A randomized trial of amifostine as a cytoprotectant for patients receiving myeloablative therapy for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Regulation of HMGB1 release protects chemoradiotherapy-associated mucositis

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common complication in cancer patients undergoing anticancer treatment. Despite the clinical and economic consequences of OM, there are no drugs available for its fundamental control. Here we show that high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), a "danger signal" that acts as a potent innate immune mediator, plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of OM. In addition, we investigated treatment of OM through HMGB1 blockade using NecroX-7 (tetrahydropyran-4-yl)-[2-phenyl-5-(1,1-dioxo-thiomorpholin-4-yl)methyl-1Hindole-7-yl]amine). NecroX-7 ameliorated basal layer epithelial cell death and ulcer size in OM induced by chemotherapy or radiotherapy. This protective effect of NecroX-7 was mediated by inhibition of HMGB1 release and downregulation of mitochondrial oxidative stress. Additionally, NecroX-7 inhibited the HMGB1-induced release of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-1β, and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1β, as well as the expression of p53-upregulated modulator of apoptosis (PUMA) and the excessive inflammatory microenvironment, including nuclear factor-kB (NF-kB) pathways. In conclusion, our findings suggest that HMGB1 plays a key role in the pathogenesis of OM; therefore, blockade of HMGB1 by NecroX-7 may be a novel therapeutic strategy for OM.

Commentary: The Pharmacological Antioxidant Amifostine—Implications of Recent Research for Integrative Cancer Care

Amifostine is a pharmacological antioxidant used as a cytoprotectant in cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It is thought to protect normal tissues relative to tumor tissue against oxidative damage inflicted by cancer therapies by becoming concentrated at higher levels in normal tissues. The degree to which amifostine nevertheless accumulates in tumors and protects them against cancer therapies has been debated. Guidelines have been published that direct its use in chemotherapy and radiation, taking into consideration the concerns of tumor protection. In this article, clinical studies of amifostine appearing since the publication of the most recent set of guidelines are reviewed. Randomized and nonrandomized trials of regimens involving chemo-therapeutic agents (chemotherapy, chemoradiation, conditioning regimens for bone marrow transplant) are discussed. Nineteen studies showed positive effects for amifostine reducing the level of side effects of these regimens, while 9 showed no effect and 1 had a questionable result. Clinically relevant levels of amifostine toxicity were observed in several studies, but subcutaneous administration may reduce such toxicity. Amifostine showed protection against mucositis, esophagitis, neuropathy, and other side effects, although protection against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity was not observed. No evidence of tumor protection was observed. Amifostine may enable populations unable to tolerate conventional cancer therapy to receive treatment of their cancers, even if some degree of tumor protection is eventually discovered. The authors discuss the implications of this research for patient populations seen in integrative cancer care centers and for research on phytochemical antioxidants such as vitamins and carotenoids.

Amifostine preserves osteocyte number and osteoid formation in fracture healing following radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Radiation is known to decrease osteocyte count and function, leading to bone weakening. A treatment strategy to mitigate these consequences could have immense therapeutic ramifications. The authors previously reported significantly decreased osteocyte count and mineralization capacity in a rat model of fracture healing after radiotherapy. They hypothesized that amifostine (AMF) would preserve osteocyte number and function in this model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six rats were divided into 3 groups: fracture, radiated fracture, and radiated fracture with AMF. Radiated groups underwent human-equivalent radiotherapy to the mandible before fixator placement and mandibular osteotomy. The AMF group received a subcutaneous injection before each dose of radiotherapy. After 40 days, mandibles were harvested for histologic processing. Quantification of osteocyte count (Oc), empty lacunae (EL), and osteoid ratio (osteoid volume [OV] to tissue volume [TV]) was performed and the results were compared using analysis of variance (P < .05).

RESULTS

Radiated fractures showed significantly decreased Oc, increased EL, and a decreased capacity to produce new osteoid at the fracture site as measured with OV/TV compared with nonradiated fractures. In mandibles treated with AMF, these metrics were not statistically different than the control, indicating a preservation of osteocyte number and function.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the hypothesis that AMF preserves osteocyte number and function, thereby preventing the pernicious effects of radiotherapy on the cellular environment of fracture healing. Based on these findings, the authors encourage future investigation of this promising therapy for use in the prevention of pathologic fractures and osteoradionecrosis.

