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

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in people receiving cancer treatment: photobiomodulation

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of photobiomodulation for the prevention of oral mucositis in people undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers, other solid cancers, and haematological cancers.

Stem cell transplantation patients receiving a novel oral care protocol for oral mucositis prevention and treatment: patient-reported outcomes and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the most debilitating effects of toxicity due to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens. The aim of this secondary analysis of the data of a phase II study designed to assess the efficacy of a novel oral care protocol containing bovine colostrum and aloe vera to prevent oral mucositis was to compare outcomes reported by patients with those collected by healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHOD

Data on oral mucositis severity, duration, time of onset and related pain were collected from patients using the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire (OMDQ). HCPs assessed the same outcomes using the World Health Organization oral mucositis scale and pain numerical rating scale. Quality of life was assessed with the 3-level EuroQol-5 dimensions.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine autologous/allogeneic graft patients were recruited, 46 of whom (78.0%) experienced OM. Mean onset was 9.1 (SD ± 3.5) days after conditioning initiation, mean duration was 10.4 (SD ± 4.3) days, and the average maximum pain score was 3.7 (SD ± 2.7). Self-administration of the OMDQ detected oral symptoms at least 1 day sooner compared to objective assessments (p = 0.025). Significant differences were observed between the patient-reported and the HCP-assessment data on oral mucositis severity grading distribution (p < 0.0001) and highest pain score (p < 0.0001). Quality of life score variations were correlated with changes in oral mucositis severity during patients' hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are necessary to improve the understanding of these findings; a randomised controlled trial is being set up at our institution.

Daily Time of Radiation Treatment Is Associated with Subsequent Oral Mucositis Severity during Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Limited treatment options are available for oral mucositis, a common, debilitating complication of cancer therapy. We examined the association between daily delivery time of radiotherapy and the severity of oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

We used electronic medical records of 190 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who completed radiotherapy, with or without concurrent chemotherapy, at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Buffalo, NY) between 2015 and 2017. Throughout a 7-week treatment course, patient mouth and throat soreness (MTS) was self-reported weekly using a validated oral mucositis questionnaire, with responses 0 (no) to 4 (extreme). Average treatment times from day 1 until the day before each mucositis survey were categorized into seven groups. Multivariable-adjusted marginal average scores (LSmeans) were estimated for the repeated- and maximum-MTS, using a linear-mixed model and generalized-linear model, respectively.

RESULTS

Radiation treatment time was significantly associated with oral mucositis severity using both repeated-MTS (n = 1,156; P = 0.02) and maximum-MTS (n = 190; P = 0.04), with consistent patterns. The severity was lowest for patients treated during 8:30 to <9:30 am (LSmeans for maximum-MTS = 2.24; SE = 0.15), increased at later treatment times and peaked at early afternoon (11:30 am to <3:00 pm, LSmeans = 2.66-2.71; SEs = 0.16/0.17), and then decreased substantially after 3 pm.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a significant association between radiation treatment time and oral mucositis severity in patients with head and neck cancer.

IMPACT

Although additional studies are needed, these data suggest a potential simple treatment time solution to limit severity of oral mucositis during radiotherapy without increasing cost.

Effect of Doxepin Mouthwash or Diphenhydramine-Lidocaine-Antacid Mouthwash vs Placebo on Radiotherapy-Related Oral Mucositis Pain: The Alliance A221304 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days.

INTERVENTIONS

Ninety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst).

