The effect of chlorhexidine and benzydamine mouthwashes on mucositis induced by therapeutic irradiation

Current topical trends and novel therapeutic approaches and delivery systems for oral mucositis management

Oral mucositis (OM) is an extremely serious and challenging complication of chemoradiotherapy, which may limit the efficacy of cancer treatment. Complications related to OM include potential nutrition impairment, high economic burden, and negative impacts on patients' quality of life. Current therapeutic options with local traditional pharmaceutical formulations are largely focused on controlling symptoms, and only few agents are available for treatment. Several local supportive and palliative agents are used for the prevention of OM; however, a standard treatment for the disease has not been confirmed yet. The efficacy of treatment could be improved through the introduction of new medical agents with updated dosage forms that can enhance and optimize local drug delivery and create greater therapeutic effects with fewer side effects. The focus of this review was to provide clear and direct information about the currently available topical therapeutic agents in clinical practice used to cure and/or reduce the incidence of ulcerative symptoms of OM, excluding the associated pain and other coexisting complications such as bacterial and fungal infections. The review also provides recent evidences regarding agents that could be used as promising novel therapies in updated local delivering systems. This will support further encouraging options and approaches for the management of OM and will improve compliance that could be translated in better disease control and survival.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Non-opioid pain management of head and neck chemo/radiation-induced mucositis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of non-opioid interventions for the therapeutic management of pain in head and neck cancer patients with oral mucositis resulting from radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted which included randomised controlled trials that assessed patient-related outcome of pain in patients with oral mucositis associated with radiation therapy only or chemoradiotherapy. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE via Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL.

RESULTS

The electronic searches identified 846 articles. Screening revealed that six articles met all eligibility inclusion criteria. Interventions showing statistically significant benefits to reduce oral mucositis associated pain compared to placebo included doxepin (p < 0.001, 95% CI -6.7 to -2.1), amitriptyline (p = 0.04), diclofenac (p < 0.01) and benzydamine (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-opioid interventions, including topical doxepin, amitriptyline, diclofenac and benzydamine, were found to provide relief of pain due to mucositis, and when effective may allow for reduction in the use of opioids in pain management.

Systematic review of anti-inflammatory agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of anti-inflammatory agents in the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/ International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) subcommittee on mucositis guideline update. 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 clinical practice guidelines published in 2014. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 11 new papers across five interventions were examined. The recommendation for the use of benzydamine mouthwash for the prevention of radiotherapy-induced mucositis remained unchanged. New suggestion for the use of the same for prevention of mucositis associated with chemoradiotherapy was made. No guideline was possible for any other anti-inflammatory agents due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the anti-inflammatory agents studied for oral mucositis, the evidence supports the use of benzydamine mouthwash in the specific populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on other (class of agents) interventions and in other cancer treatment settings.

Oral Microflora among Oral Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy in Regional Cancer Center, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the microflora, especially Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and Candida species, in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma during various stages from diagnosis through radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: A total of 17 cases with histological diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity were enrolled in the study. For each patient, the sample was collected thrice, i.e., at the time of diagnosis (Sample 1), 14th–15th day (Sample 2), and on the 29th–30th day of radiotherapy (Sample 3). The swab stick was rolled across the oral mucosa in the cases and was sent immediately to the Department of Microbiology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, for processing. The swabs were inoculated on MacConkey agar, blood agar, and Sabouraud dextrose agar. After overnight incubation at 37°C, the organisms were identified by colony characteristics, catalase, coagulase test, Gram staining, and standard biochemical tests. Results: Out of 17, there was a loss to follow up in three patients, so after analyzing on 14 patients, we had 12 (85.7%) males and 2 (14.3%) females. The mean age of the population was 47.6% ± 12.2%. We had significantly higher proportion of Gram-positive microorganisms in Sample 1 as compared to Sample 3 and the same proportion of Gram-negative organisms in Sample 1 and Sample 3. Candida species was also proportionately higher in Sample 3 as compared to Sample 1. Conclusion: There is a shift of oral microflora from Gram-positive to Candida species from Sample 1 to Sample 3 and Gram-negative being same in Sample 1 and Sample 3.

Effect of oral hygiene programmes on oral opportunistic pathogens during stroke rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

This study was to assess the effectiveness of a conventional oral hygiene care programme (COHCP) and an advanced oral hygiene care programme (AOHCP) on prevalence and viable counts of oral opportunistic pathogens among patients undergoing stroke rehabilitation.

