, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 376–386 | Cite as

A Survey of Variables Used by Speech-Language Pathologists to Assess Function and Predict Functional Recovery in Oral Cancer Patients

  • Hasan Husaini
  • Gintas P. Krisciunas
  • Susan Langmore
  • Jacqueline K. Mojica
  • Mark L. Urken
  • Adam S. Jacobson
  • Cathy L. Lazarus
Original Article


Oromotor and clinical swallow assessments are routinely performed by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who see head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. However, the tools used to assess some of these variables vary. SLPs routinely identify and quantify abnormal functioning in order to rehabilitate the patient. However, function in terms of tongue range of motion (ROM) is typically described using a subjective severity rating scale. The primary objective of this study was to gain insight via survey into what variables SLPs consider important in assessing and documenting function after HNC treatment. A second objective was to seek feedback regarding a scale designed by the authors for assessing tongue ROM for this cohort of patients. This survey also was developed to elucidate salient factors that might have an impact on the prognosis for speech and swallow outcomes. Of the 1,816 SLPs who were sent the survey, 292 responded who work with HNC patients. Results revealed that although 95 % of SLPs assess tongue strength, only 13 % use instrumental methods. Although 98 % assess tongue ROM, 88 % estimate ROM based on clinical assessment. The majority of respondents agreed with the utility of the proposed tongue ROM rating scale. Several variables were identified by respondents as having an impact on overall prognosis for speech and swallow functioning. Tracking progress and change in function with treatment can be accomplished only with measurable assessment techniques. Furthermore, a consistent measuring system can benefit patients with other diagnoses that affect lingual mobility and strength.


Survey Deglutition Deglutition disorders Critical variables Oral cancer Outcomes QOL 



Thanks go to Sebastien Delice for his contribution of data input and to Eileen Stevens for her contributions with data collection.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

