuning van

  • Dr. L.M. (Lisette) van Leeuwen, adviseur, Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten
  • Dr. E. (Evelien) Belfroid, senior adviseur, Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten

Belangenverklaringen

Een overzicht van de belangen van werkgroepleden en het oordeel over het omgaan met eventuele belangen vindt u in onderstaande tabel. De ondertekende belangenverklaringen zijn op te vragen bij het secretariaat van het Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten via secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl.

 

Gemelde (neven)functies en belangen richtlijnwerkgroep

Naam

Hoofdfunctie

Nevenwerkzaamheden

Persoonlijke financiële belangen

Persoonlijke relaties

Extern gefinancierd onderzoek

Intellectuele belangen en reputatie

Overige belangen

Datum

Restrictie

Laura Baijens

KNO-arts/Laryngoloog/Hoofd-hals chirurg

Maastricht Universitair Medisch Centrum (MUMC+)

Consultant for Phagenesis Limited, The Elms Courtyard, Bromesberrow, Ledbury, HR8 1RZ UK. The PhINEST Study – Pharyngeal ICU - Novel Electrical Stimulation Therapy: a prospective, European multi-site, randomised, sham-controlled, single-blind (outcome assessor-blinded) study. August 2018 – 2030 (Consultancy Agreement via the Clinical Trial Center Maastricht)

Consultant for Phagenesis Limited in the PhINEST Study heeft geen betrekking of relaties met de huidige richtlijn. Het is een Europese multicenter studie over dysfagie bij CVA patiënten waarin ik advies geef. De opbrengsten gaan naar het Clinical Trial Center Maastricht.

Neen

Phagenesis Limited

Advies geven in een studie over faryngeale elektrostimulatie bij CVA patiënten, MUMC+ is geen site en betreft geen patiënten met hoofd-halskanker.

 

 

Michel Keijzer Fonds PVHH

Multi-domein screening van hoofd-halskankerpatiënten

Intellectueel eigendom: Ik ben PI in meerdere lopende niet-WMO studies over dysfagie bij hoofd-halskanker. Ik heb vele internationale W1-publicaties over dysfagie bij hoofd-halskanker. De kans is reëel dat deze publicaties terecht zullen komen in de output van systematic literatuur searches voor deze richtlijn. Er is geen sprake van 'vermarkting' of verwerven van een boegbeeldfunctie bij organisaties.

Nee

juli 2025

Geen restricties (extern gefinancierd onderzoek heeft geen relatie met het onderwerp van de richtlijn)

Anne Kauerz

Ergotherapeut UMC Utrecht

Geen

Geen

Geen

Geen

Geen

Geen

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Desiree Dona

bedrijfsarts / klinisch arbeidsgeneeskundige oncologie 1.0 fte

Radboudumc

werkzaamheden: arbeidsgeneeskundige begeleiding in behandelteam van oncologiepatienten, projectmanagement, onderzoek en onderwijs. Alle werkzaamheden zijn betaald.

vennoot van DELEN ABC (arbeidsdeskundige advisering en coaching)

generieke module Arbeidsparticipatie voor medisch specialistische richtlijnen (vacatiegelden)

Geen

neen

Prehabilitatie en werkbegeleiding voor borstkankerpatienten (gefinancierd door MOVIR en Stichting Enjoy the ride, unrestricted grant, geen PI)

Ik heb een boegbeeldfunctie bij het Radboudumc (Principal Clinician) op de zorginnovatie arbeidsgerichte zorg. Vanuit die functie heb ik een groot netwerk (zorgprofessionals, politiek, ministeries, beroepsverenigingen, patientorganisaties, richtlijn cie's, NZa, ZiNl).

Ik ben actief betrokken bij het NKC en in de TF cancersurvivorship care werkgroep werk.

We proberen tzt onze innovatie te vermarkten om zodoende de voorinvestering die het Radboudumc doet terug te kunnen verdienen. Dit betreft mn onderwijsmodules.

Ik heb meegeschreven aan de generieke module Arbeidsparticipatie voor in medisch specialistische RL. Ik zal een voortrekkersrol hebben in het vervolgtraject: het maken van ene ziektespecifieke module Arbeidsparticipatie voor oncologische RL.

