Mouth-washings with recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) do not improve grade III-IV oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing stem cell transplantation. Results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

Systematic review of growth factors and cytokines for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE

To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of growth factors and cytokines 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 15 new papers were identified within the scope of this section and were merged with 51 papers that were reviewed in the previous guidelines update. Of these, 14, 5, 13, 2, and 1 were randomized controlled trials about KGF-1, G-CSF, GM-CSF, EGF, and erythropoietin, respectively. For the remaining agents there were no new RCTs. The previous recommendation for intravenous KGF-1 in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioned with high-dose chemotherapy and TBI-based regimens is confirmed. The previous suggestion against the use of topical GM-CSF for the prevention of OM in the setting of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation remains unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the growth factors and cytokines studied for the management of OM, the evidence supports a recommendation in favor of KGF-1 and a suggestion against GM-CSF in certain clinical settings.

Potential Therapeutic Effects of Gut Hormones, Ghrelin and Obestatin in Oral Mucositis

Chemotherapy and/or head and neck radiotherapy are frequently associated with oral mucositis. Oral pain, odynophagia and dysphagia, opioid use, weight loss, dehydration, systemic infection, hospitalization and introduction of a feeding tube should be mentioned as the main determinated effect of oral mucositis. Oral mucositis leads to a decreased quality of life and an increase in treatment costs. Moreover, oral mucositis is a life-threatening disease. In addition to its own direct life-threatening consequences, it can also lead to a reduced survival due to the discontinuation or dose reduction of anti-neoplasm therapy. There are numerous strategies for the prevention or treatment of oral mucositis; however, their effectiveness is limited and does not correspond to expectations. This review is focused on the ghrelin and obestatin as potentially useful candidates for the prevention and treatment of chemo- or/and radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of a Mouth-Rinse with Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor in Patients with Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of a mouth-rinse with G-CSF (JiSaiXin, produced by NCPC Biotechnology Co., Ltd) in treating patients with chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (CIM).

METHOD

A consecutive cohort of patients with advanced cancers and CIM were treated with mouth-rinse G-CSF. All chemotherapy for patients with advanced cancers was adopted from regimens suggested by NCCN guidelines. The mouth-rinse with G-CSF at a dose of 150-300ug plus 100ml-500ml normal saline was started from the time of oral mucositis was confirmed and continuously used for at least 7 days as one course. After at least two courses of treatment, safety and efficacy were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 7 female and 7 male patients with advanced cancer and CIM recruited into this study, including 5 with colorectal, 2 with lung, 1 patient with gastric, 1 with cervical and 1 with pancreatic cancer, as well as 2 patients with diffuse large B cell lymphomas, 1 with nasopharyngeal and 1 with gastric cancer. The median age was 57 (41-79) years. Grade 1 to 2 myelosuppression was observed in 3/14 patients, and Grade 4 myelosuppression in 1/14. Adverse effects on the gastrointestinal tract were documented in 5/14 patients, and were Grade 1 to Grade 3. No treatment related death was documented. Regarding CIM, the median response time to mouth rinse of G-CSF was 2 (1-5) days, and all patients with CIM demonstrated a positive response.

CONCLUSIONS

Mouth-rinse with G-CSF proved to be safe and effective in treating patients with advanced cancers and CIM. However, further randomized controlled studies should be conducted to clarify the effectiveness of this treatment with other lesions.

Prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy

Oral mucositis is one of the most common side effects of cancer treatment (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy). It is an inflammatory process that affects the mucosa of the oral cavity, giving rise to erythematous areas in combination with ulcers that can reach a large size. The true importance of oral mucositis is the complications it causes - fundamentally intense pain associated to the oral ulcers, and the risk of overinfection. This in turn may require reduction or even suspension of the antineoplastic treatment, with the risk of seriously worsening the patient prognosis. This points to the importance of establishing therapeutic tools of use in the prevention and/or treatment of mucositis. The present study offers a literature review of all the articles published over the last 10 years referred to the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis associated to chemotherapy. Key words:Oral mucositis, management, prevention, treatment, chemotherapy.

Systematic review of cytokines and growth factors for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to review the literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of cytokines and growth factor agents for the prevention or treatment of oral mucositis induced by cancer chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for 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, No guideline possible.

RESULTS

Sixty-four clinical studies across 11 interventions were evaluated. A recommendation was made for the use of recombinant human KGF-1 (palifermin) at a dose of 60 μg/kg per day for 3 days prior to conditioning treatment and for 3 days post-transplant for prevention of oral mucositis in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and total body irradiation followed by autologous stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancies. A suggestion was made against using granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor mouthwash for the prevention of oral mucositis in the setting of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. No guideline was possible for any other cytokine or growth factor agents due to inconclusive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the cytokine and growth factor agents studied for oral mucositis, the evidence only supports use of palifermin in the specific population listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on other cytokine and growth factor interventions and in other cancer treatment settings.

