Prevention of mucositis in bone marrow transplantation: a double blind randomised controlled trial of sucralfate

Effects of various treatments for preventing oral mucositis in cancer patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common side effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with cancers. The prevention or treatment of OM in cancer patients is crucial in the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the randomized control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing and treating OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The prespecified primary efficacy outcome was the treatment effect of moderate to severe oral mucositis with 12 interventions. The outcome was moderate to a severe grade of OM.

RESULTS

This study included 55 RCTs with 3,552 participants. The results showed that honey significantly lowered the risk of chemo/radiotherapy-induced moderate to severe oral mucositis than placebo (OR: 0.01, 95%CI 0.00 to 0.45), followed by lignocaine (OR: 0.07, 95%CI 0.00 to 0.95). The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for honey were 0.95, followed by lignocaine (SUCRA, 0.81) and benzydamine (SUCRA, 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The honey is effective for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

Comparison of topical sucralfate with dexpanthenol in rat wound model

Wound healing is a dynamic process initiated in response to injury. There are many factors that have detrimental effects on the wound healing process. Numerous studies have been conducted for improving wound healing processes. Dexpanthenol is widely used to accelerate wound healing. Sucralfate is used for the treatment of peptic ulcers. We aimed to compare the efficacy of topical Dexpanthenol and Sucralfate in an experimental wound model in rats via histopathological examinations and immune histochemical determinations, as well, to evaluate their effects on EGF levels. Three different groups were formed: the Control Group, the Dexpanthenol Group and the Sucralfate Group. Full-thickness skin wounds were created on the back of each rat and isotonic saline was applied to the wounds of the rats in the control group, Bepanthol^® cream was applied in Dexpanthenol Group and 10% Sucralfate cream was applied in Sucralfate Group, once a day. On the 7th, 14th and 21st days the wounds were measured and seven rats from each group were sacrificed and the wounds were excised for histopathological examination. Sucralfate increased wound healing rates by increasing neovascularization, fibroblast activation, reepithelialization and collagen density, as well as dexpanthenol. Our study revealed that the dexpanthenol and sucralfate groups were better than the control group in terms of their effects on wound healing, however there was no statistically significant difference among these two groups. Sucralfate improves EGF expression in skin wounds and has positive results on skin wound healing comparable to dexpanthenol.

TOPICAL AGENTS FOR THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF ORAL MUCOSITIS

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To make a narrative assessment of the agents currently in use, with a particular emphasis on the topical agents that we frequently utilize in our practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The main method of this work is a review of literary sources. We reviewed the literature (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to support and explain the interventions we use in different cases of oral mucositis patients. We decided to combine our experience with evidence-based data.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Topical treatments alleviate and prevent oral mucositis. Topical medicines can assist maintain oral balance and moistness by modulating oral bacteria and replacing saliva.

Comparative prevention potential of 10 mouthwashes on intolerable oral mucositis in cancer patients: A Bayesian network analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a wide variety of mouthwashes currently available for the prevention of intolerable oral mucositis (OM) onset. Because of a lack of evidence from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the relative effects of these mouthwashes in intolerable OM patients remain unclear. This study compared the preventive effect of ten mouthwashes in intolerable OM.

METHODS

A literature search was performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and MEDLINE (PubMed) databases. Reports published from 1990 to 2019 focusing on mouthwashes for preventing OM were identified. Authors assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and followed the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses Statement. Authors estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

Thirty-six RCTs, with a total of 2594 patients, were included in the present study. Bayesian network analysis showed that honey (Odd Ratio [OR] 0.17, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.30), chamomile (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52), curcumin (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67) and benzydamine (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.54) mouthwashes were superior to placebo. Honey mouthwashes were more efficacious than chlorhexidine (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.92), sucralfate (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96) and povidone-iodine (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82) mouthwashes. Other mouthwashes showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the analysis of rank probabilities, chamomile, honey, curcumin and benzydamine mouthwashes may be the most advantageous in terms of the prevention of intolerable OM.