En ik ben kerngroeplid van de update van de RL kanker en werk voor bedrijfsartsen

Ontwikkelen zorgmodel arbeidsgerichte zorg (Janssen Pharma en Radboudumc, in-kind projectondersteuning van Janssen Pharma)

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Ellen Passchier

Verpleegkundig specialist revalidatie hoofd-hals oncologie tot november 2024 in Antoni van Leeuwenhoek

 

Heden:

- verpleegkundig specialist in de wijk (Buurtzorg  Amsterdam)

- docent aan de Master ANP (Hogeschool inHolland)

- buitenpromovendus afdeling hoofd-hals oncologie (Antoni van Leeuwenhoek)

Geen

Geen

Geen

Met ingang van november 2016 promotieonderzoek (evaluatie van revalidatieprogramma bij patiënten met een HHT - haalbaarheidsonderzoek naar beweeginterventie, analyses op kwaliteit van leven uitkomsten)

Door deze richtlijn zal mijn promotie onderzoek (publicaties) meer belangstelling krijgen.

Geen

juli 2025

Geen restiricties

Jos Elbers

Radiotherapeut-oncoloog Erasmus MC

nvt

nvt

nvt

nvt

nvt

nvt

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Kathelijn Versteeg

internist-oncoloog AmsterdamUMC internist-ouderengeneeskunde AmsterdamUMC

geen

geen

geen

geen

geen

geen

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Lisette van der Molen

logopedist/senior onderzoek aan het NKI-AVL.

Het geven van bij/nascholing met betrekking tot de (logopedische) functionele uitkomsten na een behandeling in het HH gebied. Deze scholing kan zowel onbetaald als betaald zijn.

Geen

nvt

ja

Atos Medical AB Zweden

Unrestricted research grant waardoor er PhD studenten kunnen worden aangenomen

 

De afdeling hoofd-halsoncologie van het AvL krijgt deze unrestricted research grant van Atos Medical (dus niet op persoonlijke titel van dit werkgroeplid). Ik ben in vaste dienst bij het AvL en ook niet afhankelijk van deze grant.

 

 

In 2010 heb ik samen met Prof. Hilgers het hoofd-halsrevalidatieprogramma ontwikkeld, welke als (standaard) nazorg binnen het NKI-AVL wordt aangeboden. Mocht dit ook het advies worden van deze richtlijn, dan zal het NKI-AVL een voorsprong hebben op de andere HH centra mbt implementatie.

 

 

 

Als kartrekker van de onderzoekslijn: survivorship rehabilitation and QoL na Hoofd-Halskanker begeleiden van meerdere PhD studenten met o.a. het onderwerp dysfagie. De kans is aanwezig dat er publicaties uit onze onderzoeksgroep terecht zullen komen in de output van de systematische literatuur searches voor deze richtlijn. Er is geen sprake van vermarkting of verwerven van een boegbeeldfunctie bij organisaties.

nvt

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Luc Karssemakers

Antoni v Leeuwenhoek Ziekenhuis, afdeling hoofd-hals chirurgie

Afdeling Kaakchirurgie Slotervaart

Geen

Geen

zie onderstaand

STW

Craniosafe, ideale implantaat schedelplastieken

TKI

Sternofix, implantaten sternaal voor laryngectomiepatienten

Geen

Geen

juli 2025

Geen restricties (extern gefinancierd onderzoek heeft geen relatie met het onderwerp van de richtlijn)

Marieke Jacobs

Bedrijfsarts / klinisch arbeidsgeneeskundige, Radboudumc

Werkzaam als instituutsopleider bedrijfsartsenopleiding bij de SGBO, Radboudumc

Geen

Niet van toepassing

Niet van toepassing

Niet bewust van

Nee

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Narda Hendriks-Brouwer

Medisch Spectrum Twente- plastisch chirurg

Ziekenhuisgroep Twente-plastisch chirurg

Geen

Geen

Geen

Geen

Geen

Geen

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Rob Burdorf

Patiëntenvertegenwoordiger. Lid van de Wetenschappelijke Advies Commissie van de PVHH.

