The use of low-energy laser (LEL) for the prevention of chemotherapy- and/or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in cancer patients: results from two prospective studies

Management of radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a real-life survey among 25 Italian radiation oncology centers

AIM

Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is the most frequent side effect in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with curative radiotherapy (RT). A standardized strategy for preventing and treating RIOM has not been defined. Aim of this study was to perform a real-life survey on RIOM management among Italian RT centers.

METHODS

A 40-question survey was administered to 25 radiation oncologists working in 25 different RT centers across Italy.

RESULTS

A total of 1554 HNC patients have been treated in the participating centers in 2021, the majority (median across the centers 91%) with curative intent. Median treatment time was 41 days, with a mean percentage of interruption due to toxicity of 14.5%. Eighty percent of responders provide written oral cavity hygiene recommendations. Regarding RIOM prevention, sodium bicarbonate mouthwashes, oral mucosa barrier agents, and hyaluronic acid-based mouthwashes were the most frequent topic agents used. Regarding RIOM treatment, 14 (56%) centers relied on literature evidence, while internal guidelines were available in 13 centers (44%). Grade (G)1 mucositis is mostly treated with sodium bicarbonate mouthwashes, oral mucosa barrier agents, and steroids, while hyaluronic acid-based agents, local anesthetics, and benzydamine were the most used in mucositis G2/G3. Steroids, painkillers, and anti-inflammatory drugs were the most frequent systemic agents used independently from the RIOM severity.

CONCLUSION

Great variety of strategies exist among Italian centers in RIOM management for HNC patients. Whether different strategies could impact patients' compliance and overall treatment time of the radiation course is still unclear and needs further investigation.

Twenty-year analysis of photobiomodulation clinical studies for oral mucositis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review the first 20 years of photobiomodulation (PBM) clinical studies for oral mucositis (OM) mitigation.

STUDY DESIGN

A scoping review screened controlled clinical studies. The PBM devices, protocols, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The first study dated from 1992, and the term "PBM" was first published in 2017. Public services, placebo-controlled randomized trials, and patients with head and neck chemoradiation were predominant among included studies. Prophylactic red intraoral laser protocols were mostly used. Comparing the outcomes of all protocols was unfeasible due to missing treatment parameters and nonhomogeneous measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The main barrier to optimizing clinical protocols of PBM for OM was the lack of standardization in clinical studies. Although PBM use is now globally present in oncology settings and generally marked by good outcomes reported, additional randomized clinical trials with well-described methods are necessary.

A phase Ⅱ prospective trial of photobiomodulation therapy in limiting oral mucositis in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer patients

Objective

This study aimed to compare the historical incidence rate of severe oral mucositis (OM) in head and neck cancer patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) versus a prospective cohort of patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT).

Methods

This US-based, institutional, single-arm, phase Ⅱ prospective clinical trial was initiated in 50 patients (age ≥ 18 years, Karnofsky Performance Scale Index > 60, with locally advanced HNSCC (excluding oral cavity) receiving definitive or adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). PBMT was delivered three times per week throughout RT utilizing both an intraoral as well extraoral delivery system. Primary outcome measure was incidence of severe OM utilizing both the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 4.0 (NCI-CTCAE) Grade ≥3 and the World Health Organization Mucositis Grading Scale (WHO) Grade ≥3 versus historical controls; secondary outcome measures included time to onset of severe OM following therapy initiation.

Results

At baseline, all patients included in final analysis (N = 47) had OM Grade 0. Average RT and CT dose was (66.3 ± 5.1) Gy and (486.1 ± 106.8) mg/m2, respectively. Severe OM was observed in 11 of 47 patients (23%, confidence interval: 12, 38). OM toxicity grade trended upward during treatment, reaching a maximum at 7 weeks (WHO: 1.8 vs. NCI-CTCAE: 1.7). Subsequently, OM grade returned to baseline 3 months following completion of RT. The mean time to onset of severe OM was (35 ± 12) days. The mean time to resolution of severe OM was (37 ± 37) days.