RESULTS

Among the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a side effect of chemotherapy, head and neck radiotherapy, and targeted therapy, affecting over 75% of high-risk patients. Ulceration can lead to severe pain and difficulty with eating and drinking, which may necessitate opioid analgesics, hospitalisation and supplemental nutrition. These complications may disrupt cancer therapy, which may reduce survival. There is also a risk of death from sepsis if pathogens enter the ulcers of immunocompromised patients. Ulcerative oral mucositis can be costly to healthcare systems, yet there are few preventive interventions proven to be beneficial. Cytokines and growth factors may help the regeneration of cells lining of the mouth, thus preventing or reducing oral mucositis and its negative effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cytokines and growth factors for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer who are receiving treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 10 May 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 10 May 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 May 2017); Embase Ovid (7 December 2015 to 10 May 2017); CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 10 May 2017); and CANCERLIT PubMed (1950 to 10 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of cytokines and growth factors in patients with cancer receiving treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of electronic searches, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we reported mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We pooled similar studies in random-effects meta-analyses. We reported adverse effects in a narrative format.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs analysing 3102 participants. Thirteen studies were at low risk of bias, 12 studies were at unclear risk of bias, and 10 studies were at high risk of bias.Our main findings were regarding keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) and are summarised as follows.There might be a reduction in the risk of moderate to severe oral mucositis in adults receiving bone marrow/stem cell transplantation after conditioning therapy for haematological cancers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 6 studies; 852 participants; low-quality evidence). We would need to treat 11 adults with KGF in order to prevent one additional adult from developing this outcome (95% CI 6 to 112). There might be a reduction in the risk of severe oral mucositis in this population, but there is also some possibility of an increase in risk (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; 6 studies; 852 participants; low-quality evidence). We would need to treat 10 adults with KGF in order to prevent one additional adult from developing this outcome (95% CI 5 to prevent the outcome to 14 to cause the outcome).There is probably a reduction in the risk of moderate to severe oral mucositis in adults receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck with cisplatin or fluorouracil (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; 3 studies; 471 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We would need to treat 12 adults with KGF in order to prevent one additional adult from developing this outcome (95% CI 7 to infinity). It is very likely that there is a reduction in the risk of severe oral mucositis in this population (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; 3 studies; 471 participants; high-quality evidence). We would need to treat 7 adults with KGF in order to prevent one additional adult from developing this outcome (95% CI 5 to 15).It is likely that there is a reduction in the risk of moderate to severe oral mucositis in adults receiving chemotherapy alone for mixed solid and haematological cancers (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; 4 studies; 344 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We would need to treat 4 adults with KGF in order to prevent one additional adult from developing this outcome (95% CI 3 to 6). There might be a reduction in the risk of severe oral mucositis in this population (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65; 3 studies; 263 participants; low -quality evidence). We would need to treat 10 adults with KGF in order to prevent one additional adult from developing this outcome (95% CI 8 to 19).Due to the low volume of evidence, single-study comparisons and insufficient sample sizes, we found no compelling evidence of a benefit for any other cytokines or growth factors and there was no evidence on children. There did not appear to be any serious adverse effects of any of the interventions assessed in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are confident that KGF is beneficial in the prevention of oral mucositis in adults who are receiving: a) radiotherapy to the head and neck with cisplatin or fluorouracil; or b) chemotherapy alone for mixed solid and haematological cancers. We are less confident about a benefit for KGF in adults receiving bone marrow/stem cell transplant after conditioning therapy for haematological cancers because of multiple factors involved in that population, such as whether or not they received total body irradiation (TBI) and whether the transplant was autologous (the patients' own cells) or allogeneic (cells from a donor). KGF appears to be a relatively safe intervention.Due to limited research, we are not confident that there are any beneficial effects of other cytokines and growth factors. There is currently insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the use of cytokines and growth factors in children.

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets

Background

To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.

Methods

In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken.

Results

Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult.

Conclusions

Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a side effect of chemotherapy, head and neck radiotherapy, and targeted therapy, affecting over 75% of high risk patients. Ulceration can lead to severe pain and difficulty eating and drinking, which may necessitate opioid analgesics, hospitalisation and nasogastric or intravenous nutrition. These complications may lead to interruptions or alterations to cancer therapy, which may reduce survival. There is also a risk of death from sepsis if pathogens enter the ulcers of immunocompromised patients. Ulcerative oral mucositis can be costly to healthcare systems, yet there are few preventive interventions proven to be beneficial. Oral cryotherapy is a low-cost, simple intervention which is unlikely to cause side-effects. It has shown promise in clinical trials and warrants an up-to-date Cochrane review to assess and summarise the international evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral cryotherapy for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer who are receiving treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 17 June 2015), EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 17 June 2015), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 17 June 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 17 June 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of oral cryotherapy in patients with cancer receiving treatment. We used outcomes from a published core outcome set registered on the COMET website.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of electronic searches, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for information where feasible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we reported mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We pooled similar studies in random-effects meta-analyses. We reported adverse effects in a narrative format.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs analysing 1280 participants. The vast majority of participants did not receive radiotherapy to the head and neck, so this review primarily assesses prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. All studies were at high risk of bias. The following results are for the main comparison: oral cryotherapy versus control (standard care or no treatment). Adults receiving fluorouracil-based (5FU) chemotherapy for solid cancersOral cryotherapy probably reduces oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). In a population where 728 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 444 (95% CI 379 to 524). The number needed to treat to benefit one additional person (NNTB), i.e. to prevent them from developing oral mucositis, is 4 people (95% CI 3 to 5).The results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). NNTB 4 (95% CI 4 to 6).Severe oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 300 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 120 (95% CI 81 to 183), NNTB 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). Adults receiving high-dose melphalan-based chemotherapy before haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)Oral cryotherapy may reduce oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). Where 824 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 486 (95% CI reduced to 289 to increased to 833). The NNTB is 3, although the uncertainty surrounding the effect estimate means that the 95% CI ranges from 2 NNTB, to 111 NNTH (number needed to treat in order to harm one additional person, i.e. for one additional person to develop oral mucositis).The results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). NNTB 3 (95% CI 2 NNTB to 17 NNTH).Severe oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.72, 5 studies, 270 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 427 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 162 (95% CI 85 to 308), NNTB 4 (95% CI 3 to 9).Oral cryotherapy was shown to be safe, with very low rates of minor adverse effects, such as headaches, chills, numbness/taste disturbance, and tooth pain. This appears to contribute to the high rates of compliance seen in the included studies.There was limited or no evidence on the secondary outcomes of this review, or on patients undergoing other chemotherapies, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, or on comparisons of oral cryotherapy with other interventions or different oral cryotherapy regimens. Therefore no further robust conclusions can be made. There was also no evidence on the effects of oral cryotherapy in children undergoing cancer treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are confident that oral cryotherapy leads to large reductions in oral mucositis of all severities in adults receiving 5FU for solid cancers. We are less confident in the ability of oral cryotherapy to reduce oral mucositis in adults receiving high-dose melphalan before HSCT. Evidence suggests that it does reduce oral mucositis in these adults, but we are less certain about the size of the reduction, which could be large or small. However, we are confident that there is an appreciable reduction in severe oral mucositis in these adults.This Cochrane review includes some very recent and currently unpublished data, and strengthens international guideline statements for adults receiving the above cancer treatments.

