Skip Navigation
Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
 
Slide Tray
0 slides

Return to Slide Library

Slides

Add Presentation to Slide Tray Presentation:

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer

Slides: 25–36 of 36
This slide includes a table with two columns and four rows. Column 1, row 1: comparison. Column 2, row 1: evidence on tumor control or survival. Column 1, row 2: IMRT vs. 3DCRT. Column 2, row 2: insufficient. Column 1, row 3: IMRT vs. 2DRT. Column 2, row 3: insufficient. Column 1, row 4: 2DRT vs. 3DCRT. Column 2, row 4: insufficient. There is a footnote at the bottom of the slide that includes the following reference: Samson  DJ, et al. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 20. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/ ?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=447.

Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Improved Tumor Control or Survival

Evidence on the Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events

Evidence on the Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events

This slide graphically presents numerical differences in late xerostomia reported by seven different reports comparing IMRT vs. 3DCRT. The difference in percentages of adverse avents that occurred with IMRT vs. 3DCRT ranged from 7% to 79%. Four studies found large (greater than 15 percentage points) significant differences favoring IMRT over 3DCRT in the frequency of late xerostomia.

Studies Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events: IMRT vs. 3DCRT

Conclusions on the Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events: IMRT vs. 3DCRT

Evidence on the Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events: IMRT vs. 2DRT

This slide graphically presents numerical differences in the incidence of late xerostomia reported by nine different reports comparing IMRT vs. 2DRT. The difference in percentages of adverse avents that occurred with IMRT vs. 2DRT ranged from 43% to 62%. Consistent between-group differences were found for two outcomes: late xerostomia and health-related quality of life domains related to xerostomia.Eight were statistically significant in favor of IMRT.

Studies Regarding Late Xerostomia: IMRT vs. 2DRT

Conclusions on the Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events: IMRT vs. 2DRT

Evidence on the Comparative Effectiveness Regarding Quality of Life and Adverse Events: 3DCRT vs. 2DRT

What To Discuss With Your Patients About Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer

Gaps in Knowledge: Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer

Pages: Previous 1 2 [3]