Functional Results of Soft Palate Free Flap Reconstruction (RECaVoLL)

October 12, 2020 updated by: Hospices Civils de Lyon

Evaluation of Functional Results After Surgery of Oropharyngeal Cancers With Soft Palate With Free Flap Reconstruction

The oropharynx is a complex anatomical structure necessary for nasal breathing, swallowing and phonation. The removal of oropharyngeal cancers can lead to sequelae, particularly in the case of resections affecting the soft palate. The main sequelae are represented by rhinolalia and swallowing disorders with nasal regurgitation.

The treatment of oropharyngeal tumors is based on primary surgery or radiotherapy, but tumors of the soft palate are often treated by radiotherapy or radio-chemotherapy first. Surgery is often kept for relapses, because it is considered to lead to important sequelae. However, chemoradiotherapy of the oropharynx is also responsible for acute toxicities, and late sequelae can be frequent and important.

Recent publications tend to show that primary surgery would give better survival rates compared to radiotherapy, particularly in advanced stages, including viro-induced cancers. In addition, primary surgery can reduce the dose of radiation delivered to the oropharynx and thus reduce its long-term toxicity.

It is currently possible to reconstruct a loss of substance after surgery of oropharyngeal cancers, including the soft palate by using free flaps, limiting the postoperative sequelae usually observed without reconstruction.

There is little data on reconstructions of the soft palate, their sequelae and their impact on the quality of life.

Study Overview

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

29

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Lyon, France, 69004
        • Groupement Hospitalier Lyon Nord - Hospices Civils de Lyon

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Patients over 18 years of age, with oropharyngeal tumor requiring surgical management with excision of part or all of the soft palate, with free flap reconstruction

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with oropharyngeal tumor who had surgical management with removal of all or part of the soft palate and free flap reconstruction, and at least 12 month after the end of external radiotherapy treatment
  • Patients over 18 years old

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients protected by law (guardianship, curatorship and under judicial protection)
  • Patients who expressed their opposition to participate to the study
  • Patients who do not speak French (incompatible with reading, understanding and filling out the questionnaires)
  • Patients participating in interventional research (excluding physiological studies and interventional research with minimal risks and constraints that do not interfere with the primary endpoint analysis)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Patients after surgery of oropharyngeal cancers
Patients after surgery of oropharyngeal cancers with soft palate with free flap reconstruction and adjuvant radiotherapy

Evaluation of phonation quality by :

  • Self-evaluation: completion of the Voice Handicap Index questionnaire, in its 30 items version
  • Hetero-evaluation: reading and recording of 2 texts, and notation by 3 practitioners using the grade, rough, breathy, asthenic, strained (GRBAS) scale, to evaluate the occurrence and the gravity of rhinolalia

Evaluation of swallowing quality by:

  • Self-evaluation: completion of the Deglutition Handicap Index questionnaire
  • Hetero-evaluation: nasofibroscopy to evaluate the occurrence of aspiration and nasal regurgitation
Completion of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ - C30) and the EORTC QLQ - H&N35 questionnaires

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Evaluation of phonation quality at least 12 months after the end of external radiotherapy.
Time Frame: 12 months

Self-evaluation by completion of the Voice Handicap Index questionnaire, in its 30 items version.

For self evaluation of phonation using the Voice Handicap Index 30 (VHI 30) questionnaire:

The VHI is rated on 120 points. For each question a score from 0 to 4 is assigned (0 = never, 1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = almost always, 4 = always). Its three sub-scales allow to establish an emotional score E out of 40, a physical score P out of 40 and a Functional score F out of 40.

The total score can therefore be between 0 and 120 points. The interpretation of this test is done by comparing the sub-scores and the total score obtained with the averages values of these sub-scores and total score.

12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Hetero evaluation of phonation quality at least 12 months after the end of external radiotherapy
Time Frame: 12 months

Hetero-evaluation performed by 3 practitioners, using the Grade Roughness Breathiness Asthenia Strain (GRBAS) score, after the patient has read and recorded two texts.

GRBAS means: G for Grade (degree of hoarseness of the voice), R for Roughness (impression of irregularity of the vibration of the vocal folds), B for Breathiness (degree to which air escaping from between the vocal folds can be heard by the examiner), A for Asthenia (degree of weakness heard in the voice), S for Strain ( extent to which strain or hyperfunctional use of phonation is heard), I for Instability (changes in voice quality over time). Each of the five parameters is rated from 0 to 3 points (0 = Normal, 1 = slightly altered, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired), resulting in an overall score ranging from 0 to 15. A score at 0 reflects a phonation considered normal, a score between 1 and 5 a slightly altered phonation, between 5 and 10 moderately altered and between 10 and 15 severely impaired.

12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

February 27, 2019

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

March 11, 2020

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

March 11, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 30, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 22, 2019

First Posted (ACTUAL)

March 26, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

October 14, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 12, 2020

Last Verified

October 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Oropharyngeal Cancer

Clinical Trials on Evaluation of phonation quality

3
Subscribe