The Incidence and Severity of Oral Mucositis among Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Patients: A Systematic Review

Oral mucositis (OM) is a debilitating early adverse effect of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The intensity of the conditioning regimen correlates with the incidence and severity of OM, but no studies have analyzed this relationship among various conditioning regimens. We performed a systematic review on the incidence and outcomes of OM in allogeneic HSCT patients and analyzed this association. A comprehensive search of several databases (Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane CRCT, Cochrane DSR, Scopus) from 1990 to 2014 for studies of OM in allogeneic HSCT patients was conducted. Professional societies' meeting abstracts were also searched. Grade of OM was analyzed based on the World Health Organization (WHO) or National Cancer Institutes (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scales. Severe mucositis was defined as either grades 2 to 4 or grades 3 and 4, depending on the studies' definition of severity. Cohorts were analyzed based on regimen intensity; ie, reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) (including nonmyeloablative) and myeloablative (MA). Random effect (RE) and standard logistic models weighted by the number of patients in each cohort were used for comparisons. A total of 624 studies were generated from the search. Of the 395 patients in 8 eligible MA regimen studies, 73.2% experienced any OM, whereas in 245 patients in the 6 eligible RIC regimen studies, 86.5% experienced any OM (chi-square P < .0001; RE, P = .05). Severe (grades 2 to 4) OM occurred among 79.7% of the WHO/NCI-graded MA patients and 71.5% of RIC patients (chi-square, P = .0421; RE, P < .01). In comparing graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, only 55.4% of patients receiving nonmethotrexate regimens experienced OM; this was lower (chi-square, P < .0001; RE, P = .06) than that found among patients who received methotrexate (83.4%), either standard or reduced dose. Besides NCI and WHO grading scales, other scales included in the studies were Oral Mucositis Index, the Southwest Oncology Group Criteria, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis on OM in allogeneic HSCT patients with respect to conditioning regimens, and we observed that RIC regimens led to a high incidence of OM similar to that of MA regimens. Clinical trials on treatment of OM are lacking, emphasizing the essential need for prospective studies in this arena. A significant variance in the criteria for grading OM underscores the importance of establishing a standard grading system for OM measurement in future allogeneic HSCT clinical trials.

CD34+ selection and the severity of oropharyngeal mucositis in total body irradiation-based allogeneic stem cell transplantation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of ex vivo T cell depleted (TCD) by CD34+ selection on the incidence and severity of oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) after myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) with total body irradiation (TBI) conditioning. This approach has the advantage of avoiding methotrexate for graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the incidence and severity of OM in a cohort of 105 consecutive patients who underwent CD34+ selected (peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) from human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical siblings) allo-SCT with total body irradiation (TBI) conditioning. OM was graded by the World Health organization (WHO) and the Bearman regimen-related toxicity (RRT) scales.

RESULTS

The incidence of WHO grade 3-4 OM was 34.3 %. There were no cases of grade 3-4 OM by the RRT scale. Significant correlation was found between the severity of OM and the use of intravenous (IV) narcotic medications (r (2) = 0.15, p = 0.004), total parenteral nutrition (TPN; r (2) = 0.68, p < 0.001), and hospital length of stay (LOS) (r (2) = 0.12, p = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

TBI-induced OM can inflict significant morbidity in the early transplant period, and the incidence of WHO grade 3-4 OM can exceed 50 % when methotrexate is used for GVHD prophylaxis. In the CD34+ selected setting, methotrexate is avoided and the incidence of WHO grade 3-4 OM, use of TPN, and need for narcotic analgesia appear to be lower than historic evidence from standard T-replete allogeneic transplantation.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that toxicity from OM is tolerable in CD34+ selected allo-SCT and should be prospectively measured in randomized trials comparing CD34+ selection versus T-replete transplantation.

Tacrolimus/sirolimus vs tacrolimus/methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis after matched, related donor allogeneic HCT

Grades 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) occurs in approximately 35% of matched, related donor (MRD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. We sought to determine if the combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus (Tac/Sir) was more effective than tacrolimus and methotrexate (Tac/Mtx) in preventing acute GVHD and early mortality after allogeneic MRD HCT in a phase 3, multicenter trial. The primary end point of the trial was to compare 114-day grades 2-4 acute GVHD-free survival using an intention-to-treat analysis of 304 randomized subjects. There was no difference in the probability of day 114 grades 2-4 acute GVHD-free survival (67% vs 62%, P = .38). Grades 2-4 GVHD was similar in the Tac/Sir and Tac/Mtx arms (26% vs 34%, P = .48). Neutrophil and platelet engraftment were more rapid in the Tac/Sir arm (14 vs 16 days, P < .001; 16 vs 19 days, P = .03). Oropharyngeal mucositis was less severe in the Tac/Sir arm (peak Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale score 0.70 vs 0.96, P < .001), but otherwise toxicity was similar. Chronic GVHD, relapse-free survival, and overall survival at 2 years were no different between study arms (53% vs 45%, P = .06; 53% vs 54%, P = .77; and 59% vs 63%, P = .36). Based on similar long-term outcomes, more rapid engraftment, and less oropharyngeal mucositis, the combination of Tac/Sir is an acceptable alternative to Tac/Mtx after MRD HCT. This study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute; and the trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00406393.