Conclusions

Compared to historical outcomes, PBMT aides in decreasing severe OM in patients with locally advanced HNSCC. PBMT represents a minimally invasive, prophylactic intervention to decrease OM as a major treatment-related side effect.

Is Low-level Laser Therapy a Candidate to Be a Good Alternative in the Treatment of Mucositis in Childhood Leukemia?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common side effect of systemic chemotherapy (CT) in cancer patients. The aim was to evaluate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of CT-induced OM children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was carried out in 40 pediatric patients 3 to 18 years of age, who were hospitalized for the diagnosis of leukemia and underwent CT between June 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. They were randomly divided into 2 groups with 20 cases in each group. The LLLT group was treated with GaAlAs diode laser (l): 830 nm (infrared), power: 150 mW, dose: 4.5 J/cm2 and the control group underwent bicarbonate treatment. Patients received intervention for 3 days. The grade of OM was clinically assessed by the World Health Organization (WHO) Common Toxicity Criteria Scale. Visual Analog Scale was used on the same days with OM grade to evaluate the pain status.

RESULTS

While there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of OM grade at the beginning of the treatment and on the first, second, fourth, and 11th days of the treatment, the average OM grade of the LLLT group was found to be statistically significantly lower on the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh days of the treatment. The Visual Analog Scale score of the LLLT group was statistically significantly lower compared with the control group at all examinations starting from the first day of treatment (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of oral OM that occurs in children after CT, both standard care and LLLT treatment improve the grade and pain of OM.

Extraoral photobiomodulation for prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic extraoral photobiomodulation (PBM) for the prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) on clinical outcomes and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC).

Methods

OOPSCC patients who received radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively randomized to two groups: prophylactic extraoral PBM and placebo. OM grade (NCI), pain (VAS), analgesia, and anti-inflammatory prescriptions were assessed weekly. Quality of life questionnaires (QoL) were performed at the first and last day of RT. Following RT, participants were evaluated quarterly for oncological outcomes follow-up.

Results

Fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The first occurrence of OM was observed at week 1, for the placebo group (p = 0.014). Later, OM onset and severity was observed for the PBM group, with first occurrence at week 2 (p = 0.009). No difference in severe OM incidence was observed (p > 0.05). Lower mean pain score was noted at week 7 for the PBM group (2.1) compared to placebo group (4.5) (p = 0.009). Less analgesics (week 3; p = 0.009/week 7; p = 0.02) and anti-inflammatory prescription (week 5; p = 0.0346) were observed for the PBM group. Better QoL scores were observed for the PBM group at last day of RT (p = 0.0034). No difference in overall survival among groups was observed in 1 year of follow-up (p = 0.889).

Conclusion

Prophylactic extraoral PBM can delay OM onset, reduce pain, and reduce analgesic and anti-inflammatory prescription requirements. Extraoral PBM was associated with better QoL. There was no evidence of PBM impact on oncological outcomes.

Trial registration

TRN:RBR-4w4swx (date of registration: 01/20/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06625-8.

Efficacy of Photobiomodulation in the Treatment of Cancer Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Oral mucositis is a debilitating complication of chemotherapy, characterized by erythema, ulcers and oedema of the oral mucosa. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Photobiomodulation in the treatment of oral mucositis using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis, and also to assess the quality of the results by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A comprehensive search of three databases, including Embase, Medline and Central, was performed to identify randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of Photobiomodulation in the treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. The primary outcome was reduction in the severity of oral mucositis. Secondary outcomes were pain relief, duration of oral mucositis and adverse effects. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, and random errors of the meta-analyses were detected by trial sequential analysis. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials with 398 participants were included in our analysis. Photobiomodulation significantly reduced the severity of oral mucositis when compared to sham radiation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93; p < 0.05). Sensitivity analysis by excluding trials with high risk of bias reiterated the robustness of our results (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48). Trial sequential analysis illustrated that the evidence from the meta-analysis was conclusive. The result of the meta-analyses with trial sequential analysis illustrated that Photobiomodulation is an effective therapeutic intervention for the treatment of oral mucositis, and the evidence gathered can be considered conclusive with a moderate level of certainty according to GRADE. Further trials are recommended to standardize the laser parameters required for the optimal effect.