Systematic review of amifostine for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the available literature from 1966 until December 31, 2010 and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of amifostine for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in cancer patients.

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. The body of evidence for the use of amifostine, 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, or no guideline possible.

RESULTS

Thirty papers were reviewed for evidence on amifostine as an intervention for oral mucositis. No guideline was possible for amifostine in any cancer treatment setting due to inadequate and conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Review of the amifostine studies for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis has found insufficient evidence to support its use in any cancer treatment setting for this purpose. Additional well-designed research is needed to clarify the role of amifostine as an intervention for oral mucositis.

Low-level laser therapy in the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced mucositis: 2012 state of the art based on literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the promising state of the art low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for preventive and therapeutic usage in oral mucositis due to cancer therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Photomedicine using LLLT is very effective with intraoral and extraoral devices in the management of oral mucositis, based on several studies including randomized control studies. A systematic review identified 33 relevant articles that were subjected to meta-analysis based on which laser parameters in routine practice are being defined. Meta-analysis showed that LLLT reduced risk of oral mucositis with relative risk (RR) 2.45 [confidence interval (CI) 1.85-3.18], reduced duration, severity of oral mucositis and reduced number of days with oral mucositis (4.38 days, P = 0.0009). RR was similar between the red (630-670 nm) and infrared (780-830 nm) LLLT. Pain-relieving effect based on the Cohen scale was at 1.22 (CI 0.19-2.25).

SUMMARY

No adverse side effects of LLLT were reported; hence, we recommend red or infrared LLLT with diode output between 10-100 mW, dose of 2-3 J/cm2/cm2 for prophylaxis and 4 J/cm2 (maximum limit) for therapeutic effect, application on single spot rather than scanning motion. Lesions must be evaluated by a trained clinician and therapy should be repeated daily or every other day or a minimum of three times per week until resolution. There is moderate-to-strong evidence in favor of LLLT at optimal doses as a well tolerated, relatively inexpensive intervention for cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis. It is envisaged that LLLT will soon become part of routine oral supportive care in cancer.

The effect of oral management on the severity of oral mucositis during hematopoietic SCT

Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent adverse effect of allogenic or autologous hematopoietic SCT. It results from direct toxic injury to the mucosal epithelial cells by the immunosuppressive regimen. Here, we compared the incidence and severity of OM between a group of 24 patients who received proper oral management during hematopoietic SCT and a group of 24 who did not. The oral management group received pre-hematopoietic SCT instruction on oral care and an oral examination in the clean room. Differences in the incidence and severity of OM between the two groups were examined statistically. OM was observed in 14 (58.3%) patients in the oral management group and 22 (91.6%) in the control group. The median of the OM score was 1 for the oral management group (range 0 to 3) and 2 for the control group (range 0 to 3). There was a significant difference in the OM score (P<0.05) and in the incidence of OM between the two groups (P<0.01). This study shows that oral management may decrease the occurrence of OM. Our results also suggest that it is important to include an oral management provider on the hematopoietic SCT team.

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.

Evaluation of current and upcoming therapies in oral mucositis prevention

Cancer chemotherapy has evolved from a few therapeutic agents in three drug classes to more than 50 drugs in over ten drug classes. With generally cytotoxic mechanisms of action, there is continued research interest in preventing and managing adverse events of chemotherapy. Although treatment-induced symptom management has made significant progress, most therapies lead to intolerable reactions that result in a dose reduction or discontinuation of therapy. Mucositis is a common adverse event that can occur after administration of systemic chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy leading to inflammatory lesions anywhere from the oral cavity to the GI tract. Although pathophysiologically similar, gastrointestinal mucositis and oral mucositis (OM) differ in terms of symptom presentation and offending therapies. The focus of the article will be on OM; gastrointestinal mucositis will be mentioned when therapy efficacy is relevant to OM. OM prophylaxis has been a subject of interest for at least the past 30 years, yet progress has been limited due to a lack of understanding of the condition. With the recent introduction of palifermin (Kepivance™), novel therapies continue to be developed that may significantly reduce the incidence, duration and/or severity of OM. In addition, outcomes including an improvement in patient quality of life, increasing treatment dose intensity or reducing healthcare costs may result from successful management of OM prophylaxis. This article will review currently available OM prophylactic therapies. Agents in preclinical or clinical development and natural supplements will also be discussed.