Effects of 9 oral care solutions on the prevention of oral mucositis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common, disabling, and severe early effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy that limits the effectiveness of anticancer therapy. The prevention and treatment of OM in patients with malignant tumors is an urgent problem in the field of anticancer therapy.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to collect published randomized control trials (RCTs) about the effects of different oral care solutions on the prevention of OM from inception to January 2019. We used the Cochrane Handbook to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs. Two of the authors independently extracted the articles and predefined data. Network meta-analysis was then performed using Stata 15.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RCTs involving 1861 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that chlorhexidine, benzydamine, honey, and curcumin were more effective than placebo (P < .05) and that honey and curcumin were more effective than povidone-iodine (P < .05). Probability ranking according to the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve showed the following treatments: curcumin, honey, benzydamine, chlorhexidine, allopurinol, sucralfate, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, povidone-iodine, and aloe.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary results indicate that curcumin and honey may serve as the preferred options for patients to prevent OM. The findings may offer an important theoretical basis for clinical prevention and treatment. However, this conclusion still requires an RCT with a larger sample size for further verification.

Current topical trends and novel therapeutic approaches and delivery systems for oral mucositis management

Oral mucositis (OM) is an extremely serious and challenging complication of chemoradiotherapy, which may limit the efficacy of cancer treatment. Complications related to OM include potential nutrition impairment, high economic burden, and negative impacts on patients' quality of life. Current therapeutic options with local traditional pharmaceutical formulations are largely focused on controlling symptoms, and only few agents are available for treatment. Several local supportive and palliative agents are used for the prevention of OM; however, a standard treatment for the disease has not been confirmed yet. The efficacy of treatment could be improved through the introduction of new medical agents with updated dosage forms that can enhance and optimize local drug delivery and create greater therapeutic effects with fewer side effects. The focus of this review was to provide clear and direct information about the currently available topical therapeutic agents in clinical practice used to cure and/or reduce the incidence of ulcerative symptoms of OM, excluding the associated pain and other coexisting complications such as bacterial and fungal infections. The review also provides recent evidences regarding agents that could be used as promising novel therapies in updated local delivering systems. This will support further encouraging options and approaches for the management of OM and will improve compliance that could be translated in better disease control and survival.

Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE

To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible.

RESULTS

A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositis-associated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the agents studied for the management of OM in this paper, the evidence supports a Suggestion in favor of topical morphine 0.2% in H&N cancer patients treated with RT-CT for the treatment of OM-associated pain.

Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is a major dose-limiting toxicity in head and neck cancer patients. It is a normal tissue injury caused by radiation/radiotherapy (RT), which has marked adverse effects on patient quality of life and cancer therapy continuity. It is a challenge for radiation oncologists since it leads to cancer therapy interruption, poor local tumor control, and changes in dose fractionation. RIOM occurs in 100% of altered fractionation radiotherapy head and neck cancer patients. In the United Sates, its economic cost was estimated to reach 17,000.00 USD per patient with head and neck cancers. This review will discuss RIOM definition, epidemiology, impact and side effects, pathogenesis, scoring scales, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

Preventive Intervention Possibilities in Radiotherapy- and Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis: Results of Meta-analyses

The aim of these meta-analyses was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of oral mucositis in cancer patients treated with head and neck radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. A literature search was performed for reports of randomized controlled clinical studies, published between 1966 and 2004, the aim of which was the prevention of mucositis in cancer patients undergoing head and neck radiation, chemotherapy, or chemoradiation. The control group consisted of a placebo, no intervention, or another intervention group. Mucositis was scored by either the WHO, the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) score, or the absence or presence of ulcerations, or the presence or absence of grades 3 and 4 mucositis. The meta-analyses included 45 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, in which 8 different interventions were evaluated: i.e., local application of chlorhexidine; iseganan; PTA (polymyxin E, tobramycine, and amphotericin B); granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF/G-CSF); oral cooling; sucralfate and glutamine; and systemic administration of amifostine and GM-CSF/G-CSF. Four interventions showed a significant preventive effect on the development or severity of oral mucositis: PTA with an odds ratio (OR) = 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39–0.96); GM-CSF, OR = 0.53 (CI: 0.33–0.87); oral cooling, OR = 0.3 (CI: 0.16–0.56); and amifostine, OR = 0.37 (CI: 0.15–0.89). To date, no single intervention completely prevents oral mucositis, so combined preventive therapy strategies seem to be required to ensure more successful outcomes.

