Randomized Phase 2 Trial of a Novel Clonidine Mucoadhesive Buccal Tablet for the Amelioration of Oral Mucositis in Patients Treated With Concomitant Chemoradiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer

Recent advances in cancer therapy-associated oral mucositis

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common and debilitating toxicity of cancer treatments - chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hematopoietic cell transplant, or combinations. OM is associated with severe oral pain and has negative impacts on patient function and quality of life. Additionally, OM has accompanying systemic complications that may have critical implications. These local and systemic consequences can alter cancer treatment, and add an economic burden. This review covers the clinical presentation and course of OM, differential diagnosis, clinical and economic impacts, pathogenesis, risk factors, assessment measures, biomarkers and prediction of OM, management, research advances in the development of new drugs and treatments, and big data.

Comparisons of successful and failed Phase III trials of drugs and biologicals tested for mitigation of oral mucositis in patients being treated with radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy for cancers of the head and neck

Oral mucositis (OM) remains a significant toxicity among patients being treated with radiotherapy (RT) alone or with concomitant chemotherapy (CRT) for cancers of the head and neck (HNC). Given its clinical significance as an unmet need and its potential commercial viability, the pharmaceutical industry has been actively pursuing an effective intervention. Despite this interest and activity, only a few agents have been studied in Phase III trials (n = 6). The objective of this study was to identify common features that differentiate successful and failed Phase III OM trials. We used the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Public Search database to search patents with "oral mucositis" in the claims. We then searched ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to determine if Phase III or Phase II trial data for identified biologics/drugs had been published. We assessed each Phase III and Phase II trial for characteristics that may be associated with trial success or failure. We considered a study as a "success" if the primary endpoint reached statistical significance, and we considered a study as "failure" if the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance. Of the three successful Phase III trials, one investigated avasopasem manganese (Galera Therapeutics) and two examined palifermin (Amgen). The three failed trials included those evaluating dusquetide (Soligenix), iseganan hydrochloride (IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals), and clonidine (Monopar Therapeutics). We found that differences in the level of sponsor funding, patient inclusion criteria including radiation source and concomitant chemotherapy regimen, and concordance of primary efficacy outcomes between Phase II and Phase III trials influenced outcomes. To properly design clinical trials for OM in HNC patients, it is important that researchers and sponsors take note of specific study characteristics associated with success or failure, particularly with Phase III trials where the risks and costs are the highest.

Efficacy of bioadhesives in the management of oral mucositis in patients undergoing radio-chemotherapy for treatment of head and neck cancer-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Management of head and neck cancers requires a multidisciplinary approach where surgery followed by radio and chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment. The above-mentioned treatment can cause mucositis, a severely debilitating side effect. This can have a significant impact on quality of life. A recent advancing mode of drug delivery is the bioadhesive system. This interacts with mucosa by adhering to it and thereby improving the efficacy of the therapeutic agent delivered.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of bioadhesives in reducing oral mucositis and relieving pain associated with mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving radio-chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Studies assessing the effectiveness of bioadhesives for the treatment of radiation-induced oral mucositis were retrieved from specialized databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, LILACS, OpenGrey) as well as institutional repositories. Data on incidence, pain reduction, resolution, and improvement of oral mucositis using bioadhesive were compiled. A Cochrane tool was used for randomized controlled trials and a JBI tool for non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies to assess the quality of included studies. Based on the eligible study data, a meta-analysis was conducted with STATA version 16, 2019 software, and 95% confidence intervals and p values greater than 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included which assessed the effectiveness of bioadhesives in managing mucositis and its associated pain. Studies included in the review described either reduction, resolution, or incidence of oral mucositis respectively. A total of three meta-analyses were conducted to assess the incidence of oral mucositis and the pain associated with it, as well as the reduction in incidence. Bioadhesives showed statistically significant differences in the incidence of severe mucositis (p = 0.04). A meta-analysis comparing bioadhesives efficacy in reducing mucositis and pain associated with it found no statistically significant differences (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

Bioadhesives are emerging as a novel drug delivery method for treating radio-chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis because of their rapid absorption and easy application. Regardless of its benefits, clinical trials comparing it with conventional treatment methods are necessary to assess its efficacy in treating oral mucositis.

