Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Clin Oncol. Jan 10, 2019; 10(1): 1-13
Published online Jan 10, 2019. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v10.i1.1
Table 4 Submandibular gland transfer: Xerostomia
AuthorStudy designnInterventionXerostomia symptomsEffect size
Zhang et al[31], 2014Randomized controlled trial65Submandibular transfer vs controlSignificantly lower incidence of xerostomia (RTOG/EORTC staging criteria) at 1 yr and 5 yr in transfer group vs control. Significantly lower VAS at 5 yr for transfer groupXerostomia 18.7% vs 81.8% at 1 yr; 15.4% for transfer vs 76.9% at 5 yr; VAS 3.7 for transfer vs 5.8 for control
Rieger et al[51], 2012Phase III randomized controlled trial69Submandibular transfer vs oral PCEORTC QLQ H and N35: significantly worse dry mouth and sticky saliva at 1 yr in PC group vs submandibular transfer at 1 yrDry mouth score 42.6 vs 85.8; sticky saliva score 37.2 vs 66.7
Liu et al[50], 2011Prospective non-randomized controlled trial70Submandibular transfer vs controlAt 5 yr, significantly higher mod-to-severe xerostomia in control group; significantly better VAS in transfer group vs controlMod-to-severe xerostomia 78.6% vs 12.9%
Seikaly et al[49], 2004Phase II prospective non-randomized38Submandibular gland transfer vs controlUW-QOL: significantly better xerostomia symptoms (amount and consistency) at 2 yr83% vs 0% reporting normal amount of saliva
Jha et al[48], 2003Phase II prospective single arm76submandibular gland transferUW-QOL: 81% minimal or no xero at end of RT; 65% at 2 mo; 71% at 6 mo (in unshielded pts, 71% had severe xero at 6 mo)-