Efficacy of Sucralfate Mouth Wash in Prevention of 5-fluorouracil Induced Oral Mucositis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Sucralfate has been used for the prevention and treatment of radiotherapy- and chemotherapy-induced stomatitis and mucositis in a number of studies, but the results are contradictory. To answer such discrepancies, the present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of sucralfate mouthwash in prevention of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-induced oral mucositis in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Patients with gastrointestinal cancers receiving 5-FU-based chemotherapy regimens were included in this randomized, blinded, controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either sucralfate mouthwash (every 6 h) or placebo. The patients were visited at fifth and tenth day of trial; the presence and severity of oral mucositis and the intensity of pain were assessed. The patients receiving sucralfate experienced lower frequency and severity of mucositis (76% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.005 and 84 vs. 38.5%, P < 0.001, respectively) and less intense pain (2.5 ± 2.2 vs. 5.08 ± 3.82, P = 0.004 and 1.33 ± 0.86 vs. 4.12 ± 3.5, P = 0.001, respectively) compared with the placebo group both at day 5 and day 10. Within the sucralfate group, a decrease in frequency and severity of mucositis was observed throughout the trial period, while in the placebo group no such effect was observed. Sucralfate mouthwash reduced the frequency and severity of 5-FU-induced oral mucositis in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies compared with placebo, indicating its efficacy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced mucositis.

Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.

Cancer treatment-induced mucositis pain: strategies for assessment and management

Mucositis pain is a major clinical problem associated with cancer treatment. Mucosal tissue injury is a dose-limiting side effect and also limits nutritional intake and oral function, resulting in weight loss and nutritional deficits for many patients. The pathophysiology of mucositis is thought to be a complex array of cytokine-mediated events, which begins with mucosal atrophy and eventually leads to the painful ulceration of the mucosa. This article reviews current research related to pain management for mucositis. Effective treatment for mucositis pain must be targeted at the various factors involved in the pain experience. Although a number of interventions aimed to prevent and treat mucositis have been studied, there is little evidence to recommend any one treatment modality. While current strategies for pain management rely on general treatment for acute pain, research developments are aimed at targeting the specific receptors and enzymes involved in mucositis. As these breakthroughs become available clinically, thorough assessment and timely directed interventions must be implemented in order to limit patient distress from mucositis. This article presents an assessment tool specific to mucositis pain, including physical, functional, and pain parameters.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ten interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Tratamento da mucosite em pacientes submetidos a transplante de medula óssea: uma revisão sistemática

OBJETIVO: Identificar as medidas terapêuticas para redução da gravidade da mucosite oral em pacientes adultos submetidos ao Transplante de Medula Óssea (TMO). MÉTODOS: Revisão sistemática nas bases de dados: LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE; CENTRAL (Cochrane Central) e DARE (Database of abstracts of reviews of effects), no período de 1972 a julho de 2010, utilizando os descritores mucositis, stomatitis e bone-marrow-transplantation. RESULTADOS: Identificaram-se 3.839 resumos, dos quais 22 foram incluídos na revisão sistemática que descreveram 14 intervenções tópicas e sistêmicas, dentre as quais oito com significância estatística para a redução dessa complicação. As terapias tópicas foram a crioterapia, clorexidine, glutamina, laser e Traumeel® e as sistêmicas, amifostine, Granulokine® e palifermin. CONCLUSÃO: A heterogeneidade dos resultados dessas intervenções e a falta de melhor elucidação para a prática assistencial indicam a necessidade de pesquisas mais precisas para identificar a efetividade de terapias tópicas para a reparação celular das mucosas.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Pediatric immunohematopoietic stem cell transplantation at a tertiary care center in Cape Town

INTRODUCTION AND STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive referrals of patients under 18 years of age undergoing immunohematopoietic stem cell transplantation to assess the influence of age, diagnosis, graft type and gender on survival. We also contrasted program activity and outcome to that reported from a state hospital in the same geographical area over a comparable period.

METHODS

Conditioning employed either a sequential combination of fractionated 12Gy whole body and 6Gy total nodal irradiation separated by 120mg/kg of cyclophosphamide in patients over 15 years of age. Alternatively, the latter agent was combined initially with oral busulphan and later the intravenous equivalent. Neuroblastoma cases were prepared using a different regimen. In allografts the harvested product underwent ex vivo T-cell depletion with the humanized version of anti-CD 52 monoclonal antibody designated Campath 1H. No additional immunosuppression was given except where matched unrelated volunteer donors were employed.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight procedures were carried out in 61 patients over a 6-year period. Of 11 with acute myeloid leukemia, 8 are alive and well whereas 8 of the 14 with the lymphoblastic variant have died. Of the remaining 12 with hematologic malignancy, all but 2 are alive. Ten of the 17 with aplasia are alive as are all with thalassemia or sickle cell disease. None of the four variables tested affected survival.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis indicates that the standardized preparative regimen, coupled with a now well-established immunosuppressive regimen, is as effective in patients under 18 years of age as in adults. Our analysis also indicates that in a resource-scarce or developing country, it is mandatory to limit high-risk and relatively expensive procedures to active teams that enjoy international accreditation, whether these be in the state or private sector.

