English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objectives  The primary goal of this study was to examine how well findings of cervical esophageal stenosis on modified barium swallow (MBS) and esophagram correlate with clinical improvement following dilation in patients with a history of head and neck (H&N) cancer.    Methods  A retrospective review was performed at an academic hospital. The study population included H&N cancer patients with a history of neck dissection surgery who underwent esophageal dilation from 2010 to2018. Pre and postdilation swallowing function was assessed. The Functional Outcomes Swallowing Scale (FOSS) and Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) were used as outcome measures.    Results  The 95 patients were included. All patients had imaging prior to dilation. Post‐dilation FOSS and FOIS scores were significantly improved ( P  < .001). In identifying the patients that would have improvement from dilation, esophagram and MBS had average sensitivities of 81% and 82%, respectively. The negative predictive value (ie, the ability of a normal esophagram or normal MBS to exclude patients that would not improve with dilation) was only 46% and 38%, respectively. When the specific finding of aspiration on MBS was considered, the positive predictive value (PPV) (ie, the ability of an MBS positive for aspiration to predict that a patient would benefit from dilation) was 87% ( P  = .03). When only the specific finding of stenosis on esophagram was considered, the PPV of improvement post‐dilation was 58% ( P  = .97). The delay in time from imaging to dilation was significantly longer in those who had an unidentified stenosis (false negative) on imaging when compared to those who did not (46.8 ± 35.2 days vs 312.6 ± 244.1 days,  P  < .001).    Conclusion  In high risk patients for cervical esophageal stenosis, such as those with a history of H&N cancer and open neck surgery with or without radiation, MBS and esophagram appear to have mixed reliability as predictors of response to esophageal dilation. In these patients, a “negative” result on MBS and esophagram may not be diagnostically accurate enough to exclude patients from consideration of dilation.    Level of Evidence  IIb

Esophageal stenosis in head and neck cancer patients: Imaging's accuracy to predict dilation response