Localized Drug Delivery Systems: An Update on Treatment Options for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is one of the most common cancers in the world, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy being the primary treatment modalities. The treatment for HNSCC has evolved over time, due to which the prognosis has improved drastically. Despite the varied treatment options, major challenges persist. HNSCC chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic drugs are usually administered systemically, which could affect the patient's quality of life due to the associated side effects. Moreover, the systemic administration of salivary stimulating agents for the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia is associated with toxicities. Localized drug delivery systems (LDDS) are gaining importance, as they have the potential to provide non-invasive, patient-friendly alternatives to cancer therapy with reduced dose-limiting toxicities. LDDSs involve directly delivering a drug to the tissue or organ affected by the disease. Some of the common localized routes of administration include the transdermal and transmucosal drug delivery system (DDSs). This review will attempt to explore the different treatment options using LDDSs for the treatment of HNSCC and radiotherapy-induced damage and their potential to provide a better experience for patients, as well as the obstacles that need to be addressed to render them successful.

Radiotherapy-induced severe oral mucositis: pharmacotherapies in recent and current clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Oral mucositis (OM) is among the most common, damaging side effects of head and neck radiation therapy and may interfere with patients' ability to comply with optimal treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The increasing unmet clinical need, recent clinical trial successes, and the commercial potential have catalyzed interest in the development of effective intervention for OM. A range of small molecules are under development - some still in the preclinical stage, but others close to NDA submission. This review will focus on those drugs which have recently been assessed in a clinical trial and those which are still under clinical study as a prevention or treatment for radiation-associated OM.

EXPERT OPINION

In response to the unmet clinical need, both the biotechnology and pharmacological industries have been actively pursuing an agent to prevent/treat radiation-associated OM. This effort has been catalyzed by the identification of multiple drug targets which contribute to OM's pathogenesis. The lessons learned from the many trials which have previously stumbled have led to standardization of clinical trial design, endpoint efficacy definitions, rater assessment, and data interpretation over the past decade. Consequently, results of recently completed clinical trials provide optimism that effective treatment options should be available in the not-too-distant future.

Pathogenesis and Amelioration of Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

OPINION STATEMENT

Oral mucositis (OM) causes significant detriment to patient quality of life. Despite advances in RT, chemotherapy, and surgery for HNC which have led to improved local control and survival, management of certain toxicities such as OM have not kept pace. Numerous strategies have emerged with demonstrable benefit in preventing severe OM. However, ones which are not only effective, but practical and affordable to implement are rare. For example, infusion of growth factors or free radical scavengers, and daily treatment of intra-oral sites with lasers are supported by high-quality evidence but have not become widely adopted. It falls to familiarity of the physician with the available preventative measures and ultimately, patient preference in accepting which strategies for OM amelioration are used. In this review, we present a pathophysiological-based review of prevention techniques available for reducing the incidence and duration of severe OM.

The broadening scope of oral mucositis and oral ulcerative mucosal toxicities of anticancer therapies

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common, highly symptomatic complication of cancer therapy that affects patients' function, quality of life, and ability to tolerate treatment. In certain patients with cancer, OM is associated with increased mortality. Research on the management of OM is ongoing. Oral mucosal toxicities are also reported in targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. The objective of this article is to present current knowledge about the epidemiology, pathogenesis, assessment, risk prediction, and current and developing intervention strategies for OM and other ulcerative mucosal toxicities caused by both conventional and evolving forms of cancer therapy.