Assessing and Managing Chemotherapy-Induced Mucositis Pain

Acute pain is the major clinical problem associated with mucositis. Mucosal tissue injury is a dose-limiting toxicity of many cancer therapies. Because the number of patients treated with combinations of high-dose chemotherapy agents is likely to increase, more patients are at risk for mucositis. Currently, no consensus exists regarding mucositis prevention, assessment, or treatment. Similarly, research is needed in methods to accurately assess and manage pain for mucositis. Multiple interventional approaches are needed to decrease the emotional and physical distress caused by acute oral pain and mucositis. An assessment tool that includes physical, functional, and pain parameters is presented. Although approaches to prevent and treat mucositis are increasing, appropriate assessment and timely directed interventions can minimize patient distress.

Palifermin Reduces Patient-Reported Mouth and Throat Soreness and Improves Patient Functioning in the Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Setting

Purpose

To describe patient-reported outcomes of mouth and throat soreness (MTS) and related sequelae on daily activities from a phase III study of palifermin in the autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) setting and to compare patient self-evaluations with clinicians' assessments of oral mucositis using objective scales.

Patients and Methods

Patients (n = 212) received palifermin (60 μg/kg/d) or placebo for 3 days before total-body irradiation (12 Gy), etoposide 60 mg/kg, and cyclophosphamide 100 mg/kg, and 3 days after HSCT. Patients completed a daily questionnaire (Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire [OMDQ]) evaluating MTS severity and its effects on daily functional activities. Patients' self-assessment data were compared with clinicians' assessments of oral mucositis using the objective scales.

Results

Palifermin reduced the incidence and duration of severe oral mucositis, as assessed by both clinicians and patients. Comparisons between patient and clinician assessments demonstrated that the average daily scores between mucositis grade and subjective (MTS) instruments were similar, although patients reported MTS onset, peak, and resolution earlier (1 to 3 days) than clinicians' assessments. Patients receiving palifermin reported statistically significant improvements (P < .001) in daily functioning activities (swallowing, drinking, eating, talking, sleeping) and required significantly less narcotic opioids (P < .001); improvement in the patient's overall physical and functional well-being was also reported. This was confirmed by the results of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment questionnaire.

Conclusion

These results support the clinical benefit of palifermin in the HSCT setting, providing evidence that a patient's self-assessment instrument (OMDQ) may serve as an alternative tool to assess oral mucositis severity in clinical trials.

A protective role for keratinocyte growth factor in a murine model of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced mucositis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the activity of palifermin (rHuKGF) in a murine model of mucosal damage induced by a radiotherapy/chemotherapy (RT/CT) regimen mimicking treatment protocols used in head-and-neck cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A model of mucosal damage induced by RT/CT was established by injecting female BDF1 mice with cisplatin (10 mg/kg) on Day 1; 5-fluorouracil (40 mg/kg/day) on Days 1-4, and irradiation (5 Gy/day) to the head and neck on Days 1-5. Palifermin was administered subcutaneously on Days -2 to 0 (5 mg/kg/day) and on Day 5 (5 mg/kg). Evaluations included body weight, organ weight, keratinocyte growth factor receptor expression, epithelial thickness, and cellular proliferation.