Status of Treatment and Prophylaxis for Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is one of the most frequent complications in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). It is a type of mucosal injury associated with severe pain, dysphagia, and other symptoms, which leads to the interruption of RT and other treatments. Factors affecting RIOM include individual characteristics of HNC patients, concurrent chemoradiation therapy, and RT regimen, among others. The pathogenesis of RIOM is not yet fully understood; however, the release of inflammatory transmitters plays an important role in the occurrence and development of RIOM. The five biological stages, including initiation, primary damage response, signal amplification, ulceration, and healing, are widely used to describe the pathophysiology of RIOM. Moreover, RIOM has a dismal outcome with limited treatment options. This review will discuss the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical appearance, symptomatic treatments, and preventive measures related to this disease. We hope to provide a reference for the clinical treatment and prevention of RIOM in HNC patients after RT.

Effectiveness of low level laser therapy versus cryotherapy in cancer patients with oral mucositis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to analyze the relative effects of low level laser therapy (LLLT) and/or cryotherapy in cancer patients with oral mucositis (OM).

METHODS

This literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) up to 2020. Only randomized control trials which involved comparisons of groups receiving the interventions of combined cryotherapy and LLLT, LLLT, cryotherapy and usual care (the control group) in patients with cancer were eligible for inclusion. The effect sizes are presented as odds ratios for the occurrence of severe, moderate and none/mild OM. The mixed treatment comparison was conducted using generalized linear mixed models to analyze the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The critical appraisal was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I² statistics, and publication bias was evaluated by constructing a funnel plot.

RESULTS

Twenty-six randomized controlled trials with a total enrollment of 1830 cancer patients with OM were included. The outcome of none/mild OM is desirable, and odds ratios of more than 1 favor the intervention group. Moderate and severe OM are defined as adverse outcomes, and ORs less than 1 favor the intervention group. The treatment effects of the combined cryotherapy and LLLT were better than those of usual care for none/mild and severe OM (ORs = 106.23 [95% CI = 12.15 to 929.17] and 0.01 [95% CI = 0 to 0.57], respectively). Treatment effects with cryotherapy alone and LLLT alone were better than those with usual care for none/mild and severe OM (ORs = 3.13 [95%CI = 1.56 to 6.27]; ORs = 7.56 [95%CI = 3.84 to 14.88] and 0.25 [95%CI = 0.11 to 0.54]; ORs = 0.13 [95%CI = 0.07 to 0.24], respectively). Nevertheless, for patients with none/mild OM, treatment effects with combined use of cryotherapy and LLLT were better than those with only LLT or cryotherapy (ORs = 14.06 [95%CI = 1.79 to 110.30] and 33.95 [95%CI = 3.50 to 329.65], respectively). For patients with moderate OM, treatment effect did not reach statistical significance among comparisons. The limitations include the wide variability in treatment protocols and the non-uniform outcome measurements across the studies examined.

CONCLUSION

Compared with no intervention, the treatment effects of combined cryotherapy and LLLT, laser alone, and cryotherapy alone are beneficial for the reduction of severe OM. There is no difference in treatment effects among cryotherapy and/or LLLT intervention in cancer patients with moderate OM. Results of this study provide an implicative basis for LLLT and cryotherapy as viable interventions that can significantly improve severe OM.

Impact of oral mucositis on quality of life in patients undergoing oncological treatment: a systematic review

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the most prominent side effects of cancer treatment and is believed to have a significant impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the affected patients. However, measurements for the investigation of OM is plagued by heterogeneity in symptoms that varies with the type of cancer or the treatment. We aimed to carry out a qualitative assessment of the current evidence on the impact of OM on QoL in patients undergoing oncologic treatment. A systematic search for studies evaluating the impact of OM on QoL was performed in MEDLINE and Embase databases from inception to December 2018 using the MeSH terms for the keywords “Antineoplastic”, “Stomatitis”, and “Quality of life”. Studies were initially assessed based on the selection criteria and underwent a selection process based on the title and abstract followed by a full text review. Data extraction was performed into a standardized data collection form to collect data pertaining to the author/year, study design, study characteristics, mucositis assessment, QoL assessment and results. A qualitative assessment was performed. A total of 459 articles were selected after removal of duplicates. Following the full text review, only ten articles qualified for the systematic review based on the selection criteria. Several studies have identified a correlation between the severity of mucositis and reduction in QoL. The impact of OM on QoL extend beyond the local oral complications and has been shown to affect the physical, emotional, and psychological functional domains. However, heterogeneity in the study parameters and evaluation (cancer types, treatment regimens, chosen time points (during or after therapy) and the instruments used for QoL measurements) does not permit a robust assessment of the impact of OM on QoL. A standardized approach to the measurement of oral mucositis and evaluation of QoL is required to enhance the utility of QoL data in patients afflicted with oral mucositis following cancer treatment.

Tumor safety and side effects of photobiomodulation therapy used for prevention and management of cancer treatment toxicities. A systematic review

Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), also known as low-level laser therapy (LLLT), has been increasingly used for the treatment of toxicities related to cancer treatment. One of the challenges for the universal acceptance of PBMT use in cancer patients is whether or not there is a potential for the light to stimulate the growth of residual malignant cells that evaded oncologic treatment, increasing the risk for tumor recurrences and development of a second primary tumor. Current science suggests promising effects of PBMT in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema and oral mucositis, among other cancer treatment toxicities. Nevertheless, this seems to be the first systematic review to analyze the safety of the use of PBMT for the management of cancer-related toxicities. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically. A total of 27 articles met the search criteria. Selected studies included the use of PBMT for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis, lymphedema, radiodermatitis, and peripheral neuropathy. Most studies showed that no side effects were observed with the use of PBMT. The results of this systematic review, based on current literature, suggest that the use of PBMT in the prevention and management of cancer treatment toxicities does not lead to the development of tumor safety issues.

Low-level laser therapy in treatment of chemoradiotherapy-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer: results of a randomised, triple blind, multicentre phase III trial

Background

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) also called Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) could reduce oral mucositis (OM) incidence and severity in head and neck cancer patients treated by chemoradiotherapy, however randomised data about efficacy and safety are missing with curative dose 4 J/cm².

Methods

This phase III trial was conducted in patients with oral cavity, or oro/hypopharyngeal cancers (stage III or IV). Patients were treated by lasertherapy on OM lesions grade ≥ 2 (4 J/cm² or placebo), during chemoradiotherapy and until recovery. Severity of OM (incidence and duration of grades ≥3) was used as primary endpoint and blindly assessed.

Results

Among 97 randomised patients, 83 patients (85.6%) could be assessed finally (erroneous inclusions, chemoradiotherapy interruptions) and 32 patients had no lasertherapy because of unreachable OM lesions. Randomisation and population characteristics (sex ratio, age, chemoradiotherapy procedures, toxicities incidence) were still comparable between the two LLLT/PBMT groups. An acute OM (grade ≥ 3) was observed in 41 patients (49.4%): 23 patients (54.8%) of the active laser group versus 18 (43.9%) in the control group (modified intend to treat, p = 0.32). Median time before occurrence of OM ≥ grade 3 in half of the patients was 8 weeks in active laser group (vs. 9 weeks in control group). However, 95% of patients exhibited a very good tolerance of LLLT/PBMT.

Conclusions

This study assessed LLLT/PBMT according to the Multinational Association of Supportive care in Cancer recommendations but lacked power. LLLT/PBMT was well tolerated with a good safety profile, which promotes its use in clinical routine for severe OM treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01772706.

Title: Laser Mucite ORL: Effectiveness of Laser Therapy for Mucositis Induced by a Radio-chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (LaserMucite).

Study Start Date: October 2008.

Primary Completion Date: October 2016.

Responsible Party: Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest – Paul Papin.

Principal Investigator: Eric Jadaud, M.D., Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest – Paul Papin.

Funding: French Ministry of Health, French national funding scheme (PHRC 2008).

A brief literature review and own clinical experience in prophylaxis of oral mucositis in children using low level laser therapy

OBJECTIVE

The article describes the experience of clinical application of low level laser therapy in pediatric oncology for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy complications such as oral mucositis.

BACKGROUND

For this purpose, for the first time in the world non-invasive laser blood illumination is used on the sinocarotid zone (on the projection of the common carotid artery symmetrically) and popliteal fossa in order to stimulate the phagocytic activity of leukocytes.

METHODS

25 children with different oncological diseases were given non-invasive laser blood illumination treatment (904 nm, pulse mode, 100 ns, 50-150 Hz, 5-7 W, 4 cm², 1-2 minutes daily per each procedure) 1-3 days before the beginning of chemotherapy. For the objectification of the results of treatment, the phagocytic activity of leukocytes was evaluated.

RESULTS

None of the children who underwent low level laser therapy course had any complications and no cases of oral mucositis developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical experience has shown high efficacy and safety of low level laser therapy aimed at preventing the development of complications of chemotherapy, primarily oral mucositis, and stimulating the phagocytic activity of leukocytes.

Variation of Energy in Photobiomodulation for the Control of Radiotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis: A Clinical Study in Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent and severe adverse effect of therapy against head and neck cancer. Photobiomodulation with the low-power laser is known to be effective against OM, but the diversity of protocols and the possibility of stimulating residual tumor cells are still obstacles. The present study aimed to compare two doses of laser energy delivered to the oral mucosa of patients under oncologic treatment for head and neck cancer, looking for differences in the control of mucositis, as well as in the frequency of tumoral recurrences. Fifty-eight patients undergoing radiotherapy were randomized into two groups, distinguished according to the energy delivered by laser irradiation, namely, 0.25 J and 1.0 J. The groups were compared according to frequency, severity, or duration of OM, as well as the frequency of tumoral recurrences. OM was significantly less frequent in patients receiving 1.0 J of energy, but the groups did not differ regarding severity or duration of OM. Tumoral recurrence also did not vary significantly between the groups. Photobiomodulation with a higher dose of energy (1.0 J versus 0.25 J) is associated with better control of radiotherapy-induced OM and does not significantly increase the risk of neoplastic recurrence.

The influence of dental care associated with laser therapy on oral mucositis during allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant: retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To verify decrease in frequency and severity of oral mucositis in patients submitted to dental care and laser therapy during allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant.

METHODS

Medical records of patients submitted or not to dental care associated with laser therapy during allogeneic transplant were reviewed. The following data were collected: sex, age, underlying disease, myeloablative conditioning regimens, prophylaxis for graft versus host disease, extension and severity of oral mucositis, pain in the oral cavity and when swallowing, diarrhea, need of peripheral parenteral nutrition and presence of acute graft versus host disease.

RESULTS

Significant reduction in extension and severity of oral mucositis, as well as in frequency of oral cavity pain, was observed in patients with dental care/laser therapy (p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences regarding frequency of diarrhea, pain when swallowing, and need of parenteral nutrition among the groups. Significant association was found between acute graft versus host disease and pain when swallowing (p < 0.01). Acute graft versus host disease was not associated with oral mucositis severity, oral cavity pain, and diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

Dental care associated with laser therapy reduces the extension and severity of oral mucositis in patients with allogeneic hematopoietic transplant. Further studies are necessary to clarify the isolate efficacy of laser therapy in these conditions, mainly regarding the influence of reduced oral mucositis on the graft versus host disease.

[Use of laser for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy and chemotherapy for head and neck cancer]

One of the complications of radiotherapy and chemotherapy is oral mucositis. Since the low energy laser is one of the most frequently recommended interventions by authors and international societies, the aim of this study is to review the scientific evidence on the use of lasers as a preventive and therapeutic in oral mucositis associated with treatment of cancer. We performed a literature search in PubMed and The Cochrane Collaboration Library, limiting the search to the last 20 years. We finally included 29 articles that contained 30 studies. Low energy laser phototherapy seems a promising intervention in both the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis associated with cancer treatment. Virtually all studies reviewed showed good results with no adverse effects and reductions in both incidence and severity of mucositis in all types of cancer treatments.

Efficacy of cryotherapy associated with laser therapy for decreasing severity of melphalan-induced oral mucositis during hematological stem-cell transplantation: a prospective clinical study

Melphalan followed by hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is the standard treatment for multiple myeloma and other hematopoietic neoplasms. However, high doses of melphalan cause severe oral mucositis (OM). The objective was to verify the efficacy of cryotherapy plus laser therapy on reduction of OM severity. HSCT patients undergoing melphalan chemotherapy (n = 71) were randomly divided into two groups according to OM treatment: oral cryotherapy performed with ice chips for 1 h 35 min followed by low-level laser therapy (InGaAIP, 660 nm, 40 mW, 6 J/cm(2) ) (n = 54) and laser therapy alone with the same protocol (n = 17). A control group (n = 33) was composed of HSCT patients treated with melphalan who received no specific treatment for OM. OM scores and clinical information were collected from D0 to D + 11. The cryotherapy/laser therapy group showed the lowest OM scores (maximum Grade I) and the lowest mean number of days (8 days) with OM in comparison with the other groups (p < 0.001). OM Grades III and IV were present with high frequency only in the control group. The association of cryotherapy with laser therapy was effective in reducing OM severity in HSCT patients who underwent melphalan conditioning.

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 laser and other light therapy for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of laser and other light therapies for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

A new recommendation was made for low-level laser (wavelength at 650 nm, power of 40 mW, and each square centimeter treated with the required time to a tissue energy dose of 2 J/cm(2) (2 s/point)) for the prevention of oral mucositis in adult patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation conditioned with high-dose chemotherapy, with or without total body irradiation. A new suggestion was made for low-level laser (wavelength around 632.8 nm) for the prevention of oral mucositis in patients undergoing radiotherapy, without concomitant chemotherapy, for head and neck cancer. No guideline was possible in other populations and for other light sources due to insufficient evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing evidence in favor of low-level laser therapy allowed for the development of two new guidelines supporting this modality in the populations listed above. Evidence for other populations was also generally encouraging over a range of wavelengths and intensities. However, additional well-designed research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of laser and other light therapies in various cancer treatment settings.

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.

Amelioration of oral mucositis pain by NASA near-infrared light-emitting diodes in bone marrow transplant patients

PURPOSE

This study seeks to investigate the use of extra-orally applied near-infrared phototherapy for the reduction of oral pain secondary to chemotherapy- and radiation therapy-induced mucositis in adult and pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients.

METHODS

Eighty HSCT patients were divided into regular (R) and low (L) risk groups, then to experimental (E) and placebo (P) groups, resulting in four groups (ER, EL, PR, PL). Experimental subjects received 670 (± 10) nm gallium-aluminum-arsinide light-emitting diode device for 80 s at ~50 mW/cm(2) energy density and power exposure of 4 J/cm(2). Placebo patients received the same procedures, but with a placebo phototherapy (identical device but <5 mW/cm(2) energy density). Patients received their respective light therapy once per day starting on the day of the HSCT (day 0) and continued through day +14. Blinded evaluators examined the patients three times per week and scored their oral tissues and patient-reported pain assessments at each evaluation utilizing the WHO, NCI-CTCAE, and OMAS scales.

