Citations

ABSTRACT Objective To estimate the pooled prevalence of lymphedema among adults with mucosal head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (2000–2025) identified cohort, case series, cross‐sectional, and clinical trial studies reporting lymphedema after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Logit‐transformed lymphedema prevalence was pooled using a DerSimonian‐Laird random‐effects model with Hartung‐Knapp‐Sidik‐Jonkman variance correction; statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 . This review was not prospectively registered. Results A total of 26 studies ( n = 3133 patients) met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of lymphedema was 49% (95% CI, 36%–62%), with considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 94%). Subgroup analyses yielded a pooled prevalence of 37% (12%–71%) for external and 45% (31%–60%) for internal lymphedema. Among studies reporting severity‐graded data, the pooled prevalence of clinically significant (grade ≥ 2) lymphedema was 32% (14%–59%). Lymphedema definitions and assessment methods varied across the included studies, most commonly employing clinical grading. Methodological quality was mixed, reflecting the predominantly retrospective, single‐arm nature of the available evidence. Overall certainty of evidence was very low. Funnel plot inspection and Egger's test suggested small‐study effects ( p = 0.06). Conclusion Lymphedema affects nearly half of patients following radiation for head and neck cancer. These findings may support routine surveillance, early identification, and timely referral for lymphedema management within survivorship care pathways. Future prospective studies should adopt standardized definitions and outcome measures to refine risk estimates and guide prevention strategies. Level of Evidence N/A.

Purpose: There are reported barriers to implementation of esophageal screening during the videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) completed by the speech-language pathologist (SLP). Often, patients referred to the SLP for a VFSS have an esophageal component that may explain their complaint. In this article, authors explore roadblocks to esophageal screening and potential roadmaps to improve patient care through standardization of esophageal screening procedures. Conclusions: A strong body of literature supports physiologic, anatomic, and disease state relationships of the oropharynx and esophagus. Despite this, the assessment of the oropharynx and esophagus is dichotomized. There remain billing limitations for same-day esophagram and VFSS, and the well-documented esophageal screen provides a view of bolus flow in an upright, typical eating position with consideration of oropharyngeal function to provide a comprehensive view of the continuous process of swallowing from mouth to stomach. The continued practice of evaluating the oropharynx without consideration of the esophagus poses a threat to patient safety and may delay care. A collaborative, multidisciplinary effort among healthcare professionals to create streamlined practice parameters, update position statements, and enhance education parameters will allow for cohesive practices among professionals. Assessment of the swallow mechanism is incomplete without consideration of the entire continuum.

ABSTRACTBackgroundExternal and internal head and neck cancer related lymphedema (HNCRL) is a common consequence of radiation treatment (RT). Currently, internal HNCRL can be clinically assessed endoscopically using a visuoperceptual, ordinal rating scale. Use of fluoroscopy to identify and measure internal HNCRL has been explored but is not widely used in clinical practice. Advanced Pneumatic Compression (APC) has shown external HNCRL reduction after a single treatment, whereas internal HNCRL reduction has not yet been assessed.MethodsFluoroscopic lateral scouts and TIMS Review software (TIMS Medical) were used to assess immediate internal HNCRL measures of 30 HNC patients with RT history following a single APC treatment. Pre and post external measures were also obtained. Paired t‐test was used to assess changes in pre and post measures. A post‐treatment survey was completed.ResultsAll 30 patients had both immediate external and internal HNCRL reductions, and all reductions were statistically significant. All reported positive benefit.ConclusionsA single, external APC treatment immediately impacted the extent of pharyngeal and laryngeal edema in post‐radiated HNC survivors. Fluoroscopy can be a clinically useful and complementary modality to detect, surveil, and measure internal HNCRL.

Purpose: Despite evidence supporting interconnectivity of oropharyngeal and esophageal swallowing, evaluation and treatment are dichotomized. When the videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) only considers oropharyngeal swallowing, the full scope of swallowing impairment may be missed. A lower rate of esophageal screening in an outpatient hospital setting may result from lack of speech-language pathologist (SLP) training and understanding of screening feasibility. This project was an internal quality improvement project (QIP) at Mayo Clinic in Arizona to (a) educate and train SLPs on conducting the Robust Esophageal Screening Test (REST) and (b) determine the feasibility of REST protocol implementation in a multidisciplinary swallow clinic. Method: Fishbone analysis was used to identify potential causes of the gap in quality. Six Sigma methodology was used to outline the QIP. SLPs were trained in the REST protocol. To ensure adequate training, reliability ratings were assessed with the Cohen's kappa statistic. Esophageal screening via REST was implemented as an adjunct to the standard protocol during VFSS over a 3-month period for referred patients with dysphagia. Clinical findings were recorded. Results: All clinical rater SLPs reached the threshold of κ = .8 to ensure adequate rater reliability. Among 136 outpatients who underwent esophageal screening via REST, 100 patients completed the full REST screening and 36 completed a partial REST screening. Of the 100 full screenings, 80 patients had a failed screening, which indicated a potential esophageal swallowing impairment. Findings were discussed by members of the multidisciplinary dysphagia care team. Conclusions: The results of this QIP show that focusing on assessment of dysfunction and interplay across the swallowing continuum can substantially improve patient care by expediting and specifying next steps of the multidisciplinary dysphagia care team.

Purpose: The swallowing continuum is highly complex and interrelated and has both upstream and downstream implications for volitional swallowing behaviors, anatomic and physiologic impairments, and interventions. Pathologic reflux can cause a plethora of upstream anatomic and physiologic changes in the swallow with associated consequences. Although pathologic reflux can occur in isolation, there is a high incidence of both pathologic reflux and esophageal pathology in patients with head and neck cancer. Along with their known oropharyngeal dysfunction that can evolve over time posttreatment and cause downstream effects in the swallowing continuum, pathologic reflux and esophageal pathology can cause upstream effects, further complicating the interplay and contributing to the overall swallowing impairment. Conclusions: The entire swallowing continuum should be evaluated with videofluoroscopy at yearly intervals in patients with head and neck cancer so that the multidisciplinary dysphagia team understands the interplay, which informs best interventions. The Robust Esophageal Screening Test (REST) is a standardized, validated esophageal screening protocol that can be implemented during the videofluoroscopic swallowing study to better identify potential esophageal pathology, which can be of complex etiology in this population. Results of a recent quality improvement project implementing REST protocol with patients with head and neck cancer found significant esophageal pathology and enhanced team collaborations and decision making for optimal patient care (Gregor & Watts, 2022).