METHODS

A total of 94 patients were randomized to two groups. Subjects were block randomized to either (a) COHCP: manual toothbrushing with oral hygiene instruction (OHI); or (b) AOHCP: powered toothbrushing, mouthrinsing with chlorhexidine and OHI. Prevalence and viable counts of oral opportunistic pathogens including yeasts, aerobic and facultative anaerobic gram-negative bacilli, Staphylococcus aureus, were assessed at baseline, the end of 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the prevalence of oral opportunistic pathogens within each group over the clinical trial period. A significant decrease in the viable counts of S. aureus was found over the clinical trial period within AOHCP group (p < 0.05), while the viable counts of yeasts and anaerobic gram-negative bacillus (AGNB) remained stable within each group. Regression analysis failed to detect an association between intervention and the prevalence/viable counts of oral opportunistic pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither oral healthcare programme significantly affects AGNB, yeast or S. aureus over the study period in terms of prevalence and viable counts.

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.

Dental Plaque pH and Micro-organisms during Hyposalivation

We have previously reported that minor gland and whole saliva flow rates and salivary proteins showed differences in individuals with primary Sjögren’s syndrome or head and neck radiation therapy, compared with controls ( Eliasson et al., 2005 ). We now hypothesize that pH and number of acidogenic micro-organisms in dental plaque as well as saliva buffering capacity also differ in these individuals. Plaque pH was measured by the microtouch method up to 60 min after a sucrose rinse. Plaque collected from the same sites was analyzed for counts of total and acidic micro-organisms. Compared with their controls, the irradiated group but not the Sjögren’s syndrome group displayed significantly lower plaque pH, increased numbers of lactobacilli and Candida species, as well as reduced buffering capacity. Stepwise regression tests suggested that the buccal minor-salivary-gland secretion rate in the test groups and counts of mutans streptococci in the controls were of significant importance for dental plaque pH.

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 anti-inflammatory agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this project was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of anti-inflammatory agents for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND 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 use of 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

Forty-one papers were reviewed. There was sufficient evidence to recommend the use of benzydamine mouthwash for the prevention of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving moderate-dose radiation therapy (up to 50 Gy), without concomitant chemotherapy. A new suggestion was developed against the use of misoprostol mouthwash for the prevention of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Positive results were reported for some other anti-inflammatory agents. However, no guidelines were able to be developed for any other agents due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of anti-inflammatory agents continues to be a promising strategy for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis. Additional well-designed studies are needed to examine the use of this class of agents for oral mucositis.

Efficacy of benzydamine hydrochloride, chlorhexidine, and povidone iodine in the treatment of oral mucositis among patients undergoing radiotherapy in head and neck malignancies: A drug trail

Background and Objectives:

Oral mucositis is a common and debilitating complication of radiotherapy, which is associated with significant morbidity. It is therefore extremely important that mucositis be prevented, or at least treated to reduce its severity and sequelae. The objective of the study was to manage oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy and to reduce pain by using Benzydamine hydrochloride (0.15%), Chlorhexidine (0.2%), and Povidone iodine (5%).

Results:

Benzydamine hydrochloride was observed to be effective and delayed the development of severe form of mucositis and appears more efficient in the management of radiation-induced mucositis.

Conclusion:

Benzydamine hydrochloride (0.15%) is safe, well tolerated, helps not just in delaying the progression of mucositis but also reduces the intensity of pain.

Effectiveness of oral hygiene interventions against oral and oropharyngeal reservoirs of aerobic and facultatively anaerobic gram-negative bacilli

BACKGROUND

Aerobic and facultatively anaerobic gram-negative bacilli (AGNB) are opportunistic pathogens and continue to cause a large number of hospital-acquired infections. AGNB residing in the oral cavity and oropharynx have been linked to nosocomial pneumonia and septicemia. Although AGNB are not considered members of the normal oral and oropharyngeal flora, medically compromised patients have been demonstrated to be susceptible to AGNB colonization.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to retrieve articles that evaluated the effectiveness of oral hygiene interventions in reducing the oral and oropharyngeal carriage of AGNB in medically compromised patients.