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the preferred study design for evaluating healthcare interventions. When the sample size is determined, a (target) difference is typically specified that the RCT is designed to detect. This provides reassurance that the study will be informative, i.e., should such a difference exist, it is likely to be detected with the required statistical precision. The aim of this review was to identify potential methods for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A comprehensive systematic review of medical and non-medical literature was carried out for methods that could be used to specify the target difference for an RCT sample size calculation. The databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Scopus (for in-press publications); the search period was from 1966 or the earliest date covered, to between November 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, textbooks addressing the methodology of clinical trials and International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) tripartite guidelines for clinical trials were also consulted. A narrative synthesis of methods was produced. Studies that described a method that could be used for specifying an important and/or realistic difference were included. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant articles from the databases searched. Of these, 1,434 were selected for full-text assessment, and a further nine were identified from other sources. Fifteen clinical trial textbooks and the ICH tripartite guidelines were also reviewed. In total, 777 studies were included, and within them, seven methods were identified-anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of the evidence base, and standardised effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of methods are available that researchers can use for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Appropriate methods may vary depending on the aim (e.g., specifying an important difference versus a realistic difference), context (e.g., research question and availability of data), and underlying framework adopted (e.g., Bayesian versus conventional statistical approach). Guidance on the use of each method is given. No single method provides a perfect solution for all contexts.

Validation of the Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES) in paediatric cancer and SCT

BACKGROUND

Objectives were to describe the reliability and validity of a new paediatric-specific mucositis scale, the Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES).

METHODS

In a multi-centre prospective study, children aged 0 to ≤18 years were eligible if they were receiving any of the following: myeloablative stem cell transplantation (SCT), ≥60 mg m(-2) course(-1) doxorubicin or ≥12 g m(-2) methotrexate. Multiple measures of mucositis were included along with ChIMES. Respondents were parent proxy report for children aged <12 years, and child self-report for children aged 12-18 years and 8 to <12 years. Mucositis diaries were completed at baseline and on Days 7-17 following chemotherapy/conditioning. On Day 14, the respondent reported presence of mucositis and change since the previous day.

RESULTS

The 185 respondents included parents (N=98), children aged 12-18 years (N=66) and children aged 8 to <12 years (N=21). Test-retest reliability was excellent for ChIMES Total Score and ChIMES Percentage Score with r>0.8 for all respondent types. Criteria for construct validation were met across all measures. ChIMES also demonstrated responsiveness with significant differences between baseline and Day 14.

CONCLUSION

ChIMES is a paediatric-specific measure of mucositis with favourable psychometric properties. It exhibits reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. ChIMES should be incorporated into clinical trials of mucositis prevention and treatment in paediatric cancer and SCT.

High-potency sucralfate prevents and rapidly reverses chemo-radiation mucositis in a patient with stage 4b head and neck cancer

AIM: To study usefulness of high-potency sucralfate (HPS) in a patient with chemoradiation mucositis and discuss its mechanism of action.

METHODS: HPS, a non-covalently cross-link of sucralfate, cations and bidentate anionic chelators, has a maintains a surface concentration of sucralfate 3 h following administration that is 7-23 fold that possible with standard-potency sucralfate. The accelerated mucosal healing and pain alleviation of HPS in patients with erosive esophageal reflux, prompted its use in this patient with chemoradiation mucositis of the oropharynx and alimentary tract. A literature-based review of the immuno-modulatory effects of sucralfate is discussed.

RESULTS: Within 48 h of intervention: (1) there was complete disappearance of oral mucositis lesions; tenderness with (2) patient-reported disappearance of pain, nausea and diarrhea; patient required (3) no opiate analgesia and (4) no tube-feeding supplements to regular diet. Dysgeusia and xerostomia persisted. A modified Naranjo Questionnaire score of 10 supported the likelihood that HPS intervention caused the observed clinical effects. No adverse reactions noted.

CONCLUSION: In this patient HPS was useful to treat chemo-radiation mucositis of the oropharynx and alimentary tract. HPS may directly or indirectly facilitate an immunomodulatory mechanism involving accelerated growth factor activation, which may be a new target for therapeutic intervention in such patients.

Sodium Bicarbonate Solution versus Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Oral Care of Acute Leukemia Patients Undergoing Induction Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate (SB) solution with chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash in oral care of acute leukemia patients under induction chemotherapy.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients were randomly selected and assigned to an SB solution group or CHX-based product group according to acute myelogenous leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Patients were asked to rinse their mouth four times a day from the day before chemotherapy started until discharge. The World Health Organization mucositis grade, patient-reported Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire, and clinical signs associated with infection were assessed on a daily basis. The oral microbial count was assessed on a weekly basis from the 1st day of chemotherapy started to the 28th day or to the day of discharge from the hospital.

RESULTS

Of all the patients in the SB group, 25.0% developed ulcerative oral mucositis, whereas 62.5% in the CHX group did. The onset of oral mucositis was later in the SB group than the CHX group. The oral bacterial colonization in the SB group was significantly higher than that in the CHX group, but clinical signs associated with infection did not differ in both groups.

