[Prevention of radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis. Value of the prophylactic mouth rinsing with PVP-iodine solution]

Cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis: a critical review

Head and neck cancer represents one of the main oncological problems. Its treatment, radiotherapy and chemotherapy leads to mucositis, and other side effects. The authors reviewed high-quality evidence published over the last 25 years on the treatment of cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis. A Medline search for double blind randomized controlled clinical trials between 1985 and 2010 was carried out. The keywords were oral mucositis, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and head and neck. The different therapeutic approaches found for cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis included: intensive oral hygiene care; use of topical antiseptics and antimicrobial agents; use of anti-inflammatory agents; cytokines and growth factors; locally applied non-pharmacological methods; antioxidants; immune modulators; and homoeopathic agents. To date, no intervention has been able to prevent and treat oral mucositis on its own. It is necessary to combine interventions that act on the different phases of mucositis. It is still unclear which strategies reduce oral mucositis, as there is not enough evidence that describes a treatment with a proven efficiency and is superior to the other treatments for this condition.

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.

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.

Clinical evaluation of the effects of radiotherapy on oral mucosa and gingiva

Introduction:The use of radiotherapy, alone or in conjunction with surgical resection, is common in treating head and neck tumours. However, ionising radiation induces unavoidable changes in the surrounding normal tissues, causing severe complications. Therefore, we decided to study different effects of radiotherapy on gingiva and oral mucosa.

Methods and Materials:This prospective analytical study was performed on 30 patients with head and neck cancers referred to the radiotherapy department of Ghaem Hospital from March to October 2006. Data were collected by means of interviews, clinical examinations and patients’ medical file investigation. The impact of different dosages of radiation on gingiva and oral mucosa was investigated. Data analysis was performed using general linear model (GLM), Cochran and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests via SPSS V. 11.5 software.

Results:A direct relationship between increase in radiation dosage, irritation of oral mucosa, ulcer development and mucositis was observed. But there was no significant relationship between NUG (necrotising ulcerative gingivitis) and perlèche and radiation dosage. Periodontal index (PI), gingival index (GI) and papillary bleeding index (PBI) were increased, but due to limited time of study (6–7 weeks), no change in gingival recession was observed. Plaque index (PLI) decreased during treatment process because of oral hygiene instructions.

Conclusion:The oral and periodontal health status of head and neck cancer patients before and during radiotherapy has been described in this article. The authors believe that prevention or reduction of side-effects of radiation should be an integral part of treatment as they may have tremendous effect on the patient's quality of life. This study supports the need for dental assessment and treatment planning before radiation 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.

Radiation-related damage to dentition

Because of typical tissue reactions to ionising radiation, radiotherapy in the head and neck region usually results in complex oral complications affecting the salivary glands, oral mucosa, bone, masticatory musculature, and dentition. When the oral cavity and salivary glands are exposed to high doses of radiation, clinical consequences including hyposalivation, mucositis, taste loss, trismus, and osteoradionecrosis should be regarded as the most common side-effects. Mucositis and taste loss are reversible consequences, usually subsiding early post-irradiation, whereas hyposalivation is commonly irreversible. Additionally, the risk of rampant tooth decay with its sudden onset and osteonecrosis is a lifelong threat. Thus, early, active participation of the dental profession in the development of preventive and therapeutic strategies, and in the education and rehabilitation of patients is paramount in consideration of quality-of-life issues during and after radiotherapy. This Review focuses on the multifactorial causes of so-called radiation caries and presents possible treatment strategies to avoid loss of dentition.

Prevention and treatment of the consequences of head and neck radiotherapy

The location of the primary tumor or lymph node metastases dictates the inclusion of the oral cavity, salivary glands, and jaws in the radiation treatment portals for patients who have head and neck cancer. The clinical sequelae of the radiation treatment include mucositis, hyposalivation, loss of taste, osteoradionecrosis, radiation caries, and trismus. These sequelae may be dose-limiting and have a tremendous effect on the patient's quality of life. Most treatment protocols to prevent these sequelae are still based on clinical experience, but alternatives based on fundamental basic and clinical research are becoming more and more available. Many of these alternatives either need further study before they can be incorporated into the protocols commonly used to prevent and treat the radiation-related oral sequelae or await implementation of these protocols. In this review, the various possibilities for prevention and/or treatment of radiation-induced changes in healthy oral tissues and their consequences are discussed.

Mucositis reduction by selective elimination of oral flora in irradiated cancers of the head and neck: a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized study

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that aerobic Gram-negative bacteria (AGNB) play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of radiation-induced mucositis; consequently, selective elimination of these bacteria from the oral flora should result in a reduction of the mucositis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Head-and-neck cancer patients, when scheduled for treatment by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), were randomized for prophylactic treatment with an oral paste containing either a placebo or a combination of the antibiotics polymyxin E, tobramycin, and amphotericin B (PTA group). Weekly, the objective and subjective mucositis scores and microbiologic counts of the oral flora were noted. The primary study endpoint was the mucositis grade after 3 weeks of EBRT.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were evaluable. No statistically significant difference for the objective and subjective mucositis scores was observed between the two study arms (p = 0.33). The percentage of patients with positive cultures of AGNB was significantly reduced in the PTA group (p = 0.01). However, complete eradication of AGNB was not achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective elimination of AGNB of the oral flora did not result in a reduction of radiation-induced mucositis and therefore does not support the hypothesis that these bacteria play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of mucositis.

Prophylaxis of oral mucositis in irradiated head-and-neck cancer patients: a proposed classification scheme of interventions and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To identify, classify, and evaluate agents used in the prophylaxis of oral mucositis in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

Data sources included multiple databases and manual citation review of relevant literature. Based on the eligibility criteria, 59 studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers. Forty-two studies were included in the classification scheme, of which 15 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Data were extracted by duplicate independent review, with disagreement resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Overall, the interventions reduced the odds of developing severe oral mucositis, when assessed by clinicians, by 36% (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88). Subgroup analysis suggested that only the narrow-spectrum antibacterial lozenges were effective (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.86); however, the power of the aggregated data in the other classes may have been insufficient to detect differences. When the outcome was assessed by patients, no significant difference was seen in the outcome between the treatment and the control groups (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.56-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, interventions chosen on a sound biologic basis to prevent severe oral mucositis are effective. In particular, when oral mucositis is assessed by clinicians, narrow-spectrum antibiotic lozenges appear to be beneficial. Methodologic limitations were evident in many of the studies. Further research using validated measurement tools in larger, methodologically sound trials is warranted.