RESULTS

Initiation of the radiochemotherapeutic regimen resulted in a reduction in body weight in control animals. Palifermin administration suppressed weight loss and resulted in increased organ weight (salivary glands and small intestine), epithelial thickness (esophagus and tongue), and cellular proliferation (tongue and salivary glands).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of palifermin before RT/CT promotes cell proliferation and increases in epithelial thickness in the oral mucosa, salivary glands, and digestive tract. Palifermin administration before and after RT/CT mitigates weight loss and a trophic effect on the intestinal mucosa and salivary glands, suggesting that palifermin use should be investigated further in the RT/CT settings, in which intestinal mucositis and salivary gland dysfunction are predominant side effects of cytotoxic therapy.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred and two studies were eligible. One hundred and thirty two were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 71 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 5217 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, amifostine, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, chlorhexidine, clarithromycin, folinic acid, glutamine, GM-CSF, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, oral care, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline, prostaglandin, sucralfate, traumeel and zinc sulphate. Of the 29 interventions included in trials, 10 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing moderate and severe mucositis RR = 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.95) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), antibiotic paste or pastille demonstrated a moderate benefit in preventing mucositis RR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97), hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52), and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.91), 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.68). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, honey, oral care protocols, povidone and zinc sulphate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient experiencing moderate or severe mucositis over a baseline incidence of 60% for amifostine is 10 (95% CI 7 to 33), antibiotic paste or pastille 13 (95% CI 8 to 56), hydrolytic enzyme 4 (95% CI 3 to 6) and ice chips 5 (95% CI 3 to 19). When the baseline incidence is 40%/90% the NNTs for amifostine are 16/7, for antibiotic paste or pastille 19/7, for hydrolytic enzyme 5/3 and for ice chips 7/3. The general reporting of RCTs was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Chemotherapy- and Radiotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis: Review of Preventive Strategies and Treatment

Oral mucositis is a frequently encountered and potentially severe complication associated with administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Although many pharmacologic interventions have been used for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis, there is not one universally accepted strategy for its management. Most preventive and treatment strategies are based on limited, often anecdotal, clinical data. Basic oral hygiene and comprehensive patient education are important components of care for any patient with cancer at risk for development of oral mucositis. Nonpharmacologic approaches for the prevention of oral mucositis include oral cryotherapy for patients receiving chemotherapy with bolus 5-fluorouracil, and low-level laser therapy for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Chlorhexidine, amifostine, hematologic growth factors, pentoxifylline, glutamine, and several other agents have all been investigated for prevention of oral mucositis. Results have been conflicting, inconclusive, or of limited benefit. Treatment of established mucositis remains a challenge and focuses on a palliative management approach. Topical anesthetics, mixtures (also called cocktails), and mucosal coating agents have been used despite the lack of experimental evidence supporting their efficacy. Investigational agents are targeting the specific mechanisms of mucosal injury; among the most promising of these is recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor.

Mucosal damage: a major risk factor for severe complications after cytotoxic therapy

The oral and gastrointestinal mucosa is frequently damaged during chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with cancer, leading to a high incidence of mucositis (ie, oral, esophageal, lower gastrointestinal tract mucositis). Patients with mucositis often experience considerable pain and discomfort. Furthermore, neutropenic patients with mucositis have an increased risk of potentially life-threatening infections as well as prolonged hospital stays. Mucositis may also require that subsequent chemotherapy or radiotherapy doses be reduced, thereby potentially compromising the efficacy of cancer therapy. Standard care for oral mucositis is based on effective oral hygiene, appropriate analgesia, infection management, and parenteral nutrition when needed; few other approaches have been shown to be effective. The evaluation of new options to treat and prevent mucositis rather than control the symptoms is therefore an urgent priority. A comprehensive understanding of the complex pathobiology of mucositis will help to identify potential targets for new drugs. Promising investigational approaches have recently emerged. These include fibroblast growth factor-20, which is effective in animal models of chemotherapy/radiation-induced mucosal toxicity, and is being investigated in clinical studies. The candidate that is most advanced in terms of drug development is recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor (rHuKGF; palifermin), which in phase III clinical trials was shown to reduce the severity and duration of oral mucositis and improve clinical sequelae.

The effect of oral mucositis on morbidity and mortality in bone marrow transplant

Oral mucosal ulceration is a frequent complication in bone marrow transplantation, resulting from epithelial injury caused by cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation conditioning, as well as from pre-existing infection. Oral mucositis causes pain, interferes with patient nutrition, and can lead to systemic infection and other complications that increase patient morbidity and mortality; this complication also markedly increases the expense of bone marrow transplantation. A variety of interventions have been assessed for preventing oral mucositis or reducing the severity of mucositis and its sequelae. These include meticulous pretransplantation and ongoing mouth care, calcium phosphate solution, near-infrared light and lower-energy laser treatment, interleukin-11, sucralfate, oral glutamine, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor rinse, tretinoin, and keratinocyte growth factor; particularly promising results have been observed with use of the cytoprotectant/radioprotectant agent amifostine. Reduction in the severity and duration of oral mucositis and its sequelae in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation can have a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality and cost of care. Further systematic evaluation of approaches to prevention and management of oral mucositis is necessary to define optimal strategies in the transplantation setting.

