Semin Hear 2019; 40(02): 122-143
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1684042
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Monitoring Protocols for Cochlear Toxicity

Sherman G. Lord
1   e3 Midlantic Technologies Group, Colmar, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 April 2019 (online)

Abstract

The need for monitoring hearing and auditory function during drug therapy and other treatments that have the potential to cause hearing loss is well documented. Besides the main purpose of ototoxic monitoring, which is to provide feedback to the attending physician about the effects the treatment is having on the auditory system, it is also helpful in setting expectations for the patient and his/her family about the communication issues that may result from the drug therapy. This article will review tests available to an audiologist, both subjective and objective, that can be used to effectively monitor hearing levels and auditory function during treatment. Published guidelines and various ototoxic monitoring protocols are reviewed regarding tests administered, what constitutes a significant change in test results and how these findings are reported, and the impact significant changes may have on the course of treatment. Test protocols from different institutions are compared for both similarities and contrasts. Effective scheduling and test location are key to a successful monitoring program. Finally, the need to streamline ototoxic monitoring of hearing and auditory function to reduce test time and make it less stressful and tiresome on the patient will be considered.

Highlights

• Audiologic ototoxicity monitoring is not well established and continues to be an inconsistent practice for many adult oncology and infectious disease patients.[8]

• Audiologists should take the lead in efforts to implement audiologic ototoxic monitoring programs through education of medical personnel involved in the care of patients on ototoxic medication and on the impact ototoxic hearing loss may have on a patient's quality of life.

• As the survival rate for cancer patients continues to rise, the need for early identification, serial monitoring, counseling, and possible intervention with appropriate audiologic care and treatment is critical to maintain and improve the patient's quality of life.

• Baseline testing should be conducted prior to treatment. Modification to the conventional audiologic test battery is necessary to accommodate patient needs throughout treatment.

• EHF shows evidence of change due to ototoxicity before DPOAE testing and both before standard frequency audiometry.[5]

• EHF audiometry is the most important test in the AOMP and should be administered at the baseline assessment and all subsequent monitoring tests.

• Changes in DPOAE levels precede changes in hearing levels.

• Threshold shifts in adjacent frequencies indicate more systematic change and increase the likelihood of a true decrease in hearing sensitivity.

• Any significant change in hearing thresholds must be confirmed with a repeat test within 24 hours[5] and reported to the physician and medical team immediately.

• Physicians in charge of the medication regimen may state ahead of time that any changes in hearing level during treatment will not bring about a change in the treatment plan. In that case, Campbell recommended that only the standard frequency range be tested.[23]

• Noise exposure can exacerbate the ototoxic effects of both aminoglycosides and cisplatin.[23]

• Preexisting hearing loss affecting the high frequencies negatively affects the ability to utilize EHF audiometry and DPOAE as an effective monitoring tool.[23]

• Most changes in hearing occur in the octave preceding the highest audible frequency.[6]

• The presence of preexisting hearing loss is important in identifying risks, presenting them to the patient, and setting the stage for follow-up counseling and/or rehabilitation.[45]

• Effective grading scales that report the functional impact ototoxicity has on a patient need to be included in the AOMP.

• New audiometric tools should make testing more efficient and convenient for the patient and staff.