CONCLUSION

As a result of this study, it was found that oral care by SB solution for acute leukemia patients undergoing chemotherapy was an effective intervention to improve oral health.

Perspectives toward oral mucositis prevention from parents and health care professionals in pediatric cancer

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were: (1) to describe parents and health care professionals (HCPs) perceived importance of oral mucositis prevention in children with cancer; (2) To describe utilities and willingness-to-pay (WTP) to prevent mucositis.

METHODS

Respondents included parents of children receiving intensive chemotherapy for leukemia/lymphoma or undergoing stem cell transplantation and HCPs caring for children with cancer. Importance of mild and severe oral mucositis was estimated using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Mucositis-associated utilities were elicited using the time trade-off technique (TTO). WTP to avoid mucositis was obtained using contingent valuation. These techniques quantify how much time or money the participant is willing to relinquish in order to prevent mucositis.

RESULTS

Eighty-two parents and 60 HCPs were included. Parents and HCPs believed mild mucositis to be of similar importance (median VAS 2.5 versus 3.6; P = 0.357) while parents considered severe mucositis less important than HCPs (median VAS 8.3 versus 9.0; P < 0.0001). No differences in parent versus HCP responses were seen with TTO (mild or severe mucositis) and most parents were not willing to trade any survival time to prevent severe mucositis. Parents were willing to pay significantly more than HCPs to prevent mild mucositis (average median WTP $1,371 CAN vs. $684 CAN, P = 0.031). No differences were seen in WTP to prevent severe mucositis.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and HCP believe severe mucositis to be important, although it is more important to HCPs. Parents would not be willing to reduce life expectancy to eliminate mucositis.

Use of chlorhexidine mouthwash in children receiving chemotherapy: a review of literature

The aim of this literature review was to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthwash as an intervention in children receiving chemotherapy, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. A literature search was performed between 1980 and 2010. The control groups consisted of placebo, no intervention, or another intervention group. Oral mucositis was scored by either the World Health Organization scale or modified Oral Assessment Guide. The review of literature included 5 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, in which chlorhexidine was evaluated and 4 studies showed a significant preventive effect on the development or severity of oral mucositis; the remaining study showed no benefit of using chlorhexidine mouthwash when compared with the placebo group. Ultimately, it can be suggested from the data presented here that chlorhexidine may play a part in reducing oral mucosal damage during chemotherapy for children with cancer, possibly due to a reduction in oral microflora and plaque.

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.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 1 June 2010) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

The experience of a sore mouth and associated symptoms in patients with cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy

This study aimed to describe sore mouth (SM) severity and distress, associated symptoms, and consequences in cancer chemotherapy outpatients. Secondary analysis was used in this study. A total of 223 patients in 4 treatment centers participated in the study. Data from an intervention study using a computer-based telephone communication system to assess patients' daily symptom experience were analyzed to obtain highest, average, and lowest ratings of severity and distress for SM, fatigue, trouble sleeping, feeling down/blue, and feeling anxious. Consequence data included oral intake, time spent lying down, ability to work, and daily activity. Approximately 51% reported SM, with a mean highest, average, and lowest severity score of 3.1 in cycle 2 and 3.09 in cycle 3. Sore mouth severity was correlated with severity of fatigue, feeling down/blue, feeling anxious, and trouble sleeping. Sore mouth distress was correlated with the same symptoms. Sore mouth severity was correlated with the number of 8-oz glasses of liquid consumed, effect on daily activity, time spent lying down, but not with ability to work. Half of patients experienced SM, which was associated with several other symptoms and led to specific consequences. Understanding the complex symptom experience of patients with SM, including consequences, will assist nurses in developing more comprehensive clinical assessments and interventions. In addition, the association of multiple symptoms with SM will provide a foundation for further research investigation in oral mucositis.

Implementation of an Oral Care Protocol and Its Effects on Oral Mucositis

Oral complications are commonly seen in pediatric oncology patients. Induced by chemotherapy or radiation, oral mucositis is a debilitating side effect that has much clinical significance. Oral mucositis may decrease the effectiveness of treatment as well as decrease the quality of life in the pediatric oncology patient. Therefore, it is our responsibility as health care professionals to reduce the incidence and/or severity of mucositis as much as possible. One intervention that has been proven to be successful is basic oral hygiene implemented through an oral care protocol. It is important that nurses are educated on the significance of adequate dental hygiene and the process and need for institutional change of protocols. Nurses and other health care professionals can positively influence patient care by incorporating the evidence-based practice of an oral care protocol— improving consistency of care while promoting an intervention of proven benefit against oral mucositis.

Palliative care in BMT

The field of high-dose therapy and SCT has made many advances in the past several years and the success rates have been steadily increasing as newer therapies emerge and improvements in supportive care continue to improve patient survival and cure rates. There still remains a mortality risk for high-dose therapy and the need for palliative care becomes more apparent as the focus also incorporates quality of life in all facets of cancer treatment and care. This paper reports on the lack of literature available on palliative care into the BMT and explores areas of future research in the integration of these two fields of medicine.