RESULTS

Few studies have documented the use of mechanical oral hygiene interventions alone against AGNB. Although a number of studies have employed oral hygiene interventions complemented by antiseptic agents such as chlorhexidine and povidone iodine, there appears to be a discrepancy between their in vitro and in vivo effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

With the recognition of the oral cavity and oropharynx as a reservoir of AGNB and the recent emergence of multidrug and pandrug resistance in hospital settings, there is a pressing need for additional high-quality randomized controlled trials to determine which oral hygiene interventions or combination of interventions are most effective in eliminating or reducing AGNB carriage.

Management of cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis

The oral mucosa is a common site for collateral damage of cancer therapies, including radiation, cytotoxic medication, and newer targeted therapies. Ulcerative oral mucositis is typically painful and affects oral functions including speech, and oral intake of food and medications, thus impacting the quality of life. Denuded epithelium may also provide access of oral microbial flora to the deeper tissues and the circulation. Prevention of oral mucositis is an ongoing quest currently with relatively few answers. In this chapter, the present authors discuss the evidence and current practice for prophylaxis and management of this treatment side effect in cancer patients.

Cancer treatment-induced oral mucositis: a critical review

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

Occurrence of yeasts, pseudomonads and enteric bacteria in the oral cavity of patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy

The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of yeasts, pseudomonads and enteric bacteria in the oral cavity of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for treatment of head and neck cancer. Fifty patients receiving RT were examined before, during and 30 days after RT. Saliva, mucosa, and biofilm samples were collected and microorganisms were detected by culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The most prevalent yeasts in patients submitted to RT were Candida albicans, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, C. glabrata and C. parapsilosis. Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Enterococcus, Klebsiella, Proteus, and Pseudomonas were the most frequently cultivated bacteria. Before RT, targeted bacteria were cultivated from 22.2% of edentulous patients and 16.6% of dentate patients; 30 days after RT, these microorganisms were recovered from 77.8% edentulous and 46.8% dentate patients. By PCR, these microorganisms were detected from all edentulous patients, 78.1% of dentate patients. The presence of Gram-negative enteric roads and fungi was particularly frequent in patients presenting mucositis level III or IV. Modifications in the oral environment due to RT treatment seem to facilitate the colonization of oral cavity by members of family Enterobacteriaceae, genera Enterococcus and Candida.

Oral health promotion interventions on oral yeast in hospitalised and medically compromised patients: a systematic review

Yeast are major aetiological agents of localised oral mucosal lesions, and are also leading causes of nosocomial bloodstream infections. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of oral health promotion interventions on the prevalence and incidence of these opportunistic oral pathogens in hospitalised and medically compromised patients. The PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical trials assessing the effect of oral health promotion interventions on oral yeast. Chlorhexidine delivered in a variety of oral hygiene products appeared to have some effect on oral yeast, although some studies found equivocal effects. Although a wide array of other compounds have also been investigated, their clinical effectiveness remains to be substantiated. Likewise, the utility of mechanical oral hygiene interventions and other oral health promotion measures such as topical application of salivary substitute, remains unsettled. Although many chemical agents contained in oral hygiene products have proven in vitro activity against oral yeast, their clinical effectiveness and potential role as adjuncts or alternative therapies to conventional treatment remains to be confirmed by further high-quality randomised controlled trials. This is pertinent, given the recent emergence of yeast resistance to conventional antifungal agents.

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.

Amelioration of the pathological changes induced by radiotherapy in normal tissues

Damage to normal tissues remains the most important limiting factor in the treatment of cancer by radiotherapy. In order to deliver a radiation dose sufficient to eradicate a localised tumour, the normal tissues need to be protected. A number of pharmacological agents have been used experimentally, and some clinically, to alleviate radiation damage to normal tissues but at present there is no effective clinical treatment to protect normal tissues against radiation injury. This paper reviews the efficacy of pharmacological substances used after radiation exposure. The limited evidence available suggests that radiation insult, like many other tissue injuries, is amenable to pharmacological intervention. However, care must be taken in the administration of these substances for the management of different aspects of radiation damage because there appears to be a tissue-specific response to different pharmacological agents. Also, one must be aware of the limitations of results obtained from animal models, which do not necessarily correlate to benefits in the clinic; the conflicting results reported with some modifiers of radiation damage; and the toxicity of these substances and radiation doses used in published studies. Conflicting results may arise from differences in the pathophysiologic processes involved in the development of radiation lesions in different tissues, and in the markers used to assess the efficacy of treatment agents.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of chlorhexidine prophylaxis for 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis with nonblinded randomized comparison to oral cooling (cryotherapy) in gastrointestinal malignancies