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.

Pharmacologic normal tissue protection in clinical radiation oncology: focus on amifostine

BACKGROUND

Radiation toxicity is an important problem that limits treatment intensity and adversely affects patients' quality of life. Amifostine is a cytoprotector that can reduce toxicity and potentially improve the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the role of amifostine in modern radiotherapy and compare and contrast with alternative approaches to reducing radiation toxicity.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search through Medline to identify randomized clinical trials pertaining to keyword 'amifostine'. We also consulted reviews, book chapters and selected articles regarding amifostine and normal tissue protection.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Amifostine is an effective normal tissue protector with level I evidence supporting its use in head and neck and gynecologic cancers but studies in other disease sites, although promising, are inconclusive. Further study is needed to demonstrate conclusively the benefits of wider amifostine use.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 clinical practice guideline update: use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants

PURPOSE

To update a clinical practice guideline on the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An update committee reviewed literature published since the last guideline update in 2002.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine reports met the inclusion criteria: palifermin and dexrazoxane, three reports (two studies) each; amifostine, 33 reports (31 studies); and mesna, no published randomized trials identified since 2002.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Dexrazoxane is not recommended for routine use in breast cancer (BC) in adjuvant setting, or metastatic setting with initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Consider use with metastatic BC and other malignancies, for patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) doxorubicin who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. Cardiac monitoring should continue in patients receiving doxorubicin. Amifostine may be considered for prevention of cisplatin-associated nephrotoxicity, reduction of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (alternative strategies are reasonable), and to decrease acute and late xerostomia with fractionated radiation therapy alone for head and neck cancer. It is not recommended for protection against thrombocytopenia, prevention of platinum-associated neurotoxicity or ototoxicity or paclitaxel-associated neuropathy, prevention of radiation therapy-associated mucositis in head and neck cancer, or prevention of esophagitis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Palifermin is recommended to decrease severe mucositis in autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT) for hematologic malignancies with total-body irradiation (TBI) conditioning regimens, and considered for patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic SCT with TBI-based conditioning regimens. Data are insufficient to recommend use in the non-SCT setting.

A pilot study of addition of amifostine to melphalan, carboplatin, etoposide, and cyclophosphamide with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric solid tumors-A pediatric blood and marrow transplant consortium study

Limited information is available regarding the use of amifostine in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Melphalan, carboplatin, etoposide +/- cyclophosphamide is a commonly used preparatory regimen in pediatric solid tumor HSCT. Therefore, we decided to determine the feasibility of the addition of amifostine (750 mg/m b.i.d. x 4 d) to melphalan (200 mg/m), carboplatin (1200 mg/m), and etoposide (800 mg/m) (level 1) and escalating doses of cyclophosphamide (3000 mg/m and 3800 mg/m, levels 2 and 3, respectively) followed by autologous HSCT. Thirty-two patients with a variety of pediatric solid tumors were studied. Seventeen patients were accrued at level 1, 9 at level 2, and 6 at level 3. Major toxicities during the administration of the preparatory regimen were hypocalcemia, emesis, and hypotension. Hypocalcemia required aggressive calcium supplementation during the conditioning phase. No dose limiting toxicities were encountered at level 3. Amifostine at 750 mg/m b.i.d. for 4 days can be administered with a double alkylator regimen consisting of melphalan (200 mg/m), cyclophosphamide (up to 3800 mg/m), carboplatin (1200 mg/m), and etoposide (800 mg/m) with manageable toxicities.

