Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 737

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial

Pow, Edmond H.N., Kwong, Dora L.W., McMillan, Anne S., Wong, May C.M., Sham, Jonathan S.T., Leung, Lucullus H.T., Leung, W. Keung·2006·International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract

PURPOSE To compare directly the effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) vs. conventional radiotherapy (CRT) on salivary flow and quality of life (QoL) in patients with early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS AND MATERIALS Fifty-one patients with T2, N0/N1, M0 NPC took part in a randomized controlled clinical study and received IMRT or CRT. Stimulated whole (SWS) and parotid (SPS) saliva flow were measured and Medical Outcomes Short Form 36 (SF-36), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quetionnaire, and EORTC head-and-neck module (QLQ-H&N35) were completed at baseline and 2, 6, and 12 months after radiotherapy. RESULTS Forty-six patients (88%) were in disease remission 12 months after radiotherapy. At 12 months postradiotherapy, 12 (50.0%) and 20 patients (83.3%) in the IMRT group had recovered at least 25% of preradiotherapy SWS and SPS flow respectively, compared with 1 (4.8%) and 2 patients (9.5%), respectively, in the CRT group. Global health scores showed continuous improvement in QoL after both treatments (p < 0.001). However, after 12 months subscale scores for role-physical, bodily pain, and physical function were significantly higher in the IMRT group, indicating a better condition (p < 0.05). Dry mouth and sticky saliva were problems in both groups 2 months after treatment. In the IMRT group, there was consistent improvement over time with xerostomia-related symptoms significantly less common than in the CRT group at 12 months postradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS IMRT was significantly better than CRT in terms of parotid sparing and improved QoL for early-stage disease. The findings support the case for assessment of health-related QoL in relation to head-and-neck cancer using a site-specific approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.013

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 737

Metadata

Authors
Pow, E. H. N., Kwong, D. L. W., McMillan, A. S., Wong, M. C. M., Sham, J. S. T., Leung, L. H. T., & Leung, W. K.
Venue
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-11
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
981-991
ISSN
0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149294014
Cited by
737
References
1
FWCI
22.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.013
The paper
Pow, E. H. N., Kwong, D. L. W., McMillan, A. S., Wong, M. C. M., Sham, J. S. T., Leung, L. H. T., & Leung, W. K. (2006). Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.