Phase II study of palifermin and concurrent chemoradiation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Acute mucositis is a dose-limiting toxicity of concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Palifermin (a recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor; DeltaN23-KGF) stimulates the proliferation and differentiation of mucosal epithelium to reduce mucositis in patients receiving intensive therapy for hematologic cancers. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of palifermin in patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a phase II trial, standard radiotherapy was delivered in daily 2-Gy fractions to 70 Gy, or hyperfractionated radiotherapy was delivered in 1.25-Gy fractions twice daily to 72 Gy, over 7 weeks. Chemotherapy included cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) for 4 days and continuous-infusion fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m(2)/d for 4 days on weeks 1 and 5 of irradiation. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to palifermin 60 microg/kg or placebo once weekly for 10 doses. A follow-up trial evaluated long-term survival.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients received palifermin and 32 received placebo. The median duration of grade >or= 2 mucositis was 6.5 and 8.1 weeks in the palifermin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .157). Palifermin appeared to reduce mucositis, dysphagia, and xerostomia during hyperfractionated radiotherapy (n = 40) but not standard radiation therapy (n = 59). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Palifermin did not alter tumor response or survival.

CONCLUSION

Ten once-weekly doses of palifermin at 60 microg/kg were well tolerated. Most patients completed treatment, but palifermin did not reduce the morbidity of concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Future studies should evaluate higher palifermin doses with longer and more standardized assessment of acute mucositis.

Prevention and management of oral mucositis in patients with cancer

OBJECTIVES

To review current evidence that applies to the development of a nursing plan of care for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis related to cytotoxic therapy.

DATA SOURCES

Research studies, review articles, evidence-based guidelines, web-based material, and clinical experience.

CONCLUSION

Although high-level research evidence regarding mucositis is limited, use of multiple types of evidence in developing a structured plan of care facilitates improved patient outcomes and the advancement of the current body of knowledge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses play a key role in the identification and use of evidence to guide the care of patients at risk for cytotoxic therapy-related oral mucositis.

Pharmacokinetics of Palifermin Administered as the Standard Dose and as a Collapsed Dose in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the pharmacokinetic profile of palifermin after intravenous dosing with either a collapsed dose of 180 microg/kg/day for 1 day or a standard dose of 60 microg/kg/day for 3 days, before and after myeloablative chemoradiotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) transplantation.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label pharmacokinetic study.

SETTING

University-affiliated hematology and oncology center.

PATIENTS

Twenty-five adult patients with hematologic malignancies receiving myeloablative therapy; 13 were in the standard-dose group, and 12 were in the collapsed-dose group.

INTERVENTION

Patients received total-body irradiation (study days -8 to -5), etoposide (day -4), cyclophosphamide (day -2), and PBPC transplantation (day 0). Standard-dose palifermin was administered on days -11, -10, -9, 0, 1, and 2; collapsed-dose palifermin was administered on days -11 and 0.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. Blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic assessment, presence of palifermin antibodies, and routine chemistry and hematology panels. Adverse events were documented daily. For both dosing groups, palifermin concentrations declined rapidly (>or= 98%) in the first 30 minutes and increased slightly between 1 and 4 hours after dosing, with a terminal decay phase. For standard-dose palifermin, mean values for area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) were within 15% between doses 1 and 3 and within 1% between doses 1 and 4. For collapsed-dose palifermin, mean AUC values and other pharmacokinetic parameters were within 2% between doses 1 and 2. Mean AUC on days -11 and 0 were approximately 4-fold higher for collapseddose palifermin than for standard-dose palifermin. Both dosing regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results were consistent with approximately dose-linear pharmacokinetics for the two dosing regimens, with no observed accumulation. A randomized, controlled study is warranted to assess the safety and efficacy of collapsed-dose palifermin, which may provide a more convenient administration schedule.

The influence of palifermin (Kepivance) on oral mucositis and acute graft versus host disease in patients with hematological diseases undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant

In this multicenter study, we assessed the use of palifermin (recombinant human-keratinocyte growth factor 1) in the prevention of oral mucositis (OM) and acute GvHD (aGvHD) induced by a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Fifty-three patients with hematological diseases received three doses of palifermin (60 mug/kg once daily i.v.) pre- and post-conditioning regimens (total six doses). A retrospective control group of 53 transplant patients received no palifermin. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of OM of WHO (World Health Organization) grades 1-4 (58 vs 94%, P<0.001), 3-4 (13 vs 43%, P<0.001) and the median duration of OM (4 vs 9 days, P<0.001) in the palifermin group compared to the control group. The incidence of analgesics (32 vs 75.5%, P<0.001), opioid analgesics (24 vs 64%, P<0.001) and total parenteral nutrition (11 vs 45%, P<0.001) was also significantly reduced. The analysis of distribution of affected organs revealed that aGvHD was less prevalent in the palifermin group (P=0.036). There was no significant difference in the onset of any OM after HSCT, time to engraftment and length of hospitalization between groups. The drug was generally well tolerated and safe. Our results suggest that the use of palifermin reduces OM and probably aGvHD after HSCT, but a randomized trial is needed.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials involving 1353 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 10.49; granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.24; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Three of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA: however, more opiate was used with PKPCA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Current Trends in Managing Oral Mucositis