BACKGROUND

The purpose was to evaluate prevention of oral mucositis (OM) using chlorhexidine compared with placebo and with oral cooling (cryotherapy) during fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated GI cancer receiving bolus 5-FU/leucovorin chemotherapy were randomized to chlorhexidine mouthrinse 3 times a day for 3 weeks (Arm A), double-blind placebo (normal saline) with the same dose and frequency (Arm B), or cryotherapy with crushed ice 45 minutes during chemotherapy (Arm C). Patients self-reported on severity (CTC-grading) and duration of OM.

RESULTS

Among 225 patients randomized, 206 answered the questionnaire (70, 64, and 63 patients in Arms A, B, and C, respectively) and were well balanced with respect to diagnoses, stage, age, sex, smoking habits, and performance status. Mucositis grade 3-4 occurred more frequently in Arm B (33%) than in A (13%, P< .01) and C (11%, P< .005). Duration was significantly longer in B than in both A (P= .035) and C (P= .003).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency and duration of OM are significantly improved by prophylactic chlorhexidine and by cryotherapy. The latter is easy and inexpensive but has limited use, as it is drug- and schedule-dependent. The current study is the first double-blind randomized evaluation of prophylactic chlorhexidine in a large adult patient population with solid tumors receiving highly OM-inducing chemotherapy. A role for chlorhexidine in the prevention of OM is suggested, which should be evaluated further.

A Pilot Study of Chlorhexidine and Benzydamine Oral Rinses for the Prevention and Treatment of Irradiation Mucositis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

This pilot study was designed to compare the efficacy of 0.2% wt/vol chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.15% wt/vol benzydamine hydrochloride oral rinses in alleviating irradiation oropharyngeal mucositis for patients with head and neck cancer. This was a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Fourteen subjects were stratified based on nasopharyngeal cancer and non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer, and were randomly assigned to receive oral care protocol either containing with chlorhexidine (n = 7) or benzydamine (n = 7) from the first day to 2 weeks after the completion of radiotherapy. Subjects were evaluated twice weekly through days 1 to 64 using the World Health Organization mucositis scale and the 10 cm visual analogue scale for mouth pain and dysphagia. In the chlorhexidine arm, 4 subjects (57%) had grade 2, and 3 subjects (43%) had grade 3 mucositis. In the benzydamine arm, 5 subjects (71%) had grade 2, and 2 subjects (29%) had grade 3 mucositis (P > .05). The mean area-under-the-curve values of mucositis were 26.5 +/- 13.6 (median 26) and 24.1 +/- 6.1 (median 22) in the chlorhexidine group and benzydamine group, respectively (P > .05). The mean area-under-the-curve values of pain and dysphagia were 70.8 +/- 33 (median 88.5) and 71.5 +/- 39 (median 101), and 62.1 +/- 17.2 (median 72) and 66 +/- 22.3 (median 57.5) in the chlorhexidine and benzydamine groups, respectively (P > .05). A trend has emerged of a lessening of severity of mucositis, pain, and dysphagia for patients with head and neck cancer receiving benzydamine oral rinse. The beneficial effects, however, need to be confirmed in a larger trial.

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.

Randomized phase II study of GM-CSF to reduce mucositis caused by accelerated radiotherapy of laryngeal cancer

Acute mucositis is dose-limiting in many accelerated radiotherapy schedules for head and neck cancer. Cytokines may be one means of reducing the severity of mucositis. A study was designed to assess the effect of subcutaneous molgramostin (granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor; GM-CSF) injections on acute radiation morbidity in patients undergoing accelerated radiotherapy for laryngeal cancer. A prospective, randomized, observer-blind, controlled trial was conducted in 29 patients who were to receive radical radiotherapy over 3 weeks for early stage laryngeal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive 150 microg (approximately 2 microg kg(-1)) GM-CSF subcutaneously once daily for 14 days after the second week of radiotherapy, or no GM-CSF. Patients were assessed weekly for grade of mucositis, skin reactions and related parameters. The severity of mucositis was reduced in the GM-CSF arm (p<0.05). No other end-points reached statistical significance. Two patients failed to complete their courses of GM-CSF. Three developed influenza type symptoms and in one an allergic reaction was noted. There was no difference in tumour control rates. Subcutaneous GM-CSF reduced the severity of mucositis in patients undergoing accelerated radiotherapy. Injections were well tolerated. Further studies of cytokines are warranted, to assess the feasibility of increasing the total doses of accelerated radiotherapy given, with the aim of improving tumour cure rates.