455_2014_9520_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    Carnaby-Mann G, Lenius K. The bedside examination in dysphagia. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2008;19(4):747–68, viii.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roe JW, et al. Assessment and management of dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer who receive radiotherapy in the United Kingdom—a web-based survey. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(4):343–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazarus CL, et al. Swallowing and tongue function following treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(4):1011–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lazarus C, et al. Tongue strength as a predictor of functional outcomes and quality of life after tongue cancer surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122(6):386–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Logemann JA, Bytell DE. Swallowing disorders in three types of head and neck surgical patients. Cancer. 1979;44(3):1095–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pauloski BR, et al. Surgical variables affecting swallowing in patients treated for oral/oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. 2004;26(7):625–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urken ML, Biller HF. A new bilobed design for the sensate radial forearm flap to preserve tongue mobility following significant glossectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120(1):26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown L, et al. A longitudinal study of functional outcomes after surgical resection and microvascular reconstruction for oral cancer: tongue mobility and swallowing function. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(11):2690–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chepeha DB, et al. Rectangle tongue template for reconstruction of the hemiglossectomy defect. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(9):993–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denk DM, et al. Prognostic factors for swallowing rehabilitation following head and neck cancer surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 1997;117(5):769–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agarwal J, et al. Objective assessment of swallowing function after definitive concurrent (chemo) radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Dysphagia. 2011;26(4):399–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pauloski BR, et al. Speech and swallowing function after anterior tongue and floor of mouth resection with distal flap reconstruction. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36(2):267–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rieger JM, et al. Functional outcomes after surgical reconstruction of the base of tongue using the radial forearm free flap in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. 2007;29(11):1024–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rieger JM, et al. Comparison of speech and aesthetic outcomes in patients with maxillary reconstruction versus maxillary obturators after maxillectomy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;40(1):40–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisbruch A, et al. Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid-sparing irradiation of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(3):695–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber C, et al. Limited mouth opening after primary therapy of head and neck cancer. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;14(3):169–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ojo B, et al. A systematic review of head and neck cancer quality of life assessment instruments. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(10):923–37.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sayed SI, et al. Quality of life and outcomes research in head and neck cancer: a review of the state of the discipline and likely future directions. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(5):397–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krisciunas GP, et al. Survey of usual practice: dysphagia therapy in head and neck cancer patients. Dysphagia. 2012;27(4):538–49.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASHA. National Outcomes Measurement System: Adults in Healthcare—Outpatient National Data Report 2012. National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders. Rockville: ASHA. pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark HM, et al. Effects of directional exercise on lingual strength. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(4):1034–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Butler S, et al. The relationship of aspiration status with tongue and handgrip strength in healthy older adults. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(4):452–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crow HC, Ship JA. Tongue strength and endurance in different aged individuals. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1996;51(5):M247–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lazarus C, et al. Effects of two types of tongue strengthening exercises in young normals. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2003;55(4):199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robbins J, et al. The effects of lingual exercise in stroke patients with dysphagia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(2):150–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robbins J, et al. The effects of lingual exercise on swallowing in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(9):1483–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Solomon NP, Munson B. The effect of jaw position on measures of tongue strength and endurance. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(3):584–94.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steele CM, Bailey GL, Molfenter SM. Tongue pressure modulation during swallowing: water versus nectar-thick liquids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(2):273–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stierwalt JA, Youmans SR. Tongue measures in individuals with normal and impaired swallowing. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;16(2):148–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Logemann JA, et al. Temporal and biomechanical characteristics of oropharyngeal swallow in younger and older men. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(5):1264–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rademaker AW, et al. Age and volume effects on liquid swallowing function in normal women. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41(2):275–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Robbins J, et al. Age effects on lingual pressure generation as a risk factor for dysphagia. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995;50(5):M257–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Colangelo LA, et al. T stage and functional outcome in oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients. Head Neck. 1996;18(3):259–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pinto HA, Jacobs C. Chemotherapy for recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1991;5(4):667–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dijkstra PU, Kalk WW, Roodenburg JL. Trismus in head and neck oncology: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2004;40(9):879–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Teguh DN, et al. Treatment techniques and site considerations regarding dysphagia-related quality of life in cancer of the oropharynx and nasopharynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(4):1119–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    de Graeff A, et al. A prospective study on quality of life of laryngeal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Head Neck. 1999;21(4):291–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hammerlid E, et al. A prospective quality of life study of patients with laryngeal carcinoma by tumor stage and different radiation therapy schedules. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(5):747–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    List MA, et al. Performance and quality of life outcome in patients completing concomitant chemoradiotherapy protocols for head and neck cancer. Qual Life Res. 1997;6(3):274–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Logemann JA, et al. Xerostomia: 12-month changes in saliva production and its relationship to perception and performance of swallow function, oral intake, and diet after chemoradiation. Head Neck. 2003;25(6):432–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    List MA, et al. The Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale. A study of utility and validity. Cancer. 1996;77(11):2294–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jacobson AS, et al. Quality of life after management of advanced osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42(9):1121–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Duke RL, et al. Dental status and quality of life in long-term head and neck cancer survivors. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(4):678–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lin BM, Starmer HM, Gourin CG. The relationship between depressive symptoms, quality of life, and swallowing function in head and neck cancer patients 1 year after definitive therapy. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(7):1518–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lazarus CL, et al. Development of a new lingual range of motion assessment scale: Normative data in surgically treated oral cancer patients. Dysphagia (unpublished).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan Husaini
    • 1
  • Gintas P. Krisciunas
    • 2
  • Susan Langmore
    • 2
  • Jacqueline K. Mojica
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mark L. Urken
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Adam S. Jacobson
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Cathy L. Lazarus
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Thyroid Head and Neck Research CenterThyroid Head and Neck Cancer (THANC) FoundationNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of OtolaryngologyBoston University Medical CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck SurgeryMount Sinai Beth IsraelNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of OtolaryngologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations