The efficacy of sucralfate suspension in the prevention of oral mucositis due to radiation therapy

Topical sucralfate for treatment of mucocutaneous conditions: A systematic review on clinical evidence

Sucralfate is an aluminum salt of sucrose octasulfate, generally considered safe in terms of adverse effects. Systemic sucralfate is FDA-approved for the treatment of duodenal ulcers. Since 1991, topical sucralfate has been used in various mucocutaneous conditions, but it is not approved by the FDA yet. In this systematic review, the online databases were searched with appropriate keywords, and the papers were screened by the authors. After screening steps, the relevant articles were selected according to the inclusions and exclusions criteria. Finally, the full texts of 18 articles were included for final evaluations. In conclusion, topical sucralfate has some clinical benefit in several mucocutaneous conditions, including mucocutaneous inflammatory conditions (e.g., post-radiotherapy reaction, diaper dermatitis, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, etc.), mucocutaneous infectious disorders (e.g., peristomal wound reaction / Infection); ulcers; burns, and also pain relief.

Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE

To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible.

RESULTS

A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositis-associated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the agents studied for the management of OM in this paper, the evidence supports a Suggestion in favor of topical morphine 0.2% in H&N cancer patients treated with RT-CT for the treatment of OM-associated pain.

A novel formulation for radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis: Triamcinolone acetonide mucoadhesive film

Background

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) mucoadhesive films versus placebo as a preventive and therapeutic intervention of oral mucositis (OM) induced by radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients.

Materials and Methods

In this double-blind, randomized case-controlled clinical trial, 60 HNC patients were randomized to receive TA mucoadhesive films (n = 30) or placebo mucoadhesive films (n = 30) taken four times daily. Mucositis severity was assessed during the course of radiation therapy using the World Health Organization scales, and pain scores were assessed using visual analog scale. Repeated measures ANOVA was used for data analysis.

Results

Mean ± standard deviation age of the TA group was 58.53 ± 8.89 years and 60% were male, whereas in the placebo group, it was 56.46 ± 9.36 years and 56.7% were male (P > 0.05). The mean value of pain score was significantly reduced in the TA group (5.36 ± 1.29 vs. 2.20 ± 2.02) compared with the placebo group (5.34 ± 0.78 vs. 4.69 ± 0.77) during 4 weeks (P < 0.001); repeated measures ANOVA analysis showed that the mean value of grade mucositis was significantly reduced in the TA group (2.40 ± 0.49 vs. 0.96 ± 0.81) compared with the placebo group (2.36 ± 0.80 vs. 1.86 ± 0.93) during 4 weeks (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

TA film could be considered as an effective approach for reducing the mucositis grading and pain score in the patients with OM.

Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is a major dose-limiting toxicity in head and neck cancer patients. It is a normal tissue injury caused by radiation/radiotherapy (RT), which has marked adverse effects on patient quality of life and cancer therapy continuity. It is a challenge for radiation oncologists since it leads to cancer therapy interruption, poor local tumor control, and changes in dose fractionation. RIOM occurs in 100% of altered fractionation radiotherapy head and neck cancer patients. In the United Sates, its economic cost was estimated to reach 17,000.00 USD per patient with head and neck cancers. This review will discuss RIOM definition, epidemiology, impact and side effects, pathogenesis, scoring scales, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

Preventive Intervention Possibilities in Radiotherapy- and Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis: Results of Meta-analyses

The aim of these meta-analyses was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of oral mucositis in cancer patients treated with head and neck radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. A literature search was performed for reports of randomized controlled clinical studies, published between 1966 and 2004, the aim of which was the prevention of mucositis in cancer patients undergoing head and neck radiation, chemotherapy, or chemoradiation. The control group consisted of a placebo, no intervention, or another intervention group. Mucositis was scored by either the WHO, the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) score, or the absence or presence of ulcerations, or the presence or absence of grades 3 and 4 mucositis. The meta-analyses included 45 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, in which 8 different interventions were evaluated: i.e., local application of chlorhexidine; iseganan; PTA (polymyxin E, tobramycine, and amphotericin B); granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF/G-CSF); oral cooling; sucralfate and glutamine; and systemic administration of amifostine and GM-CSF/G-CSF. Four interventions showed a significant preventive effect on the development or severity of oral mucositis: PTA with an odds ratio (OR) = 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39–0.96); GM-CSF, OR = 0.53 (CI: 0.33–0.87); oral cooling, OR = 0.3 (CI: 0.16–0.56); and amifostine, OR = 0.37 (CI: 0.15–0.89). To date, no single intervention completely prevents oral mucositis, so combined preventive therapy strategies seem to be required to ensure more successful outcomes.

Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible.

RESULTS

A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

The use of MuGard™, Caphosol®and Episil®in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Introduction

Oral mucositis is common for patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Despite the significant detrimental sequelae associated, there is no consensus on the optimum mouth care regimen. This prospective audit aims to record mucositis and dysphagia toxicity and the level of analgesia prescribed when recent products: MuGard™, Caphosol®and Episil®are compared with our standard departmental mouth care regimen.

Methods

Patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced SCCHN at University Hospital Birmingham, UK were prospectively audited weekly for 8 consecutive weeks starting from week 1 of chemoradiotherapy from June 2009 until January 2011. Patients received either standard oral care regimen of aspirin, glycerin and sucralfate, or, MuGard™, Caphosol®or Episil®. Grade of mucositis, dysphagia and analgesia score were prospectively recorded using the common toxicity criteria v3·0.

Results

One hundred and four patients were included. There was no difference in the grade and duration of mucositis (p= 0·82), dysphagia (p= 0·99) or analgesia score (p= 0·61) for either MuGard™, Caphosol®or Episil®compared with standard oral care.

Conclusion

There is no evidence from this audit that Mugard™, Caphosol®or Episil®improves mucositis and dysphagia toxicity or the level of analgesia prescribed compared with our standard departmental mouth care regimen. Randomised trials comparing these approaches are required to detect any meaningful clinical benefit.

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.

Prevention and management of antineoplastic therapy induced oral mucositis

With the scientific advancements in the management of malignant diseases, the treatment is expensive and bears high morbidity in term of oral mucositis. It is a debilitating condition and has been researched extensively for its pathogenesis and treatment. Various treatment options include barrier forming, mucosal protectants, mouth rinses, growth factors, lasers and midline-sparing procedures. Some agents are used locally while others are administered systemically. Despite the availability of a wide range of treatment options for mucositis, a cost-effective treatment is yet to be evolved.

Wound healing in radiated skin: pathophysiology and treatment options

Ulcers in radiated skin continue to be a challenge for health care practitioners. Healing impairment in the setting of radiation-damaged tissue will most of the time lead to chronic wounds that reduce the patient's quality of life. In this review, we present an update of the pathophysiology of tissue damage caused by radiation that leads to chronic ulceration. We also explore the evidence available on the different prevention and treatment modalities that have been reported in the literature. The evidence for most preventive measures is inconclusive; however, sucralfate and amifostine seem to be the adequate recommendations for prophylaxis. As for treatment of ulcerated patients, the strongest level of evidence found was for the use of pentoxifylline, but proper trials are still scarce to be considered standard adjuvant therapy. Hyperbaric oxygen, cytokines and other growth factors and surgical interventions have shown some benefit in case reports and case series only. Other therapies show promise based on their mechanism of action but need to be tested in human studies and clinical trials.

Mucositis in the cancer patient and immunosuppressed host

Oral mucositis is a serious complication of cancer therapy and in severely immunosuppressed patients. In immunosuppressed patients, the signs and symptoms of infection often are muted because of limited host response, and accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment may be difficult. Prevention of mucosal breakdown, suppression of microbial colonization, control of viral reactivation, and effective management of severe xerostomia are all critical steps to reducing the overall morbidity and mortality of oromucosal infections.

Orofacial pain in cancer: part II--clinical perspectives and management

Cancer-associated pain is extremely common and is associated with significant physical and psychological suffering. Unfortunately, pain associated with cancer or its treatment is frequently under-treated, probably due to several factors, including phobia of opioids, under-reporting by patients, and under-diagnosis by healthcare workers. The most common etiology of cancer pain is local tumor invasion (primary or metastatic), involving inflammatory and neuropathic mechanisms; these have been reviewed in Part I. As malignant disease advances, pain usually becomes more frequent and more intense. Additional expressions of orofacial cancer pain include distant tumor effects, involving paraneoplastic mechanisms. Pain secondary to cancer therapy varies with the treatment modalities used: Chemo-radiotherapy protocols are typically associated with painful mucositis and neurotoxicity. Surgical therapies often result in nerve and tissue damage, leading, in the long term, to myofascial and neuropathic pain syndromes. In the present article, we review the clinical presentation of cancer-associated orofacial pain at various stages: initial diagnosis, during therapy (chemo-, radiotherapy, surgery), and in the post-therapy period. As a presenting symptom of orofacial cancer, pain is often of low intensity and diagnostically unreliable. Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of pain in cancer require knowledge of the presenting characteristics, factors, and mechanisms involved.

Histomorphometry and immunohistochemical features of grade I (WHO) oral radiomucositis

AIMS

The aims of this study were to describe the immunohistopathological and morphometric features of oral mucositis grade I (WHO).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten samples of oral mucositis were biopsied and submitted to histopathological, morphometric and immunohistochemical analyses (CD68, Ki-67 and p53). The samples were compared with the buccal mucosa of head and neck cancer patients before radiotherapy (NMCP), normal buccal mucosa (NM) and oral dysplasia (OD).

RESULTS

Epithelial thickness, area and perimeter were decreased in oral mucositis and inflammatory components, increased when compared with NMCP. CD68 immunoreactivity, near to the epithelium, was more evident in oral mucositis than in NMCP (P = 0.01). The Ki-67 counts were higher in oral mucositis than in NM and NMCP (P = 0.001 and P = 0.043, respectively), but without any difference with OD (P = 0.284). The p53 staining was present in all cases of mucositis and oral dysplasia, but negative in NMCP and NM.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral mucositis grade I (WHO) presented epithelial atypia and atrophy, increased inflammatory response, with relevant Ki-67 count and positiveness for p53.

Comparing pain control and ability to eat and drink with standard therapy vs Gelclair: a preliminary, double centre, randomised controlled trial on patients with radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis

GOAL OF THE WORK: Oral mucositis (OM) is a functionally destructive complication of aggressive head and neck cancer therapy, often resulting in intense pain, an inability to eat and drink and secondary malnutrition and dehydration. The barrier-forming properties of Gelclair have shown promise in relieving such symptoms. The aim of this randomised-controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of Gelclair, as compared to standard therapy, as a means of short-term symptom control for patients suffering from radiotherapy-induced OM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients, with radiotherapy-induced OM seen in two oncology centres in Devon, were randomised to either standard therapy (Sucralfate and Mucaine) or Gelclair and assessed over 24 h. Both treatments were taken four times during the 24-h period, 30 min before meals.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the Gelclair and standard therapy arms in terms of general pain (F = 1.512, df = 1, 17, ns). There did appear to be a trend towards pain improvement initially after the use of Gelclair, but this did not last for the full 24-h assessment period. There was no significant reduction in pain on speaking (F = 0.261, df = 1, 17, ns) nor an improvement in capacity to eat and drink, although the effects of standard therapy did appear to last longer than the Gelclair.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that Gelclair is no more effective than current standard practice in relieving the pain associated with radiotherapy-induced OM. Nevertheless, observations from this preliminary study warrant further investigation, with a view to shaping the way forward for head and neck cancer practice on a national level.

Emerging approaches for prophylaxis and management of oropharyngeal mucositis in cancer therapy

Oral mucositis is a common treatment-limiting side effect of cancer therapy that may have a significant impact on quality of life and on the cost of care. Oral mucositis is the most distressing complication of cancer therapy as reported by head and neck cancer patients, in patients receiving dose-dense myelosuppressive chemotherapy and in patients receiving haematopoietic stem cell transplant. Mucositis may increase the risk of local and systemic infection, particularly in myelosuppressed patients. Severe oral mucositis can lead to the need to interrupt or discontinue cancer therapy, and thus may impact cure of the primary disease. Current care of patients with mucositis is essentially palliative, and includes appropriate oral hygiene, nonirritating diet and oral care products, topical palliative mouth rinses, topical anaesthetics and use of systemic opioid analgesics. Emerging approaches for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis are developing based on an increasing understanding of the pathobiology of mucosal damage and repair. New interventions are expected to be administered based on the mechanisms of initiation, progression and resolution of the condition. The approval by the FDA of keratinocyte growth factor (palifermin; Amgen) in 2004 represents a new step in prevention of oral mucositis in stem cell transplant patients based on the increasing understanding of the pathogenesis of mucositis. Progress in the prevention and management of mucositis will improve quality of life, reduce cost of care and facilitate completion of more intensive cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy protocols. Improved management of mucositis may allow implementation of cancer treatment protocols that are currently excessively mucotoxic, but have potentially higher cure rates of the malignant disease.

Oral mucositis

Mucositis and xerostomia are the most common oral complications of the non-surgical therapy of cancer. Mucositis, a common sequel of radio- (DXR), chemo-(CXR) and radiochemo-therapy in patients with cancer, or patients requiring haemopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), has a direct and significant impact on the quality of life and cost of care, and also affects survival--because of the risk of infection. Apart from dose reduction, preventive and treatment options for mucositis are scarce, although multiple agents have been tested. Evidence suggests that cryotherapy, topical benzydamine and amifostine might provide some benefit in specific situations. The recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor Palifermin (Kepivance) was recently approved as a mucositis intervention in patients receiving conditioning regimens before HSCT for the treatment of haematological malignancies. A number of mechanistically based interventions are in various stages of development. Unfortunately, many other approaches have not been rigorously tested. This paper reviews the clinical features, prevalence, diagnosis, complications, pathogenesis, prophylaxis and management of mucositis.

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.

Oral complications of radiotherapy

Radiotherapy-induced damage in the oral mucosa is the result of the deleterious effects of radiation, not only on the oral mucosa itself but also on the adjacent salivary glands, bone, dentition, and masticatory musculature and apparatus. Biological response modifiers, cytoprotective drugs, salivary-sparing radiation techniques, and surgery have been introduced to combat and, more importantly, to prevent, the development of these complications. Radiotherapy-induced oral complications are complex, dynamic pathobiological processes that lower the quality of life and predispose patients to serious clinical disorders. Here, we focus on these oral complications of radiotherapy, highlight preventive and therapeutic developments, and review the current treatment options available for these disorders.

A guide to managing the pain of treatment-related oral mucositis

Oral mucositis is a common complication of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and can be a significant problem for patients undergoing cancer treatment or bone marrow transplantation. Frequently, there is a major adverse impact on quality of life, particularly with pain and interference with oral function. In patients who are immunocompromised or debilitated, this complication can become life threatening. Currently, there is no single intervention that completely prevents or treats oral mucositis. The object of this article is to provide an overview for the nurse of the evidence for several options that may be of value in managing the pain which is often associated with this condition.

Chemotherapy- and Radiotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis: Review of Preventive Strategies and Treatment

Oral mucositis is a frequently encountered and potentially severe complication associated with administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Although many pharmacologic interventions have been used for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis, there is not one universally accepted strategy for its management. Most preventive and treatment strategies are based on limited, often anecdotal, clinical data. Basic oral hygiene and comprehensive patient education are important components of care for any patient with cancer at risk for development of oral mucositis. Nonpharmacologic approaches for the prevention of oral mucositis include oral cryotherapy for patients receiving chemotherapy with bolus 5-fluorouracil, and low-level laser therapy for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Chlorhexidine, amifostine, hematologic growth factors, pentoxifylline, glutamine, and several other agents have all been investigated for prevention of oral mucositis. Results have been conflicting, inconclusive, or of limited benefit. Treatment of established mucositis remains a challenge and focuses on a palliative management approach. Topical anesthetics, mixtures (also called cocktails), and mucosal coating agents have been used despite the lack of experimental evidence supporting their efficacy. Investigational agents are targeting the specific mechanisms of mucosal injury; among the most promising of these is recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor.

Effect of oral sucralfate on late rectal injury associated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A double-blind, randomized trial

PURPOSE

To assess whether oral sucralfate is effective in preventing late rectal injury in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted across four institutions in Australia. Patients receiving definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer were randomized to receive either 3 g of oral sucralfate suspension or placebo twice daily. Data on patients' symptoms were collected for 2 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy was scheduled at 12 months after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 338 patients were randomized, of whom 298 had adequate follow-up data available for an analysis of late symptoms. Of the 298 patients, 143 were randomized to receive sucralfate and 155 placebo. The cumulative incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 2 or worse late rectal toxicity at 2 years was 28% for placebo and 22% for the sucralfate arm (p = 0.23; 95% confidence interval for the difference -3% to 16%). Seventeen percent of patients in the sucralfate group had significant bleeding (Grade 2 or worse) compared with 23% in the placebo group (p = 0.18, 95% confidence interval -15% to 3%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to bowel frequency (p = 0.99), mucus discharge (p = 0.64), or fecal incontinence (p = 0.90). Sigmoidoscopy findings showed a nonstatistically significant reduction in Grade 2 or worse rectal changes from 32% with placebo to 27% in the sucralfate group (p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

This trial demonstrated no statistically significant reduction in the incidence of late rectal toxicity in patients randomized to receive sucralfate. However, this result was considered inconclusive, because the trial was unable to exclude clinically important differences in the late toxicity rates.

Oral mucositis: a challenging complication of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy: part 1, pathogenesis and prophylaxis of mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a common sequel of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy in patients with cancer or patients requiring hemopoietic stem cell transplants. Mucositis has a direct and significant impact on the duration of disease remission and cure rates, because it is a cancer treatment-limiting toxicity. Mucositis also affects survival because of the risk of infection and has a significant impact on the quality of life and cost of care.

METHODS

This article reviews publications on the etiopathogenesis and prevention of oral mucositis accessible from a MEDLINE search using as key words, mucositis, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hemopoietic stem cell transplant, and oral.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the current available products, ice chips and benzydamine have the strongest scientific evidence of support for prophylaxis of mucositis.

Managing pain in mucositis

OBJECTIVE

To discuss pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches available to manage pain.

DATA SOURCE

Published journal articles, book chapters, clinical experience.

CONCLUSION

Pain management requires treatment directed at the various factors involved in the pain experience.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses need to assess pain daily and follow patients closely until mucositis resolves. Management targeted to specific dimensions of pain can improve the effectiveness of pain control.

Prevention and Treatment of Oropharyngeal Mucositis Following Cancer Therapy

Oropharyngeal mucositis is an acute and distressing toxic effect of chemotherapy and head and neck irradiation. This oral sequela significantly impairs the daily functioning and quality of life of patients. The biological basis of mucositis is quite complex, involving sequential interaction of chemotherapeutic drugs or irradiation on mitosis of proliferating epithelium, a number of cytokines, and elements of oral microbial environment. Various interventions based on biological attenuation have been tested for mucositis. Such interventions have been reviewed elsewhere; however, most reviews focus on biomedical outcomes. Little attention has been paid to mucositis outcomes with oral morbidity or psychosocial aspects. The purpose of this article is to review the current research studies on the prevention and treatment of oropharyngeal mucositis following chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and bone marrow transplantation with an emphasis on biomedical, oral symptomatic, and functional impairment outcomes. In addition, further avenues of mucositis management, including psychotherapeutic intervention and integrated and stage-based treatment approaches are discussed.

Oral mucositis: A challenging complication of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy. Part 2: Diagnosis and management of mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a common sequel of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy in patients with cancer or patients requiring hemopoietic stem cell transplants. Mucositis has a direct and significant impact on the duration of disease remission and cure rates, because it is a treatment-limiting toxicity. Mucositis also affects survival because of the risk of infection and has a significant impact on quality of life and cost of care.

METHODS

This article reviews publications on the diagnosis and management of oral mucositis accessible from a MEDLINE search using as key words mucositis, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hemopoietic stem cell transplant, and oral.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional care of patients with mucositis is currently essentially palliative, with good oral hygiene, narcotic analgesics, and topical palliative mouth rinses.

Radiation-induced mucositis: a randomized clinical trial of micronized sucralfate versus salt & soda mouthwashes

Oral mucositis is one of the major toxicities caused by radiation therapy (RT) treatments to the head and neck. The clinical efficacy of sucralfate (Carafate R) mouthwash for head and neck cancer patients (HNC) is not consistent across studies. In this study, it was hypothesized that if the particles in the original sucralfate suspension were micronized (i.e., < or = 25 microns) then the coating action of the mouthwash in the oral cavity would be enhanced. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of micronized sucralfate (Carafate R) mouthwash and salt & soda mouthwash in terms of the severity of the mucositis, the severity of mucositis-related pain, and the time required to heal RT-induced mucositis in patients with HNC. Severe mucositis and related pain can interfere with the ingestion of food and fluids, so patients' body weights were measured as well. All patients in this randomized clinical trial carried out a systematic oral hygiene protocol called the PRO-SELF: Mouth Aware (PSMA) Program. Patients who developed RT-induced mucositis anytime during their course of RT were randomized to one of the two mouthwashes and followed to the completion of RT and at one month following RT. Two referral sites were used for the study. Repeated measures occurred with the following instruments/variables: MacDibbs Mouth Assessment and weight. Demographic, disease, and cancer treatment information was also obtained. Thirty patients successfully completed the study. The typical participant was male (70%), married/partnered (70%), White (63%), not working or retired (73%), and had an average of 14.5 years of education (SD = 3.7). T-tests and Chi-square analyses with an alpha set at 0.05 were used to compare differences between the two mouthwashes. No significant differences were found in the number of days to onset of mucositis (i.e., 16 +/- 8.4 days). When patients had their worst MacDibbs score, (i.e., the most severe mucositis), there were no significant differences between the mouthwashes as to MacDibbs score, the RT dose received, or ratings of pain (upon swallowing). Similarly, at the end of RT, no significant differences were found between mouthwashes as to MacDibbs scores or ratings of pain (upon swallowing). At the one-month follow-up assessment no significant differences were found between the mouthwashes in MacDibbs scores or pain ratings (upon swallowing). The analysis of the efficacy of the two mouthwashes revealed no significant differences in the time to heal (in days) from the RT-induced mucositis. The findings from this trial provide important clinical information regarding cost analysis of RT mucositis management. Given that there is no significant difference in efficacy between micronized sucralfate and salt & soda, use of the less costly salt & soda is prudent and cost-effective.

Topical application of honey in the management of radiation mucositis: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pure natural honey on radiation-induced mucositis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer requiring radiation to the oropharyngeal mucosal area were divided in to two groups to receive either radiation alone or radiation plus topical application of pure natural honey. Patients were treated using a 6-MV linear accelerator at a dose rate of 2 Gy per day five times a week up to a dose of 60-70 Gy. In the study arm, patients were advised to take 20 ml of pure honey 15 min before, 15 min after and 6 h post-radiation therapy. Patients were evaluated every week for the development of radiation mucositis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading system.

MAIN RESULTS

There was significant reduction in the symptomatic grade 3/4 mucositis among honey-treated patients compared to controls; i.e. 20% versus 75% ( p 0.00058). The compliance of honey-treated group of patients was better than controls. Fifty-five percent of patients treated with topical honey showed no change or a positive gain in body weight compared to 25% in the control arm ( p 0.053), the majority of whom lost weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application of natural honey is a simple and cost-effective treatment in radiation mucositis, which warrants further multi-centre randomised trials to validate our finding.

Does sucralfate reduce early side effects of pelvic radiation? A double-blind randomized trial

STUDY AND METHODS: A double-blind placebo-controlled study randomized 108 patients to investigate the effect of sucralfate on gastrointestinal side effects of pelvic radiation.

RESULTS

Overall, pelvic radiation with the administered doses and fields and performed according to nowadays technical standards, was well tolerated. Comparison of the mean scores and the peak reactions for radiotherapy discomfort, diarrhoea and number of stools per day in the 80 evaluable patients showed no statistically significant difference between sucralfate and placebo.

CONCLUSION

Based on these results, the use of sucralfate can not be recommended as standard practice.

Comparison of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and sucralfate mouthwashes in the prevention of radiation-induced mucositis: a double-blind prospective randomized phase III study

PURPOSE

To compare granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) mouthwashes with sucralfate mouthwashes in the prevention of radiation-induced mucositis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Forty patients with radically operated head-and-neck cancer were randomly allocated to use either GM-CSF (n = 21) or sucralfate (n = 19) mouthwashes during postoperative radiotherapy (RT). All patients received conventionally fractionated RT to a total dose of 50-60 Gy in 2-Gy daily fractions during 5-6 weeks to the primary site and regional lymphatics. A minimum of 50% of the oral cavity and oropharyngeal mucosa was included in the clinical target volume. GM-CSF mouthwashes consisted of 37.5 microg GM-CSF and sucralfate mouthwashes of 1.0 g of sucralfate distilled in water. Both washes were used 4 times daily, beginning after the first week of RT and continued to the end of the RT course. Symptoms related to radiation mucositis and body weight, serum prealbumin level, and blood cell counts were monitored weekly.

RESULTS

Oral mucositis tended to be less severe in the GM-CSF group (p = 0.072). Complete (n = 1) or partial (n = 4) healing of mucositis occurred during the RT course in 5 patients (24%) in the GM-CSF group and in none of the patients in the sucralfate group (p = 0.049). Patients who received GM-CSF had less mucosal pain (p = 0.058) and were less often prescribed opioids for pain (p = 0.042). Three patients in the sucralfate group needed hospitalization for mucositis during RT compared with none in the GM-CSF group. Four patients (21%) in the sucralfate group and none in the GM-CSF group required an interruption in the RT course (p = 0.042). No significant differences in weight, prealbumin level, or blood cell count were found between the groups, and both mouthwashes were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

GM-CSF mouthwashes may be moderately more effective than sucralfate mouthwashes in preventing radiation-induced mucositis and mucositis-related pain, and their use may lead to less frequent RT course interruptions from mucositis. The present findings need to be confirmed before adopting GM-CSF mouthwashes in routine clinical use.

Defining clinically meaningful outcomes in the evaluation of new treatments for oral mucositis: oral mucositis patient provider advisory board

Oral mucositis (OM)-related outcomes constituting a meaningful clinical advance in bone marrow transplant patients were considered by an interdisciplinary panel. Meaningful outcomes are essential in product development for OM, a condition without effective prevention or treatment. The most important outcomes to measure, the feasibility of measuring these in a clinical trial, and clinically meaningful differences in these outcomes were determined by the panel. Most important are reduction in oral pain and use of opioid analgesics, improvement in oral intake and quality of life, and reduction of hospitalization duration. Reduction in the severity of OM measured by an objective evaluation of oral mucosa could provide insight regarding the biologic activity of an intervention. Further data are required to define the precise relationship between reduction in visible OM and improvement in outcome. Minimally, clinical trials for OM should assess oral pain, opioid use, oral intake, and include objective assessment of OM.

A research review of the current treatments for radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To review the research studies on the current treatments for radiation therapy-(RT-) induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE search of the literature from 1966-2001.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four types of agents (i.e., antimicrobial, coating, anti-inflammatory, and cytokine-like agents) have been evaluated for the management of RT-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer. Most of the published studies had relatively small sample sizes and used inconsistent measures to evaluate the extent and severity of oral mucositis. Therefore, definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any of the agents tested in the prevention and treatment of RT-induced oral mucositis cannot be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral mucositis remains the most common complication among patients with head and neck cancer. Although a number of strategies and products are being investigated and new directions are promising, the therapies tested to date have not produced consistent results.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The most effective measure to treat RT-induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer is frequent oral rinsing with a bland mouthwash, such as saline or a sodium bicarbonate rinse, to reduce the amount of oral microbial flora. Dental care, consistent oral assessments, and the initiation of a standardized oral hygiene protocol before the initiation of cancer treatment are the most effective approaches for oral mucositis.

Biology of mucosal pain

Pain is experienced when injury to mucosal tissues occurs. Although the neurobiology of mucosal pain has not been fully elucidated, research has demonstrated that the oral mucosa contains primary afferent nociceptors that respond to thermal, mechanical, and chemical stimuli. Inflammation occurs during the initial phase of mucosal injury caused by stomatotoxic chemotherapy or radiation therapy. This article reviews the mechanisms that underlie acute pain in inflamed cutaneous tissue and summarizes the major mediators that activate and sensitize primary afferent nociceptors. Recommendations for future research to elucidate the neurobiology of mucosal pain throughout the gastrointestinal tract are presented.

Consequential late effects in normal tissues

Unconventional, more aggressive irradiation protocols are usually associated with aggravation of acute reactions. In recent clinical studies, this has resulted in modulation of late effects in the same organ. This phenomenon has been termed consequential late effect (CLE). Correlations between acute and late effects have been reported in a number of tissues. Moreover, some radiobiological parameters may be used to differentiate between consequential and generic late effects: Dose fractionation and overall treatment time have a similar effect on acute and consequential responses, but opposing effects on generic late effects. Modulation of acute effects will affect the consequential component of late sequelae. Similarly, it will be influenced by the irradiated volume if a volume effect exists for the acute response. Moreover, markers for the acute response should be predictive for consequential effects. The present review gives preclinical and clinical evidence for CLE. These are predominantly found in organ systems where the acute response (of the epithelial lining) is associated with an impairment of the barrier against mechanical or chemical stress, which may cause additional trauma to the underlying tissues. Therefore, CLE are mainly found in the urinary and intestinal system, in mucosa and, to some extent, in skin. In these tissues with a consequential component of the late sequelae, amelioration of the acute response to irradiation may be a useful approach to minimize late side effects of effective radiation therapy.

The effect of oral sucralfate on the acute proctitis associated with prostate radiotherapy: a double-blind, randomized trial