 
  • References

  • 1 Arslan E, Orzan E, Santarelli R. Global problem of drug-induced hearing loss. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999; 884 (884) 1-14
  • 2 Hammill TL, Campbell KC. Protection for medication-induced hearing loss: the state of the science. Int J Audiol 2018; 57: S67-S75
  • 3 Ganesan P, Schmiedge J, Manchaiah V, Swapna S, Dhandayutham S, Kothandaraman PP. Ototoxicity: a challenge in diagnosis and treatment. J Audiol Otol 2018; 22 (02) 59-68
  • 4 Cone B, Dorn P, Konrad-Martin D. , et al. Ototoxic medications. 2015 . ASHA Audiol Info Series. Available at: www.asha.org . Accessed February 28, 2019
  • 5 Fausti S, Bouchard K, Farrer S. , et al. Audiologic Management of Individuals Receiving Cochleotoxic Drug Therapy. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 1994
  • 6 Durrant J, Campbell K, Fausti S. , et al. Ototoxicity monitoring. American Academy of Audiology Position Statement and Practical Guidelines. American Academy of Audiology; 2009
  • 7 Fausti SA, Wilmington DJ, Helt PV, Helt WJ, Konrad-Martin D. Hearing health and care: the need for improved hearing loss prevention and hearing conservation practices. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42 (04) (Suppl. 02) 45-62
  • 8 Reavis KM, McMillan G, Austin D. , et al. Distortion-product otoacoustic emission test performance for ototoxicity monitoring. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (01) 61-74
  • 9 Fischel-Ghodsian N. Genetic factors in aminoglycoside toxicity. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6 (01) 27-36
  • 10 Talach T, Rottenberg J, Gal B. , et al. Genetic risk factors of cisplatin induced ototoxicity in adult patients. Neoplasma 2016; 63 (02) 263-268
  • 11 Konrad-Martin D, Poling GL, Garinis AC. , et al. Applying U.S. national guidelines for ototoxicity monitoring in adult patients: perspectives on patient populations, service gaps, barriers and solutions. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (Suppl. 04) S3-S18
  • 12 Garinis AC, Cornell A, Allada G, Fennelly KP, Maggiore RJ, Konrad-Martin D. Ototoxicity monitoring through the eyes of the treating physician: Perspectives from pulmonology and medical oncology. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (Suppl. 04) S19-S24
  • 13 Bass J, White S, Jones S. Monitoring ototoxicity in the pediatric oncology population. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. June 2013 . Available at: https://www.asha.org/articles/monitoring-ototoxicity-in-the-oediatric-oncology-population . Accessed February 28, 2019
  • 14 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2017. Available at: www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics . Accessed February 28, 2019
  • 15 Poling G. The five W's of ototoxicity monitoring: who, what, where, when, & why. Paper presented at the 26th Mayo Clinic Audiology Conference February 2016
  • 16 Knight KR, Kraemer DF, Winter C, Neuwelt EA. Early changes in auditory function as a result of platinum chemotherapy: use of extended high-frequency audiometry and evoked distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (10) 1190-1195
  • 17 Theunissen EA, Bosma SC, Zuur CL. , et al. Sensorineural hearing loss in patients with head and neck cancer after chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy: a systematic review of the literature. Head Neck 2015; 37 (02) 281-292
  • 18 Knight K. Ototoxic monitoring in children. 2015 . Available at: https://www.audiologyonline.com/audiology-ceus/course/ototoxicity-monitoring-in-children-26996 . Accessed February 28, 2019
  • 19 Campbell K. Audiologic monitoring for ototoxicity. In: Roland P, Rutka J. , eds. Ototoxicity. Hamilton, Canada: BC Decker, Inc.; 2004: 153-160
  • 20 Garinis AC, Kemph A, Tharpe AM, Weitkamp JH, McEvoy C, Steyger PS. Monitoring neonates for ototoxicity. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (Suppl. 04) S41-S48
  • 21 Konrad-Martin D, Gordon J, Reavis K. , et al. Audiological monitoring of patients receiving ototoxic drugs. Hearing and hearing disorders: research and diagnostics. Amer Speech Lang Hear Assn Spec Int Grp 2005; 6: 17-21
  • 22 Konrad-Martin D, Reavis KM, McMillan G, Helt WJ, Dille M. Proposed comprehensive ototoxicity monitoring program for VA healthcare (COMP-VA). J Rehabil Res Dev 2014; 51 (01) 81-100
  • 23 Campbell K. Pharmacology in audiology. In: Roeser R, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. , eds. Audiology: Diagnosis. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.; 2007: 167-168