Onbetaald

geen

geen

nvt

nvt

nvt

geen

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Caroline Speksnijder

Associate professor

UMC Utrecht

Docent:

*MSc Oncologie Fysiotherapie; Avans+

*MSc Orofaciale Fysiotherapie SOMT Physiotherapy University

Werkgroep Kennisagendaherziening KNO

Bestuurstaken:

*Koninklijk Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie (KNGF): Bestuurslid Wetenschappelijk College Fysiotherapie (WCF)

*Paramedische Werkgroep Hoofdhalstumoren (PWHHT): voorzitter

*Dutch Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (DASCC): voorzitter

*International Physiotherapy in HIV/Aids, Oncology, and Hospice and Palliative Care (IPT-HOPE part of World Physiotherapy): Vice-president

Geen

Nee

Perioperative nutritional intervention with Fortifit Energy® in combination with exercise versus standard of care in head and neck cancer patients undergoing combined approach resection: a pilot study(gefinancierd door Danone, unrestricted grant, geen PI)

 

Integrating the Knowledge Agenda Physiotherapy into the science policy of the Royal Dutch Association for Physiotherapy (KNGF) (gefinancierd door ZonMw)

 

Prehabilitatie fysieke fitheid vooraf aan totale laryngectomie (gefinancierd door Nederlands Fonds tegen Kanker, unrestricted grant)

nee

nvt

juli 2025

Restricties ten aanzien van het formuleren van aanbevelingen over het onderwerp op UV6 (nutritionele en excerise interventies ter preventie en behandeling)

Petra Verdouw

Patiëntenvereniging HOOFD-HALS

 Directeur

geen

geen

geen

geen

geen

geen

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Annemieke Kok

Diëtist, onderzoeker

secretaris PWHHT

lid Landelijke Werkgroep Diëtisten Oncologie (tot jan 2024)

 

Vice-voorzitter van de Landelijke Werkgroep Diëtisten Oncologie (LWDO) (sinds april 2025).

geen

nee

zie onder

Ontwikkeling PEG keuzehulp voor hoofd-halskankerpatienten (Michel Keijzer Fonds)

Perioperative nutritional intervention with Fortifit Energy® in combination with exercise versus standard of care in head and neck cancer patients undergoing combined approach resection: a pilot study(gefinancierd door Danone, unrestricted grant, geen PI)

nee

nee

juli 2025

Restricties ten aanzien van het formuleren van aanbevelingen over het onderwerp op UV5 (nutritionele en excerise interventies ter preventie en behandeling)

Doke Buurman

Tandarts-MFP bij Maastricht UMC+ (betaald)

Lid Consilium MFP bij de NVGPT (onbetaald)

Lid ROC Mondzorg voor mensen met kanker (in de voorgeschiedenis) van KIMO (vacatieregeling)

n.v.t.

n.v.t.

n.v.t.

n.v.t.

n.v.t.

juli 2025

Geen restricties

Michael Brouwers

Revalidatiearts Anthony van Leeuwenhoek Ziekenhuis Amsterdam

geen

geen

geen

geen

geen belangen

geen belangen

juli 2025

 

 

Inbreng patiëntenperspectief

De richtlijnwerkgroep besteedde aandacht aan het patiëntenperspectief door het uitnodigen van Patiëntenvereniging Hoofd-Hals voor de schriftelijke invitational conference, en twee afgevaardigde namens deze patiëntenorganisatie in de werkgroep. Het verslag van de invitational conference (zie aanverwante producten) is besproken in de werkgroep. De verkregen input is meegenomen bij het opstellen van de uitgangsvragen, de keuze voor de uitkomstmaten en bij het opstellen van de overwegingen. De conceptrichtlijn is tevens voor commentaar voorgelegd aan de patiëntenvereniging en de eventueel aangeleverde commentaren zijn bekeken en verwerkt.

 

Kwalitatieve raming van mogelijke financiële gevolgen in het kader van de Wkkgz

Bij de richtlijnmodule voerde de werkgroep conform de Wet kwaliteit, klachten en geschillen zorg (Wkkgz) een kwalitatieve raming uit om te beoordelen of de aanbevelingen mogelijk leiden tot substantiële financiële gevolgen. Bij het uitvoeren van deze beoordeling is de richtlijnmodule op verschillende domeinen getoetst (zie het stroomschema bij Werkwijze).

Module

Uitkomst raming

Toelichting

Slikfunctiebehoud via prehabilitatie en revalidatie

geen financiële gevolgen

Uit de toetsing volgt dat de aanbeveling(en) niet breed toepasbaar zijn (<5.000 patiënten) en daarom naar verwachting geen substantiële financiële gevolgen zal hebben voor de collectieve uitgaven.