Oral mucositis and outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with hematologic malignancies

GOALS OF THE WORK

To assess the relationship between oral mucositis (OM) and adverse clinical and economic outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review study of 281 allogeneic HSCT recipients with hematologic malignancies was undertaken at a single academic center. OM extent and severity were assessed across eight oropharyngeal sites using a validated scale, which was scored as follows: no erythema/ulceration=0; erythema only=I; ulceration, one site=II; ulceration, two sites=III; ulceration, three sites=IV and ulceration, four or more sites=V. OM assessments began on the day of conditioning and continued twice weekly within 28 days or hospital discharge. Analyses examined the relationship between the worst OM grade and selected adverse outcomes, including days with fever, days of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), days of parenteral narcotic therapy, incidence of significant (common terminology criteria (CTC) grade 3 or 4) infection, mortality and inpatient days and charges.

MAIN RESULTS

The mean age of the study subjects was 41 years. Of the patients, 96% (n = 269) received total body irradiation and 76% (n = 214) experienced an OM grade of > or =II (i.e., ulceration). The worst OM grade was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with the number of days of TPN and parenteral narcotic therapy, number of days with fever, incidence of significant infection, time in hospital and total inpatient charges.

CONCLUSIONS

OM is associated with worse clinical and economic outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing allogeneic HSCT.

Amifostine in the management of radiation-induced and chemo-induced mucositis

INTRODUCTION

Mucositis is a significant complication of cancer therapy, with important clinical and economic implications. In June 2005, the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) conducted an evidence-based update review of the literature on mucositis. The goal of this literature review is to update previously published guidelines for the management of mucositis.

RESULTS

This article reports the findings of the subgroup charged with reviewing the literature related to amifostine.

Effect of amifostine on the cytotoxicity of daunorubicin and daunoxome in tumor and normal cells

Anthracyclines are powerful cytotoxic agents, used as first-line treatment of leukemias and many other tumors, but host-tissue toxicity is their main dose-limiting factor. However, their therapeutic effects depend not only on the toxicity, hence on the dose, but also on drug resistance. Among the mechanisms that can account for cell sensitivity to anthracyclines, there is an overexpression of drug transport proteins, like the transmembrane P-glycoprotein (PGP), the multidrug- resistance-related protein (MRP) and the lung-resistance-related protein (LRP). Attempts to reduce the toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents without affecting their efficacy have been made using liposomal anthracyclines or cytoprotective agents, as Amifostine. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the toxic effects of Daunorubicin, in normal or liposomal formulation, used in combination with WR1065, the active metabolite of Amifostine, against normal and tumor cells. In conclusion these data show that the preincubation with WR-1065 does not inhibit the drug toxic effect on blast cells and on tumor cell lines, independently by their multidrug resistance phenotype, but has a cytoprotective effect on stem cells causing a drug cytotoxicity reduction of 10-20%. This advantage is even higher using the liposomal formulation of DNR. Therefore, Amifostine can offer a chance of protecting normal cells from the toxicity of anthracyclines, in normal or liposomal formulation. The combination of liposomal anthracyclines with Amifostine can confer further advantages in management of leukemic patients, especially the elderly where treatment toxicity is a main problem. These patients may be candidates for alternative therapeutic strategies and the combination of DNX and Amifostine is an attractive treatment for these cases where a low nonhematological toxicity is required.

Genomic screening and complications of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: has the time come?

The occurrence of toxic complications following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is highly variable and dependent on a multitude of host, donor, and treatment factors. The increasingly broad indications for HSCT and the need to provide this treatment option to older and/or more debilitated patients emphasizes the importance of refining our methods of predicting and ameliorating these toxicities. Late complications (occurring after day 100) also pose a threat to quality of life after HSCT. Genetic polymorphisms in key molecular pathways in the host are likely to contribute significantly to the observed variability in the development HSCT-associated complications. Hepatic veno-occlusive disease and acute lung injury, two of the most serious organ toxicities that occur, represent useful paradigms for the identification of genetic polymorphisms in enzyme systems that modulate local and systemic responses to oxidant stress during transplant conditioning therapy. Ongoing studies in this area are providing clues to the prevention of adverse clinical outcomes based on the genetic milieu. This review of studies in HSCT that explore genetic risk factors for transplant complications indicates that significant progress is being made in this rapidly evolving area. However, further large-scale clinical and translational studies are needed before genomic screening can be widely used to individualize treatment.