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.

Efficacy of a 0.15% benzydamine hydrochloride and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride mouth rinse on 4-day de novo plaque formation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a mouth-rinse formulation combining benzydamine hydrochloride and cetylpyridinium chloride (BNZ+CPC) in preventing de novo plaque formation, in comparison with CPC and placebo mouth rinses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a controlled, observer-blind, cross-over study. In this model of plaque re-growth, subjects received a session of oral prophylaxis and were directed to withdraw oral hygiene measures for the next 4 days, using only the mouth rinse assigned. The outcome parameters were the plaque index (PlI) and gingival index (GI). In addition, microbiological evaluation of the subgingival microflora, by means of culture, was performed, as well as patient-based variables. Data analysis was carried out using anova for Latin-square design.

RESULTS

The analysis of variance showed a significant statistical difference between the BNZ+CPC association and placebo (p<0.0001). No differences between CPC and placebo were detected considering multiple comparisons between treatments. The 90% confidence interval of the differences between BNZ+CPC and CPC showed no equivalence between treatments, being the PlI lower in the BNZ+CPC group. No significant difference between groups in GI was observed. Mean anaerobic colony-forming units (CFU) demonstrated a significant increase between visits in all groups (p<0.001) and differences among groups were not significant. Subjects treated with BNZ+CPC frequently reported "tingling mouth" and "numbness mouth".

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the study model, the BNZ+CPC combination showed a statistically significant plaque-inhibitory capacity, as compared with the placebo mouth rinse, and an additive effect as compared with CPC. No relevant clinical or microbiological adverse effects were detected.

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.

The comparative effects of povidone-iodine and normal saline mouthwashes on oral mucositis in patients after high-dose chemotherapy and APBSCT—results of a randomized multicentre study

Antimicrobial solutions are widely used in the nursing care of chemotherapy induced oral mucositis (OM). There is little evidence, however, supporting their use for reducing mucosal damage. In our study, 132 patients were randomized to use normal saline (n=65) or povidone-iodine diluted 1:100 (n=67) mouthwashes for OM prophylaxis and treatment after high-dose chemotherapy comprising BEAM or HD-L-PAM followed by autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation. The study groups were well balanced in respect of age, sex, chemotherapy and the number of CD34+ cells in the graft. No significant difference was found between the groups in respect of OM characteristics, fever of unknown origin (FUO) and other infections. The antimicrobial solution was less tolerable for patients. OM occurred significantly more often in females than in males (86% vs 60%, P=0.0016) and was worse and of longer duration. The mechanical effect of mouthwashes might have a certain importance in FUO prevention. When indicating oral rinses, the patient's individual preference and tolerance of solutions offered should be considered.

Children's acceptance and tolerance of chlorhexidine and benzydamine oral rinses in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced oropharyngeal mucositis

Oral care is of great importance in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced oropharyngeal mucositis. Although considerable attention has been given in improving oral care practices, patients' acceptance and tolerance of oral rinses is a continuing problem in oral care. A randomized crossover design was used to determine the relative acceptability and tolerability of chlorhexidine and benzydamine oral rinse agents in children receiving chemotherapy. At the end of the study, each subject was asked to compare these two agents in relation to stinging and taste, as well as his/her perception in reducing mucositis. Thirty-four children aged 6-17 years completed two courses of chemotherapy during which they alternately practiced oral care using chlorhexidine then benzydamine or benzydamine then chlorhexidine. All of the children tolerated the agents well and continued with rinsing throughout the study. Only a few children had to resort to diluting the agents with normal saline or water. Fifty-nine percent of children reported that the stinging associated with benzydamine was more accepted than chlorhexidine. The taste of both these agents was accepted by 50% of children. Approximately 60% of children reported that chlorhexidine was more helpful than benzydamine in reducing mucositis. About 47% and 50% of them preferred chlorhexidine and benzydamine in their subsequent chemotherapy, respectively. In conclusion, chlorhexidine and benzydamine are acceptable and well-tolerated by children over the age 6 years old.