Oral mucositis is an inflammatory and ulcerative process of the oral cavity that results from an assault on the epithelial mucous membrane tissue and most commonly is associated with the administration of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The incidence of oral mucositis ranges from 15%-40% in patients receiving stomatotoxic chemotherapy or radiotherapy and 70%-90% in bone marrow recipients. Knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of oral mucositis has evolved and now guides practice. Assessment tools to measure the level of mucositis provide valuable data concerning the status of the oral cavity. No single oral assessment tool has been found to be appropriate in all clinical settings. Mucositis has a significant impact on patients' quality of life and treatment plan. Management of oral mucositis is aimed at minimizing this side effect and its subsequent sequelae. The strategies of care are geared toward early intervention and supportive care for patients at risk for developing mucositis and include specific targeted therapies for the management of debilitating side effects. This article provides an overview of the risk factors, pathophysiology, incidence, impact, clinical presentation, oral assessment tools, management strategies, and nursing implications related to oral mucositis.

Nursing Interventions and Supportive Care for the Prevention and Treatment of Oral Mucositis Associated with Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To review novel approaches to assessing and managing patients with cancer who are at risk for oral mucositis.

DATA SOURCES

Published research and review articles, books, conference presentations, and abstracts.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Oral mucositis is a major source of clinical morbidity among patients with cancer undergoing treatment, yet definitive management strategies continue to elude practitioners. A growing body of evidence suggests that a multifaceted, innovative, targeted approach to oral care provides an important foundation with which to reduce treatment-related morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing assessment and monitoring are critical to the effective management of oral mucositis. Targeted interventions that incorporate the basic principles of wound care with current knowledge about the temporal aspects of clinical manifestations, evidence-based standardized approaches to assessment, and utilization of novel therapeutics provide an important means by which to improve patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Oral care protocols are essential components of oral mucositis management. Incorporating current knowledge of pathophysiology with a targeted, standardized approach may help to reduce overall morbidity and improve quality of life.

Oral mucositis and quality of life of Hong Kong Chinese patients with cancer therapy

Oral mucositis associated with cancer therapy often has devastating impact on patients' quality of life (QoL), affecting multiple spheres of daily and psychosocial functioning. This descriptive cross-sectional study aimed at describing the severity and distress of oral mucositis, as well as QoL of Hong Kong Chinese patients treated with cancer therapy, and identifying the extent to which oral mucositis correlated with QoL. A convenience sample of 38 in-patients and 50 out-patients with solid tumors and during the peak phase of oral mucositis was recruited. The severity and distress of oral mucositis were assessed by a 4-point rating scale ranging from 1 (mild) to 4 (very severe) and 5-point rating scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much), respectively. The QoL was assessed by the Chinese version Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaires (Ch-FACT-G). The mean+/-SD severity and distress scores of oral mucositis were 2.1+/-0.9 and 1.6+/-1.2, respectively. The total mean+/-SD scores of physical, social/family, emotional, and functional subscales of the Ch-FACT-G were 15.1+/-5.9, 16.3+/-4.1, 15.7+/-4.5, and 11.9+/-6.8 separately. The physical subscale of the Ch-FACT-G significantly correlated with the severity (r=0.305, P<0.01) and the distress (r=0.355, P<0.01) of oral mucositis. A significantly mild positive correlation was also found between the emotional subscale of the Ch-FACT-G and the severity of oral mucositis (r=0.314, P<0.01). Subjects receiving radiotherapy reported a lower range of total social/family, emotional, and functional subscale scores than that of those receiving chemotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy, but these differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). In conclusion, QoL, especially the functional sphere, was compromised for patients with oral mucositis. The data also support the correlations between oral mucositis and the physical sphere of QoL, as well as oral mucositis and the emotional sphere of QoL.

The importance of assessment rating scales for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To review the literature related to chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis and highlight four empirically supported oral mucositis rating scales that oncology nurses can use.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL and MEDLINE databases, published articles, and supplemental publications.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Various oral mucositis rating scales have been developed; however, a lack of consensus exists regarding their use in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, standards of practice for the assessment of oral mucositis do not exist, yet clinical measures are necessary for oncology nurses to manage the side effect effectively. The selection of a valid and reliable rating tool is necessary for routine oral assessment and for facilitating optimal patient outcomes related to oral mucositis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Knowing patient risk factors and the circumstances that exacerbate oral mucositis are keys to performing quality oral assessments. Oncology nurses should make performing oral assessments with a valid and reliable rating scale a priority. Further research regarding oral mucositis rating scales is needed.

Reliability and validity of a patient self-administered daily questionnaire to assess impact of oral mucositis (OM) on pain and daily functioning in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)

Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication of myeloablative therapy and HSCT. We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a new patient self-reported daily questionnaire on OM and its impact on daily functions. This OM Daily Questionnaire (OMDQ), containing 10 items, was developed for use in palifermin clinical trials. In a phase 3 study, 212 patients received palifermin or placebo for three consecutive days before conditioning and three consecutive days after HSCT. Compliance rates were consistently >80% for most patients. Mouth and throat soreness (MTS) and MTS-Activity Limitations (MTS-AL) (swallowing, drinking, eating, talking, and sleeping) scores on consecutive days were highly correlated (days 7,8 = 0.70-0.86; test-retest reliability). Correlations among items measuring the same construct ranged between 0.5 and 0.8 (internal consistency reliability). The WHO Oral Toxicity scale was the clinical comparator to assess the criterion, discriminative, and evaluative validities of MTS-related questions. Most correlation coefficients between the WHO and MTS ranged between 0.45 and 0.55. Patients with more severe WHO OM grades had higher MTS mean scores. Changes in MTS scores were similar, but patients detected changes 1-3 days earlier than clinicians. In conclusion, the OMDQ is a feasible, reliable, valid, and responsive patient-reported measure of OM severity.

