Multi-institutional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a mucoadhesive hydrogel (MuGard) in mitigating oral mucositis symptoms in patients being treated with chemoradiation therapy for cancers of the head and neck

BACKGROUND

The objective of this trial was to determine how a mucoadhesive hydrogel (MuGard), a marketed medical device, would fare when tested with the strictness of a conventional multi‐institutional, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled study format.

METHODS

A total of 120 subjects planned to receive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for treatment of head and neck cancers were randomized to receive either MuGard or sham control rinse (SC) during CRT. Subjects completed the validated Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire. Weight, opiate use, and World Health Organization (WHO) oral mucositis (OM) scores were recorded. Subjects who dosed at least once daily during the first 2.5 weeks of CRT were included in the efficacy analysis.

RESULTS

Of 120 subjects enrolled, 78 (SC, N = 41; MuGard, N = 37) were eligible for efficacy analysis. Both cohorts were similar in demographics, baseline characteristics, primary tumor type, and planned CRT regimen. MuGard effectively mitigated OM symptoms as reflected by area under the curve of daily patient‐reported oral soreness (P = .034) and WHO scores on the last day of radiation therapy (P = .038). MuGard was also associated with nonsignificant trends related to therapeutic benefit including opioid use duration, and OM scores (WHO criteria) at CRT week 4. Rinse compliance was identical between cohorts. No significant adverse events were reported, and the adverse event incidence was similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing MuGard, a rinse marketed as a device, in a standard clinical trial format demonstrated its superiority to SC in mitigating OM symptoms, delaying OM progression, and its safety and tolerability. Cancer 2014;120:1433–1440. © 2014 Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals. Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

In a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, the mucoadhesive hydrogel MuGard proved to be superior to saline‐bicarbonate rinse in mitigating oral mucositis (OM) symptoms and delaying OM progression. MuGard was safe and well‐tolerated, and favorably affected the rate and incidence of ulcerative lesions, consistent with the patient‐reported outcomes.

Urinary morbidity with a modified peripheral loading technique of transperineal (125)i prostate implantation

PURPOSE

Analysis of urinary morbidity within the first 12 months following a modified peripheral loading technique for permanent transperineal transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided (125)I prostate implantation and comparison of urinary morbidity with various clinical and implant parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between October 1, 1996, and March 11, 1998, 87 patients with favorable, early stage prostate cancer were treated with permanent transperineal TRUS guided (125)I prostate implantation. A peripheral loading technique was utilized for source placement with 75-80% source distribution in the periphery and 20-25% source distribution centrally. A mean total activity of 38 mCi of (125)I was implanted (range, 19-66 mCi). The mean source activity was 0.43 mCi/source (range, 0.26-0.61 mCi/source) and the mean number of sources implanted was 88 (range, 56-134). The minimum prescribed dose to the prostate was 145 Gy. The median D(90), V(100), and V(150) were 152 Gy (range, 104-211 Gy), 92% (range, 71-99%), and 61% (range, 11-89%), respectively. The median follow-up time was 19 months (range, 12-29 months). Urinary morbidity was scored at 3 weeks and then at 3-month intervals for the first 2 years using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading system (scale 0-5).

RESULTS

Most patients developed at least minor urinary symptoms with frequency or nocturia being the most common. Overall, 79% (69/87) of patients experienced urinary morbidity with 21% (18/87) reporting no symptoms. The incidence of overall Grade 1 urinary morbidity was 37% (32/87); Grade 2 morbidity was 37% (32/87); and Grade 3 morbidity was 6% (5/87). There was no Grade 4 or 5 morbidity. The incidence of Grade 0 frequency/nocturia was 36% (31/87); Grade 1 was 33% (29/87); Grade 2 was 30% (26/87); and Grade 3 was 1% (1/87). Grade 0 dysuria was seen in 56% (49/87) of patients; 32% (28/87) had Grade 1; 10% (9/87) Grade 2; and 1% (1/87) Grade 3 dysuria. Most urinary symptoms started a few weeks after implantation and began to subside by 6 months. At 12 months, 22% (19/87) of patients had persistent urinary symptoms (78% Grade 0, 15% Grade 1, 3% Grade 2, and 3% Grade 3). The mean urethral point dose was 174 Gy (range, 99-315 Gy). The mean number of sources implanted correlated significantly with the likelihood of developing acute urinary morbidity (p = 0.03). The total activity implanted also correlated with the morbidity outcome dysuria (p = 0.01) with a threshold seen at 37 mCi. Urethral point dose, source activity, intraoperative TRUS prostate volume, D(90), V(100), V(150), patient age, pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, and T stage did not correlate with morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Permanent transperineal TRUS guided (125)I prostate implantation using a modified peripheral loading technique is associated with mild urinary morbidity that resolves in 78% of patients by 12 months. Grade 3 urinary morbidity was encountered in only 6% (5/87) of patients. Urinary morbidity may be related to the total number of sources implanted and/or the total activity implanted. Overall urinary morbidity was not correlated with urethral point dose, source activity, intraoperative TRUS prostate volume, D(90), V(100), V(150), patient age, pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, and T stage. The low incidence of urinary morbidity may be a consequence of our modified peripheral loading technique and/or the selection of patients with good-to-excellent preimplant urological parameters. Longer follow-up is necessary to assess biochemical control rates and long-term morbidity.

Simple look-up table of optimized dwell time intervals using a high-dose-rate remote afterloader for endovascular irradiation

PURPOSE

This article's objective is to develop a simple methodology deliver a uniform radiation dose to the wall of a narrow peripheral artery for preventing restenosis using a high-dose-rate (HDR) 192Ir remote afterloader.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Based upon published two-dimensional data such as anisotropy factors of an HDR 192Ir source calculated from the Monte-Carlo method, arterial wall doses at a close range from an HDR source may be easily calculated using the special formula suggested in Task Group Report No. 43 published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. An optimization procedure was used to calculate the optimized dwell times for delivering a uniform dose along arterial walls for various arterial diameters and lengths of lesions.

RESULTS

Based on lengths of the stenosis and diameters of arteries or angioplasty balloons, a set of simple look-up tables for optimal dwell time intervals of endovascular radiation treatment have been developed for the MicroSelectron HDR remote afterloader.

CONCLUSION

Doses for endovascular irradiation have been accurately calculated with anisotropy factors. For delivering uniform doses along the arterial wall, a set of look-up tables listed for optimal dwell times is available for the HDR remote afterloader.