Prevention and Treatment of Oropharyngeal Mucositis Following Cancer Therapy

Oropharyngeal mucositis is an acute and distressing toxic effect of chemotherapy and head and neck irradiation. This oral sequela significantly impairs the daily functioning and quality of life of patients. The biological basis of mucositis is quite complex, involving sequential interaction of chemotherapeutic drugs or irradiation on mitosis of proliferating epithelium, a number of cytokines, and elements of oral microbial environment. Various interventions based on biological attenuation have been tested for mucositis. Such interventions have been reviewed elsewhere; however, most reviews focus on biomedical outcomes. Little attention has been paid to mucositis outcomes with oral morbidity or psychosocial aspects. The purpose of this article is to review the current research studies on the prevention and treatment of oropharyngeal mucositis following chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and bone marrow transplantation with an emphasis on biomedical, oral symptomatic, and functional impairment outcomes. In addition, further avenues of mucositis management, including psychotherapeutic intervention and integrated and stage-based treatment approaches are discussed.

Oral and intestinal mucositis - causes and possible treatments

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, whilst highly effective in the treatment of neoplasia, can also cause damage to healthy tissue. In particular, the alimentary tract may be badly affected. Severe inflammation, lesioning and ulceration can occur. Patients may experience intense pain, nausea and gastro-enteritis. They are also highly susceptible to infection. The disorder (mucositis) is a dose-limiting toxicity of therapy and affects around 500 000 patients world-wide annually. Oral and intestinal mucositis is multi-factorial in nature. The disruption or loss of rapidly dividing epithelial progenitor cells is a trigger for the onset of the disorder. However, the actual dysfunction that manifests and its severity and duration are greatly influenced by changes in other cell populations, immune responses and the effects of oral/gut flora. This complexity has hampered the development of effective palliative or preventative measures. Recent studies have concentrated on the use of bioactive/growth factors, hormones or interleukins to modify epithelial metabolism and reduce the susceptibility of the tract to mucositis. Some of these treatments appear to have considerable potential and are at present under clinical evaluation. This overview deals with the cellular changes and host responses that may lead to the development of mucositis of the oral cavity and gastrointestinal tract, and the potential of existing and novel palliative measures to limit or prevent the disorder. Presently available treatments do not prevent mucositis, but can limit its severity if used in combination. Poor oral health and existing epithelial damage predispose patients to mucositis. The elimination of dental problems or the minimization of existing damage to the alimentary tract, prior to the commencement of therapy, lowers their susceptibility. Measures that reduce the flora of the tract, before therapy, can also be helpful. Increased production of free radicals and the induction of inflammation are early events in the onset of mucositis. Prophylactic administration of scavengers or anti-inflammatories can partially counteract or limit some of these therapy-mediated effects, as can the use of cryotherapy. The regular use of mouthwashes, mouth coatings, antibiotics and analgesics is essential, prior to and during loss and ablation of the epithelial layer. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or the use of laser light therapy may aid restitution and repair. Glutamine supplements may be beneficial in the repair/recovery phase.

Mucosal injury in patients undergoing hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation: new approaches to prophylaxis and treatment

Hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation is often associated with severe mucosal toxicity. The need for parenteral analgesics and parenteral nutrition are evidence of the severity of the problem in individual patients. However, the increased risk for systemic infection related to bacteremia associated with the breakdown of mucosal barriers is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality as well. There is a multitude of grading scales, demonstrating the lack of consensus among clinicians in this area. Multiple agents have been used prophylactically and therapeutically to address mucositis. While efforts have been less successful in the past, the advent of newer agents including amifostine, keratinocyte growth factor, transforming growth factor beta and interleukin-11 provides hope that this toxicity will be significantly decreased in the near future.

Oral mucositis: time for more studies

Oral Mucositis (OM) is a frequent cause of severe morbidity in patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The pathophysiology of OM involves direct cytotoxic effects, local inflammatory responses, and alterations in oral microflora. There are currently no approved agents for the prevention or treatment of OM. In this review we briefly describe current knowledge of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management of OM. We then discuss investigational agents being studied in OM with a particular focus on local antimicrobial agents, hemopoietic growth factors, and cytokines. Measures to reduce the incidence of OM and/or alleviate its clinical sequelae should be incorporated into all chemotherapy or radiotherapy studies.