A hypothesis for the pathogenesis of radiation-induced oral mucositis: when biological challenges exceed physiologic protective mechanisms. Implications for pharmacological prevention and treatment

Oral mucositis (OM) remains a significant unmet need for patients being treated with standard concomitant chemoradiation (CRT) regimens for head and neck cancers (HNC). OM's pathogenesis is complex and includes both direct and indirect damage pathways. In this paper, the field is reviewed with emphasis on the initiating and sustaining role of oxidative stress on OM's pathobiology. A hypothesis is presented which suggests that based on OM's clinical and biological trajectory, mucosal damage is largely the consequence of cumulative CRT-induced biological changes overwhelming physiologic self-protective mechanisms. Furthermore, an individual's ability to mount and maintain a protective response is dependent on interacting pathways which are primarily determined by a multiplex consisting of genomics, epigenomics, and microbiomics. Effective biologic or pharmacologic OM interventions are likely to supplement or stimulate existing physiologic damage-control mechanisms.

Salivary Gland Hypofunction and/or Xerostomia Induced by Nonsurgical Cancer Therapies: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for prevention and management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by nonsurgical cancer therapies.

METHODS

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published between January 2009 and June 2020. The guideline also incorporated two previous systematic reviews conducted by MASCC/ISOO, which included studies published from 1990 through 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 58 publications were identified: 46 addressed preventive interventions and 12 addressed therapeutic interventions. A majority of the evidence focused on the setting of radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. For the prevention of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer, there is high-quality evidence for tissue-sparing radiation modalities. Evidence is weaker or insufficient for other interventions. For the management of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia, intermediate-quality evidence supports the use of topical mucosal lubricants, saliva substitutes, and agents that stimulate the salivary reflex.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients who receive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, tissue-sparing radiation modalities should be used when possible to reduce the risk of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. Other risk-reducing interventions that may be offered during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer include bethanechol and acupuncture. For patients who develop salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia, interventions include topical mucosal lubricants, saliva substitutes, and sugar-free lozenges or chewing gum. For patients with head and neck cancer, oral pilocarpine and oral cevimeline, acupuncture, or transcutaneous electrostimulation may be offered after radiation therapy.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Narrative review of the management of oral mucositis during chemoradiation for head and neck cancer

Oral mucositis (OM) can be a significant problem for patients undergoing radiation or chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. In modern clinical trials, grade 3–4 OM can be seen in over 40% of patients and can cause a significant impact on their quality of life (QOL). Despite this fact, strategies for the prevention and treatment of OM vary widely, with options including both lifestyle modifications and pharmaceuticals. Here we evaluate and summarize the current clinical interventions for the management of radiation-induced OM. The majority of the current evidence focuses on reducing OM related pain. These agents are detailed over multiple clinical trials including treatment modalities such as: GC4419, doxepin mouthwash, diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid (DLA) mouthwash, gabapentin, and methadone. While several strategies have been employed to prevent radiation-induced OM, there is currently no strong evidence for the routine use of these agents in the clinic. After summarization of these treatments, we offer practical guidance for the treatment of OM in the clinic. We recommend a multiagent approach of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments including oral rinses, home humidification, escalating doses of gabapentin, doxepin or DLA mouthwash, over the counter analgesics, and lastly methadone. These interventions are tailored to address the expected increase of severity of symptoms during the course of head and neck radiotherapy.

Randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial of high-dose melatonin mucoadhesive oral gel for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapy concurrent with systemic treatment

PURPOSE

The objective of this trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of melatonin oral gel mouthwashes in the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis (OM) in patients treated with concurrent radiation and systemic treatment for head and neck cancer.