RESULTS

Analysis of the mean scores at each observation demonstrate that the extra-oral application of phototherapy resulted in a significant reduction in patient-reported pain between the ER and PR patients (p < 0.05) at day +14 when graded via the WHO criteria. The ER and EL patients were improved in almost all other categories and assessment scales, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Phototherapy demonstrated a significant reduction in patient-reported pain as measured by the WHO criteria in this patient population included in this study. Improvement trends were noted in most other assessment measurements.

Efficacy of low-level laser therapy and aluminum hydroxide in patients with chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis

This study evaluated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and aluminum hydroxide (AH) in the prevention of oral mucositis (OM). A prospective, comparative and non-randomized study was conducted with 25 patients with head and neck cancer subjected to radiotherapy (RT) or radiochemotherapy (RCT). Twelve patients received LLLT (830 nm, 15 mW, 12 J/cm²) daily from the 1st day until the end of RT before each sessions during 5 consecutive days, and the other 13 patients received AH 310 mg/5 mL, 4 times/day, also throughout the duration of RT, including weekends. OM was measured using an oral toxicity scale (OTS) and pain was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS). EORTC questionnaires were administered to the evaluate impact of OM on quality of life. The LLLT group showed lower mean OTS and VAS scores during the course of RT. A significant difference was observed in pain evaluation in the 13th RT session (p=0.036). In both groups, no interruption of RT was needed. The prophylactic use of both treatments proposed in this study seems to reduce the incidence of severe OM lesions. However, the LLLT was more effective in delaying the appearance of severe OM.

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.

Effect of intraoral low-level laser therapy on quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Low-level laser therapy has been used to reduce complications of head and neck cancer treatment. The aim was to assess the impact of laser in the quality of life (QOL) of patients receiving radiotherapy.

METHODS

Sixty outpatients were randomly assigned into 2 groups. The laser group received applications and the placebo group received sham laser. QOL was assessed using the University of Washington QOL questionnaire. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparisons of overall QOL scores and Mann-Whitney test compared changes in domain scores.

RESULTS

A decrease in QOL scores was observed in both groups and the reduction in the laser group was significantly lower (p < .01). Changes in QOL scores regarding pain, chewing, and saliva domains were evident in the placebo group. Both health-related QOL and overall QOL were rated higher by patients who received laser therapy.

CONCLUSION

Laser therapy reduces the impact of radiotherapy on the QOL of patients with head and neck cancer.

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.

Differential responses of fibroblasts, non-neoplastic epithelial cells, and oral carcinoma cells to low-level laser therapy

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is used in the treatment of chemoradiotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced oropharyngeal mucositis (ORM). In head and neck cancer, tumor cells may lie in the LLLT irradiation field, and LLLT might promote tumor progression. We therefore investigated the effect of LLLT on proliferation, cell cycle distribution, and apoptosis in a human oral carcinoma cell line (SCC-25), non-malignant epithelial cells (BEAS-2B), and fibroblasts in vitro. The cell lines were subjected to LLLT on three consecutive days for 15 min. Cell proliferation was assessed using the MTT assay, cell cycle distribution by flow cytometry and propidium-iodide DNA staining, and apoptosis using an Annexin V-FITC assay. Controls were sham-treated, but not exposed to the laser treatment. LLLT treatment resulted in increased fibroblast proliferation (p < 0.001), whereas decreased cell proliferation was observed after LLLT treatment of BEAS-2B (p = 0.003) and SCC-25 cells (p < 0.001). In SCC-25 cells, an increased percentage of S-phase cells and decreased percentage of G1-phase cells were observed (p < 0.001). Moreover, a proapoptotic effect of LLLT was observed in SCC-25 cells (p = 0.02). LLLT did not exhibit a tumor-promoting effect in this in vitro study.

