Long-term outcomes of interventions for radiation-induced xerostomia: A review

Table 4 Submandibular gland transfer: Xerostomia

Author	Study design	n	Intervention	Xerostomia symptoms	Effect size
Zhang et al[31], 2014	Randomized controlled trial	65	Submandibular transfer vs control	Significantly 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 group	Xerostomia 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], 2012	Phase III randomized controlled trial	69	Submandibular transfer vs oral PC	EORTC QLQ H and N35: significantly worse dry mouth and sticky saliva at 1 yr in PC group vs submandibular transfer at 1 yr	Dry mouth score 42.6 vs 85.8; sticky saliva score 37.2 vs 66.7
Liu et al[50], 2011	Prospective non-randomized controlled trial	70	Submandibular transfer vs control	At 5 yr, significantly higher mod-to-severe xerostomia in control group; significantly better VAS in transfer group vs control	Mod-to-severe xerostomia 78.6% vs 12.9%
Seikaly et al[49], 2004	Phase II prospective non-randomized	38	Submandibular gland transfer vs control	UW-QOL: significantly better xerostomia symptoms (amount and consistency) at 2 yr	83% vs 0% reporting normal amount of saliva
Jha et al[48], 2003	Phase II prospective single arm	76	submandibular gland transfer	UW-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)	-

VAS: Visual analogue scale; PC: Pilocarpine; xero: Xerostomia; UW-QOL: University of Washington quality of life scale; pts: Patients.