PURPOSE

Acute rectal complications occur in the majority of patients receiving external-beam radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Sucralfate has been proposed to reduce radiation-induced mucosal injury by forming a protective barrier on ulcer bases, binding local growth factors, and stimulating angiogenesis. However, there is conflicting clinical evidence as to whether sucralfate, taken prophylactically during radiotherapy, can ameliorate the symptoms of acute radiation proctitis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A double-blind randomized trial was conducted at four Radiation Oncology Departments in Sydney, Australia, between February 1995 and June 1997. A total of 338 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving small volume radiotherapy, of whom 335 were evaluable, were randomized to receive either 3 g of oral sucralfate suspension or placebo twice a day during radiotherapy. Patients kept a daily record of their bowel symptoms and were graded according to the RTOG/EORTC acute toxicity criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-four patients received sucralfate and 171 received placebo. Both groups were well balanced with regard to patient, tumor, treatment factors, and baseline symptoms, except that the placebo group had a significantly more liquid baseline stool consistency score (p = 0.004). Patients kept a daily diary of symptoms during radiotherapy. After adjusting for baseline values, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to stool frequency (p = 0.41), consistency (p = 0.20), flatus (p = 0.25), mucus (p = 0.54), and pain (p = 0.73). However, there was more bleeding in the sucralfate group, with 64% of patients noticing rectal bleeding, compared with 47% in the placebo group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to RTOG/EORTC acute toxicity (p = 0.88; sucralfate 13%, 44%, 43% and placebo 15%, 44%, 40% for grade 0, 1, and 2, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that oral sucralfate taken prophylactically during radiotherapy does not ameliorate the symptoms of acute radiation proctitis and may increase acute bleeding. The cause of the increased bleeding in the sucralfate group is unclear. As the pathogenesis of acute and late reactions are different, late follow-up, which includes sigmoidoscopic evaluation, is currently being performed on this cohort of patients.

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.

Sucralfate: a help during oral management in patients with epidermolysis bullosa

BACKGROUND

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of genetic disorders that lead to blister formation at variable depths in skin and mucosa. Vesicles may arise spontaneously or be caused by friction or trauma. Oral tissue fragility and blistering is common in all EB types. The majority of patients with mild forms of EB are able to receive dental treatment. The prevention of dental caries is most challenging in subjects with severe mucosal involvement, as they are least able to routinely undergo correct preventive procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a sucralfate suspension in reducing both pain and the number of blisters in patients with EB, and to obtain improved oral hygiene and a lower incidence of caries.

METHODS

Five patients with dystrophic EB were treated with sucralfate suspension for the prevention and management of oral blisters. Oral blisters were assessed using a quantitative scale, while pain was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS), and hygiene was evaluated through plaque and gingival indexes.

RESULTS

The number of blisters, oral pain, and plaque decreased in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral prophylaxis with sucralfate prevented oral blisters and oral discomfort. The procedure proved to be cost effective and easy to administer. It did not show significant side effects and may be used routinely in patients with EB.

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.

Salivary epidermal growth factor levels decrease in patients receiving radiation therapy to the head and neck

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess changes in salivary epidermal growth factor (EGF) in patients receiving radiation therapy to the head and neck and to determine whether salivary EGF levels correlate with the severity of radiation-induced oral mucositis.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirteen patients and 18 control subjects were enrolled in the study. Saliva was collected before, during (weekly), and after radiation therapy. Salivary total protein (TP) and EGF concentrations were measured and correlated with the severity of oral mucositis. The variability in normalized EGF (ngEGF/mgTP) values and mucositis scores were analyzed with analysis of covariance, and the adjusted correlation coefficient was calculated.

RESULTS

EGF levels decreased (P =.004), whereas TP levels increased over time (P =.039). A strong correlation was seen with decreasing normalized EGF values and more severe mucositis (P =. 0001).

CONCLUSION

A strong negative correlation between normalized EGF and mucositis severity suggests a possible role for EGF in the progression of radiation-induced mucosal breakdown.

Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and sucralfate in prevention of radiation-induced mucositis: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

To compare subcutaneously given molgramostim (GM-CSF) and sucralfate mouth washings to sucralfate mouth washings in prevention of radiation-induced mucositis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Forty head and neck cancer patients were randomly assigned to use either GM-CSF and sucralfate (n = 20) or sucralfate alone (n = 20) during radiotherapy. Sucralfate was used as 1.0 g mouth washing 6 times daily after the first 10 Gy of radiotherapy, and 150-300 microg GM-CSF was given subcutaneously. The grade of radiation mucositis and blood cell counts were monitored weekly. Salivary lactoferrin was measured as a surrogate marker for oral mucositis.

RESULTS

We found no significant difference between the molgramostim and the control groups in the oral mucositis grade, oral pain, use of analgesic drugs, weight loss, or survival. The median maximum neutrophil counts (median, 9.2 x 10(9)/L vs. 5.9 x 10(9)/L, p = 0.0005), eosinophil counts (median, 1.3 x 10(9)/L vs. 0.2 x 10(9)/L, p = 0.0004), and salivary lactoferrin concentrations were higher in patients who received GM-CSF. The most common toxicities in the GM-CSF plus sucralfate group were skin reactions at the GM-CSF injection site (65%), fever (30%), bone pain (25%), and nausea (15%), whereas the toxicity of sucralfate given alone was minimal.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence indicating that subcutaneously given GM-CSF reduces the severity of radiation-induced mucositis.