Cytotoxic drugs, radiotherapy and oral candidiasis

The increased incidence of oral candidiasis in patients with malignancies stems partly from the systemic disease itself and, partly from the therapeutic measures such as cytotoxic and other immunosuppressive drugs and radiotherapy they receive during management of such malignancies. In this review we discuss the clinical and laboratory findings on the relationship between cytotoxics, radiotherapy and oral candidiasis, possible mechanisms of pathogenicity following such therapy, as well as precautions that could be taken to minimize such recalcitrant yeast infections.

Modification of radiation-induced acute oral mucositis in the rat

PURPOSE

A new non-toxic drug (compound A) consisting of curcumin, alpha-tocopherol and sunflower oil was developed and its efficacy tested in the treatment of radiation-induced oral mucositis in the rat.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Mature (12 weeks old, 200-225 g) female Sprague-Dawley rats were used. While under general anaesthesia, the tongues of the animals were slightly extended outside and a region of the underside of the tongue was irradiated in-situ with single doses of 2.27 MeV beta-rays from a 5-mm diameter 90Sr/90Y plaque. The dose-rate of the source was about 10 Gy min(-1) at the surface of the mucus membrane. Irradiations and subsequent assessment of the lesion were carried out under general anaesthesia maintained by a 1.5% halothane/oxygen mixture. Six groups of animals were irradiated with single doses of 13.5, 15.0, 16.5 or 18Gy. One subgroup (radiation only) received no further treatment, while the other five groups received 0.5 ml day(-1) of either compound A, sunflower oil, alpha-tocopherol, curcumin or water containing 10% ethanol by oral gavage until the end of experiments. Mucosal ulceration (erosion of mucosal epithelium) was considered as an end-point. From the day after irradiation until any acute radiation-induced oral mucosal lesion had healed, the tongues of the animals were assessed daily for the presence of radiation-induced mucositis (mucosal ulceration). Quantal data for the incidence of radiation-induced mucositis were analysed using logit analysis and a dose-modification factor was obtained.

RESULTS

There was a modest increase in ED50, the dose expected to cause mucositis in 50% of the animals after both alpha-tocopherol and sunflower oil were administered. This resulted in dose-modification factors of 1.05. While curcumin treatment resulted in a dose-modification factor of 1.09. Compound A significantly reduced the incidence of radiation-induced mucositis with a statistically significant dose-modification factor of 1.2 +/- 0.1.

CONCLUSIONS

Curcumin and other components of compound A appeared to be effective in the prevention of radiation-induced oral mucositis. However, the overall effect observed with the combination drug (compound A) appeared greater than additive.

Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis can affect up to 100% of patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, 80% of patients with malignancies of the head and neck receiving radiotherapy, and a wide range of patients receiving chemotherapy. Alimentary track mucositis increases mortality and morbidity and contributes to rising health care costs. Consequently, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an expert panel to evaluate the literature and to create evidence-based guidelines for preventing, evaluating, and treating mucositis.

METHODS

Thirty-six panelists reviewed literature published between January 1966 and May 2002. An initial meeting in January 2002 produced a preliminary draft of guidelines that was reviewed at a second meeting the same year. Thereafter, a writing committee produced a report on mucositis pathogenesis, epidemiology, and scoring (also included in this issue), as well as clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Panelists created recommendations from higher levels of evidence and suggestions when evidence was of a lower level and there was a consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence by the panel. Panelists identified gaps in evidence that made it impossible to recommend or not recommend use of specific agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral/GI mucositis is a common side effect of many anticancer therapies. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are presented as a benchmark for clinicians to use for routine care of appropriate patients and as a springboard to challenge clinical investigators to conduct high-quality trials geared toward areas in which data are either lacking or conflicting.

Prevention of oral mucositis in paediatric patients treated with chemotherapy

This study compared the efficacy of two protocols for oral care using either chlorhexidine or benzydamine as oral rinses to alleviate mucositis in children undergoing chemotherapy. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either protocol for 3 weeks in a two-period crossover design. The occurrence of ulcerative lesions and severity of mucositis were measured at baseline and twice weekly, using the modified Oral Assessment Guide (OAG). Data were continuously analysed by plotting them directly on predefined sequential charts. According to this sequential analysis, the study could be terminated at the 34th within subject comparison, with a statistically significant reduction in ulcerative lesions (P<0.05) and severity of mucositis (P<0.05) in children on the chlorhexidine protocol. These findings suggest that chlorhexidine together with oral care might be helpful in alleviating mucositis when given prophylactically to children on chemotherapy, but the therapeutic benefit needs to be confirmed in a larger trial.