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.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), 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 1 June 2010) 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

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

The Role of Supportive Therapy in the Era of Modern Adjuvant Treatment - Current and Future Tools

Recent advances in adjuvant treatment of breast cancer have improved progression-free and overall survival. Optimal management of treatment-induced side effects has therefore gained further importance. This review cannot provide a comprehensive overview of treatment-related toxicity and its management, but focuses on important new developments in the field of supportive therapy. Erythropoietins, while highly effective in treating chemotherapy-induced anaemia, may have detrimental effects on outcome, and should only be used with the aim to reduce the number of whole blood transfusions. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were a prerequisite for development of dose-dense regimens, and are also necessary in many anthracycline/taxane combination regimens. A potential tumour-stimulating effect was not proven in solid cancers. For side effects of conventional chemotherapy, such as mucositis, nausea, or diarrhoea, regularly updated guidelines may improve symptom control. Overall, modern supportive treatment tools will further reduce treatment-related mortality and help increase quality of life.

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of mucositis

Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials involving 1353 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 10.49; granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.24; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Three of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA: however, more opiate was used with PKPCA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Palifermin: a keratinocyte growth factor that reduces oral mucositis after stem cell transplant for haematological malignancies

Mucositis occurs in < or = 98% of patients undergoing stem cell transplant for haematological malignancies and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with severe mucositis have more pain, more difficulty with daily activities such as talking and eating, and are more likely to have bacteraemia. Palifermin is a keratinocyte growth factor that has been shown to decrease severity and duration of mucositis with a concurrent decrease in patient-reported symptoms and use of narcotics and total parenteral nutrition. Research is ongoing into palifermin's potential ability to decrease graft-versus-host disease and improve reconstitution of functional T lymphocytes after allogeneic stem cell transplant, to hasten wound healing and to reduce mucositis following external beam radiation therapy in solid tumour patients.

Growth factors and cytokines in the prevention and treatment of oral and gastrointestinal mucositis

GOALS OF WORK

Growth factors and cytokines may be useful in preventing chemotherapy (CT)- and radiotherapy (RT)-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis. Two systematic reviews of the medical literature on growth factors and cytokines for the amelioration of CT- and RT-induced mucositis throughout the alimentary tract were performed by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology. The aim of these evidence-based scientific reviews was to critically evaluate the literature and create evidence-based guidelines for the use of growth factors and cytokines in the prevention or treatment of CT- and RT-induced mucositis.

METHOD

The two reviews covered articles on clinical trials from January 1966 through May 2002 and preclinical studies from June 2002 through May 2005, respectively. The systematic review process was based on a well-established method for evaluating scientific literature.

MAIN RESULTS

The number of articles in the first review was 29. In the second review, 23 articles were evaluated, 14 preclinical and 9 clinical studies. It was concluded from the first review that there was no sufficient evidence to provide any recommendations for clinical practice guidelines regarding growth factors and cytokines. From the second review, a guideline could be presented recommending the use of recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor-1 (palifermin) to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving high-dose CT and total body irradiation followed by stem cell transplantation for haematological malignancies. A guideline could also be provided suggesting that granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor mouthwash not be used for the prevention of oral mucositis in the transplant setting with high-dose CT and autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

These systematic reviews have provided clarity and shown exciting new results. Further studies will provide new options for this debilitating side-effect of cancer therapy.

Mucositis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a cohort study of methotrexate- and non-methotrexate-containing graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis regimens

Oral mucositis occurs in up to 75% of recipients of high-dose chemoradiotherapy conditioning regimens used for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). As a result of mucositis, narcotic analgesia and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) are commonly required after HSCT. Methotrexate, an antiproliferative graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis agent, impairs mucosal regeneration and worsens and prolongs mucositis. We assessed the effect of substituting sirolimus for methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis on outcomes associated with mucositis. Two patient cohorts undergoing allogeneic HLA-matched related donor peripheral blood stem cell transplantation with cyclophosphamide/total body irradiation conditioning were prospectively analyzed for mucositis severity and retrospectively reviewed for correlative outcomes. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of sirolimus/tacrolimus (ST) in the study group and tacrolimus/methotrexate (TM) in the control group. Thirty patients received ST and 24 patients received TM as GVHD prophylaxis between October 2000 and May 2003. Mild, moderate, and severe mucositis was noted in 37%, 57%, and 7% of the ST group and 8%, 42%, and 50% of the TM group (P = .0002). Less TPN was used in the ST group than the TM group (17% versus 43% of posttransplantation hospital days; P = .02). The total number of narcotic days was lower in the ST group in comparison with the TM group (median, 13.5 versus 17 days; P = .08). The time to first hospital discharge was shorter in the ST group compared with the TM group (median, 18 versus 22 days; P = .07). The substitution of sirolimus for methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis is associated with a reduction in mucositis severity. As a result, TPN and narcotic use are reduced, and hospitalization duration is shortened. Less toxic GVHD prophylaxis regimens without methotrexate may have a significant effect on patient quality of life, patient outcomes, and economic outcomes associated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

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.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches August 2003: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 1292 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.49; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Two of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKPCA.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

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.