METHODS

Randomized, phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (1:1 ratio) of 3% melatonin oral gel mouthwashes vs. placebo, during IMRT (total dose ≥ 66 Gy) plus concurrent Q3W cisplatin or cetuximab. Primary endpoint: grade 3-4 OM or Severe Oral Mucositis (SOM) incidence by RTOG, NCI, and a composite RTOG-NCI scales. Secondary endpoints: SOM duration and grade 2-4 OM or Ulcerative Oral Mucositis (UOM) incidence and duration.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included in the study. Concurrent systemic treatments were cisplatin (n = 54; 64%) or cetuximab (n = 30; 36%). Compared with the placebo arm, RTOG-defined SOM incidence was numerically lower in the 3% melatonin oral gel arm (53 vs. 64%, P = 0.36). In patients treated with cisplatin, assessed by the RTOG-NCI composite scale, both SOM incidence (44 vs. 78%; P = 0.02) and median SOM duration (0 vs. 22 days; P = 0.022) were significantly reduced in the melatonin arm. Median UOM duration assessed by the RTOG-NCI scale was also significantly shorter in the melatonin arm (49 vs. 73 days; P = 0.014). Rate of adverse events and overall response rate were similar between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with melatonin oral gel showed a consistent trend to lower incidence and shorter SOM duration and shorter duration of UOM. These results warrant further investigation in phase III clinical trial.

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.

Treatment for Oral Mucositis-Current Options and an Update of Small Molecules Under Development

OPINION STATEMENT

Despite its history as one of the most impactful toxicities associated with cytotoxic cancer therapy, oral mucositis (OM) remains an unmet clinical need which affects hundreds of thousands of patients. Descriptions of its complex pathogenesis have provided mechanistic targets which are being exploited to develop an effective therapeutic intervention. Favorable results of recently completed clinical trials in which agents focused on interrupting the early stages of the mucositis biological cascade were assessed provide reason for optimism, not only for oral mucositis but also for halo indications which share its pathobiogenesis.

Oral mucositis: the hidden side of cancer therapy

Inflammation response of epithelial mucosa to chemo- radiotherapy cytotoxic effects leads to mucositis, a painful side effect of antineoplastic treatments. About 40% of the patients treated with chemotherapy develop mucositis; this percentage rises to about 90% for head and neck cancer patients (HNC) treated with both chemo- and radiotherapy. 19% of the latter will be hospitalized and will experience a delay in antineoplastic treatment for high-grade mucositis management, resulting in a reduction of the quality of life, a worse prognosis and an increase in patient management costs. Currently, several interventions and prevention guidelines are available, but their effectiveness is uncertain. This review comprehensively describes mucositis, debating the impact of standard chemo-radiotherapy and targeted therapy on mucositis development and pointing out the limits and the benefits of current mucositis treatment strategies and assessment guidelines. Moreover, the review critically examines the feasibility of the existing biomarkers to predict patient risk of developing oral mucositis and their role in early diagnosis. Despite the expression levels of some proteins involved in the inflammation response, such as TNF-α or IL-1β, partially correlate with mucositis process, their presence does not exclude others mucositis-independent inflammation events. This strongly suggests the need to discover biomarkers that specifically feature mucositis process development. Non-coding RNAs might hold this potential.

Prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy using 660 nm diode laser for oral mucositis in paediatric patients under chemotherapy: 5-year experience from a Brazilian referral service

The use of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in the prevention of oral mucositis (OM) in paediatric care has increased. In this article, we report data of paediatric oncology/haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients treated with PBMT to prevent chemotherapy-induced OM. A retrospective study was conducted at a Brazilian referral service. Prophylactic PBMT was used in children and adolescents (≤ 17 years) following the protocol: InGaAIP, 660 nm, 100 mW, 2 J, 3.33 W/cm², and 20 s per point. Demographic data and OM severity scores were assessed. A regression model tested the association between OM with prophylactic PBMT and antineoplastic therapy. A total of 148 individuals who had undergone 358 chemotherapy cycles were analysed. A higher occurrence of OM was observed in HSCT and osteosarcoma (OS) patients. Except for HSCT, OM was associated with methotrexate (MTX) use in all disease groups. PBMT significantly reduced OM severity in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and OS patients. OM grade was 3.16 and 5.45 times higher among individuals with ALL and OS, who had not undergone prophylactic PBMT compared with those who had undergone prophylactic PBMT (p < 0.001). PBMT prevented chemotherapy-induced OM. Individuals who used MTX and did not undergo prophylactic PBMT were at increased risk of OM.