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.

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.

Palliation of Oral Mucositis Symptoms in Pediatric Patients Treated With Cancer Chemotherapy

This prospective randomized 2-period crossover study aimed at comparing the efficacy of 2 oral care protocols differing in the type of mouthwashes: chlorhexidine versus benzydamine in alleviating oral mucositis symptoms for children undergoing chemotherapy. Forty subjects were randomly allocated to receive either chlorhexidine first then benzydamine protocols or benzydamine first then chlorhexidine protocols. Each protocol was started on the first day of chemotherapy and continued for 21 days. Subjects were evaluated in intervals of 3 to 4 days using the World Health Organization (WHO) grading for mucositis and 10-cm visual analogue scale for oral symptoms evaluations. Among 34 evaluable subjects, 26% and 48% of them using chlorhexidine and benzydamine had WHO grade II mucositis, respectively (P < .05). The results revealed a significant difference in mean area under the curve (AUC) of mouth pain (1.35 +/- 2.26 versus 3.09 +/- 3.21) (P = .05), and a trend of a lessening of mean AUC of difficulty in eating/chewing (2.49 +/- 3.74 versus 2.71 +/- 4.1) (P = .82) and swallowing (1.34 +/- 3.31 versus 1.91 +/- 4.03) (P = .53) for subjects receiving chlorhexidine compared to those receiving benzydamine. In conclusion, chlorhexidine may be helpful in palliating mucositis symptoms for children in chemotherapy. The beneficial effect, however, is small and needs to be confirmed in a larger trial.

Topical ketamine in the treatment of mucositis pain

Ketamine oral rinse provided effective palliation of intractable mucositis pain in a 32-year-old woman with squamous carcinoma of the tongue undergoing radiation therapy. Pain at rest and with eating decreased with ketamine, allowing for a tapering of her opiate dose. No side effects of ketamine were reported. Treatment benefits most likely arose from the inhibition by ketamine of peripheral N-methyl D-aspartate receptors, though other mechanisms of action may have been contributory. Further evaluation of topical ketamine in the treatment of mucositis-related pain, and, potentially, other causes of inflammatory oral pain, are warranted.

Chronic hyperplastic candidosis/candidiasis (candidal leukoplakia)

Chronic hyperplastic candidosis/candidiasis (CHC; syn. candidal leukoplakia) is a variant of oral candidosis that typically presents as a white patch on the commissures of the oral mucosa. The major etiologic agent of the disease is the oral fungal pathogen Candida predominantly belonging to Candida albicans, although other systemic co-factors, such as vitamin deficiency and generalized immune suppression, may play a contributory role. Clinically, the lesions are symptomless and regress after appropriate antifungal therapy and correction of underlying nutritional or other deficiencies. If the lesions are untreated, a minor proportion may demonstrate dysplasia and develop into carcinomas. This review outlines the demographic features, etiopathogenesis, immunological features, histopathology, and the role of Candida in the disease process. In the final part of the review, newer molecular biological aspects of the disease are considered together with the management protocols that are currently available, and directions for future research.

Antimicrobial therapy to prevent or treat oral mucositis

Oral mucositis represents a significant source of morbidity after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Since infection may have an important role in the pathophysiology of oral mucositis, several antimicrobial agents have been investigated for their efficacy in preventing and treating this disease. We sought to establish the weight of evidence for antimicrobial treatment and identified 31 prospectively designed clinical trials of which 13 reported some benefit and 15 did not. No clear pattern was identified regarding patient type, cancer treatment, or type of antimicrobial agent used, and inconsistent assessment of oral mucositis made comparison of outcomes difficult. Newer drugs, such as the topical antimicrobial peptide iseganan HCl initially showed promise in reducing mucositis and the related oral pain but the results of a phase 3 trial were disappointing and the line of enquiry was abandoned altogether. Hence, there is a need to better understand the role of the microflora in the cause of oral mucositis if an antimicrobial agent for prevention and treatment of this disease is to be developed.