Objective: Clinical practices of speech-language pathologists (SLP) treating head and neck cancer (HNC) patients range widely despite literature trending toward best practices. This survey study was designed to identify current patterns and assess for gaps in clinical implementation of research evidence. Method: A web-based survey was distributed to SLPs via listserv and social media outlets. Descriptive statistics and group calculations were completed to identify trends and associations in responses. Results: Of 152 received surveys, the majority of respondents were hospital-based (86%) and had greater than 5 years of experience (65%). There was group consensus for the use of prophylactic exercise programs (95%), recommendations for SLP intervention during HNC treatment (75%), and use of maintenance programs post-treatment (97%). Conversely, no group consensus was observed for use of pre-treatment swallow evaluations, frequency of service provision, and content of therapy sessions. Variation in clinical decision making was noted in use of prophylactic feeding tubes and number of patients taking nothing by mouth during treatment. No associations were found between years of experience and decision-making practices, nor were any associations found between practice setting and clinical decision making. Conclusion: Despite the growing body of literature outlining evidence-based treatment practices for HNC patients, clinical practice patterns among SLPs continue to vary widely resulting in inconsistent patient care across practice settings. As compared to prior similar data, increased alignment with best practices was observed relative to early referrals, implementation of prophylactic intervention programs, and intervention with the SLP during the period of HNC treatment.

Purpose Patients receive multiple bolus trials during a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) to assess swallow function, inclusive of narrowing within the pharyngoesophageal segment (PES). While differences in the narrowest and widest segments are visualized, the ratio of distention across boluses is not well understood. Method A retrospective review of 50 consecutive VFSSs with five boluses of varied viscosity and volume was performed. Still images at maximal PES distention were captured and scaled using a 19-mm disk. Measurements of the narrowest and widest segments were obtained, and a distention ratio was calculated. Studies were categorized by PES phenotype as normal, esophageal web, cricopharyngeal bar, or narrow PES. PES distention ratios were evaluated across bolus trials and within PES phenotypes using a mixed-methods repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results Of the 50 studies, there were 11 normal, 16 web, 10 bar, and 13 narrow PES. Quantitative differences were present for the narrowest ( p = .01) and widest ( p = .002) points across bolus volumes. No difference was present in distention ratio ( p = .2) across volumes. Evaluating the PES phenotype, web, normal, bar, and narrow PES distention ratios differed ( p = .03). Bar and PES narrow distention ratios were lower compared to that of the normal group ( p = .01 for normal vs. bar and p = .02 for normal vs. PES narrow). Conclusions PES distention ratio stability across varying bolus volumes and phenotypes suggests that a reduction in trials during a VFSS may permit an equivalent PES evaluation to traditional exams. Ultimately, this could improve our understanding and accurate diagnosis of PES dysfunction.