  • 24 ANSI/ASA S3.6 2010 Specifications for audiometers. Accredited Standards Committee S3, Bioacoustics, Approved November 2, 2010, Amer Nat Stand Inst
  • 25 Wilmington DJ, Konrad-Martin D, Helt W. , et al. Ototoxicity monitoring: program approaches and considerations. Semin Hear 2011; 32 (03) 248-261
  • 26 Studebaker GA. Placement of vibrator in bone-conduction testing. J Speech Hear Res 1962; 5 (04) 321-331
  • 27 King KA, Brewer CB. Clinical trials, grading scales, and the audiologist's role in therapeutic decision making. Int J Audiol 2018; 57: 19-28
  • 28 Fausti SA, Larson VD, Noffsinger D, Wilson RH, Phillips DS, Fowler CG. High-frequency audiometric monitoring strategies for early detection of ototoxicity. Ear Hear 1994; 15 (03) 232-239
  • 29 Dhar S, Hall J. OAEs and cochlear pathophysiology: children. In: Dhar S, Hall J. , eds. Otoacoustic Emissions: Principles, Procedures, and Protocols. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2012: 103-133
  • 30 Bass JK, Bhagat SP. Challenges in ototoxicity monitoring in the pediatric oncology population. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (08) 760-774 , quiz 782–783
  • 31 Hornsby B, Mueller HG. Monosyllabic word testing: five simple steps to improve accuracy and efficiency. 2013. Available at: https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/word-recognition-testing-puzzling-disconnect-11978 . Accessed February 28, 2019
  • 32 Brooks B, Knight K. Ototoxicity monitoring in children treated with platinum chemotherapy. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (Suppl. 04) S34-S40
  • 33 Margolis R, Hunter L. Tympanometry: basic principles and clinical applications. In: Musiek F, Rintelmann W. , eds. Contemporary Perspectives in Hearing Assessment. London: Pearson; 1999: 85-126
  • 34 Clark J, Roeser R, Mendrygal M. Middle ear measures. In: Roeser R, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. , eds. Audiology: Diagnosis. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.; 2007: 380-399
  • 35 Leigh-Paffenroth E, Reavis K, Gordon J. , et al. Objective measures of ototoxicity. hearing and hearing disorders: research and diagnostics. Amer Speech Lang Hear Assn Spec Int Grp 2005; 6: 10-16
  • 36 Dreisbach L, Zettner E, Chang Liu M, Meuel Fernhoff C, MacPhee I, Boothroyd A. High-frequency distortion-product otoacoustic emission repeatability in a patient population. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (01) 85-100
  • 37 Konrad-Martin D, Knight K, McMillan GP, Dreisbach LE, Nelson E, Dille M. Long-term variability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in infants and children and its relation to pediatric ototoxicity monitoring. Ear Hear 2017
  • 38 Reavis KM, Phillips DS, Fausti SA. , et al. Factors affecting sensitivity of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions to ototoxic hearing loss. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (06) 875-893
  • 39 Gorga MP, Neely ST, Ohlrich B, Hoover B, Redner J, Peters J. From laboratory to clinic: a large scale study of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in ears with normal hearing and ears with hearing loss. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (06) 440-455
  • 40 Neely ST, Gorga MP. Comparison between intensity and pressure as measures of sound level in the ear canal. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104 (05) 2925-2934
  • 41 Fausti SA, Flick CL, Bobal AM, Ellingson RM, Henry JA, Mitchell CR. Comparison of ABR stimuli for the early detection of ototoxicity: conventional clicks compared with high frequency clicks and single frequency tone bursts. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (05) 239-250 , quiz 281–282
  • 42 Sininger YS, Hunter LL, Hayes D, Roush PA, Uhler KM. Evaluation of speed and accuracy of next-generation auditory steady state response and auditory brainstem response audiometry in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1207-1223
  • 43 National Cancer Institute. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v5.0. November 2017
  • 44 Brock PR, Knight KR, Freyer DR. , et al. Platinum-induced ototoxicity in children: a consensus review on mechanisms, predisposition, and protection, including a new International Society of Pediatric Oncology Boston ototoxicity scale. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (19) 2408-2417
  • 45 Durrant JD, Rodgers G, Myers EN, Johnson JT. Hearing loss--risk factor for cisplatin ototoxicity? Observations. Am J Otol 1990; 11 (05) 375-377