Oral mucositis prevention by low-level laser therapy in head-and-neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a phase III randomized study

PURPOSE

Oral mucositis is a major complication of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in head-and-neck cancer patients. Low-level laser (LLL) therapy is a promising preventive therapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of LLL therapy to decrease severe oral mucositis and its effect on RT interruptions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In the present randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, patients received either gallium-aluminum-arsenide LLL therapy 2.5 J/cm(2) or placebo laser, before each radiation fraction. Eligible patients had to have been diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, or metastases to the neck with an unknown primary site. They were treated with adjuvant or definitive CRT, consisting of conventional RT 60-70 Gy (range, 1.8-2.0 Gy/d, 5 times/wk) and concurrent cisplatin. The primary endpoints were the oral mucositis severity in Weeks 2, 4, and 6 and the number of RT interruptions because of mucositis. The secondary endpoints included patient-reported pain scores. To detect a decrease in the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis from 80% to 50%, we planned to enroll 74 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients were included, and 37 patients received preventive LLL therapy. The mean delivered radiation dose was greater in the patients treated with LLL (69.4 vs. 67.9 Gy, p = .03). During CRT, the number of patients diagnosed with Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis treated with LLL vs. placebo was 4 vs. 5 (Week 2, p = 1.0), 4 vs. 12 (Week 4, p = .08), and 8 vs. 9 (Week 6, p = 1.0), respectively. More of the patients treated with placebo had RT interruptions because of mucositis (6 vs. 0, p = .02). No difference was detected between the treatment arms in the incidence of severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

LLL therapy was not effective in reducing severe oral mucositis, although a marginal benefit could not be excluded. It reduced RT interruptions in these head-and-neck cancer patients, which might translate into improved CRT efficacy.

Clinical assessment and management of the oral environment in the oncology patient

The dental care of oncology patients is an important component of general dental practice. Oncology patients have additional requirements for their outpatient care in the dental office. Intense involvement of the general dental practitioner in the patient's overall plan of care is essential so that appropriate preventive and therapeutic strategies are followed prior to chemotherapy, radiation and other medical treatments. This paper provides an overview of the role of the dental practitioner in the pre-treatment workup and post-treatment maintenance of oncology patients, and discusses the complications which occur during the intensive and in-hospital phases of care, in the context of approaches that show promise for reducing or preventing these. The role of the general dental practitioner in the maintenance of oral health for the remainder of the patient's life is stressed, with evidence-based recommendations given for optimal use of home care products which support oral health and improve quality-of-life.

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.

Use of therapeutic laser for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis

Oral mucositis (OM) affects patients who are submitted to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) due to high doses of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The purpose of this investigation was to perform a comparative study of the frequency and evolution of OM among patients subjected to therapeutic laser and to the conventional therapy (use of mouthwash called 'Mucositis Formula'). The patients were subjected to a myeloablative conditioning regimen before the allogeneic HSCT. Twenty-two patients were selected and divided into 2 groups: group I was irradiated with InGaAlP laser (660 nm) and GaAlAs laser (780 nm), 25 mW potency, 6.3J/cm(2) dose, in 10-s irradiation time, followed to conventional treatment; group II was subjected only to the conventional treatment. Both World Health Organization (WHO) scale and the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS) were used to evaluate the results. Data were analyzed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon test, with p<0.05 considered as statistically significant. Group I presented a lower frequency of OM (p=0.02) and lower mean scores, according to WHO and OMAS scales (p<0.01 and p=0.01, respectively). In conclusion, laser reduced the frequency and severity of OM, suggesting that therapeutic laser can be used both as a new form of prevention and treatment of OM.