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.

Cytoprotection by Amifostine during Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Advanced Refractory Hematologic Malignancies

This study evaluated whether amifostine protects against mucositis and other toxicities in patients with advanced, refractory, or recurrent hematologic malignancies undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and total body irradiation. Thirty-five patients (20 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 12 with Hodgkin disease, and 3 with acute myelogenous leukemia) who underwent autologous stem cell transplantation were conditioned with total body irradiation 2 Gy twice daily on days -8 through -6; cyclophosphamide 6 g/m(2), etoposide 1.8 g/m(2), and carboplatin 1 g/m(2) on days -5 through -3; and amifostine 500 mg/m(2) on days -8 through -2. Prior institutional experience in patients treated without amifostine was used as a historical comparison (no-amifostine group). Severe mucositis occurred in 14 (40%) of 35 patients in the amifostine group, compared with 33 (94%) of 35 in the no-amifostine group (P < .0001). Total parenteral nutrition was used by 4 (11%) of 35 amifostine-treated patients and 34 (97%) of 35 no-amifostine patients (P < .0001). The median duration of narcotic use decreased from 15.5 days with no amifostine to 11 days with amifostine (P = .002). Granulocyte and platelet engraftment times were similar. Prospective trials with innovative designs and clearly defined stopping rules are warranted to confirm whether amifostine reduces the toxicities of a myelosuppressive conditioning regimen before autologous stem cell transplantation without compromising therapeutic response.

Mucositis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a cohort study of methotrexate- and non-methotrexate-containing graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis regimens

Oral mucositis occurs in up to 75% of recipients of high-dose chemoradiotherapy conditioning regimens used for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). As a result of mucositis, narcotic analgesia and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) are commonly required after HSCT. Methotrexate, an antiproliferative graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis agent, impairs mucosal regeneration and worsens and prolongs mucositis. We assessed the effect of substituting sirolimus for methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis on outcomes associated with mucositis. Two patient cohorts undergoing allogeneic HLA-matched related donor peripheral blood stem cell transplantation with cyclophosphamide/total body irradiation conditioning were prospectively analyzed for mucositis severity and retrospectively reviewed for correlative outcomes. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of sirolimus/tacrolimus (ST) in the study group and tacrolimus/methotrexate (TM) in the control group. Thirty patients received ST and 24 patients received TM as GVHD prophylaxis between October 2000 and May 2003. Mild, moderate, and severe mucositis was noted in 37%, 57%, and 7% of the ST group and 8%, 42%, and 50% of the TM group (P = .0002). Less TPN was used in the ST group than the TM group (17% versus 43% of posttransplantation hospital days; P = .02). The total number of narcotic days was lower in the ST group in comparison with the TM group (median, 13.5 versus 17 days; P = .08). The time to first hospital discharge was shorter in the ST group compared with the TM group (median, 18 versus 22 days; P = .07). The substitution of sirolimus for methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis is associated with a reduction in mucositis severity. As a result, TPN and narcotic use are reduced, and hospitalization duration is shortened. Less toxic GVHD prophylaxis regimens without methotrexate may have a significant effect on patient quality of life, patient outcomes, and economic outcomes associated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

Scope and epidemiology of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the scope and epidemiology of cancer therapy-induced mucositis.

DATA SOURCE

Peer-reviewed articles and book chapters.

CONCLUSION

Mucositis is a frequent and costly complication of cancer treatment. The risk of cancer therapy-induced mucositis varies depending on a number of patient- and treatment-related factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

An awareness of the risk factors associated with mucositis will allow nurses to identify cancer patients at greatest risk and incorporate supportive care measures into their management plans.

The effect of oral mucositis on morbidity and mortality in bone marrow transplant

Oral mucosal ulceration is a frequent complication in bone marrow transplantation, resulting from epithelial injury caused by cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation conditioning, as well as from pre-existing infection. Oral mucositis causes pain, interferes with patient nutrition, and can lead to systemic infection and other complications that increase patient morbidity and mortality; this complication also markedly increases the expense of bone marrow transplantation. A variety of interventions have been assessed for preventing oral mucositis or reducing the severity of mucositis and its sequelae. These include meticulous pretransplantation and ongoing mouth care, calcium phosphate solution, near-infrared light and lower-energy laser treatment, interleukin-11, sucralfate, oral glutamine, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor rinse, tretinoin, and keratinocyte growth factor; particularly promising results have been observed with use of the cytoprotectant/radioprotectant agent amifostine. Reduction in the severity and duration of oral mucositis and its sequelae in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation can have a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality and cost of care. Further systematic evaluation of approaches to prevention and management of oral mucositis is necessary to define optimal strategies in the transplantation setting.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches August 2003: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 1292 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.49; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Two of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKPCA.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

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.

Symptom control

Symptom control has become increasingly recognized as an important goal in patient care. In this article, advances in symptom assessment, and various definitions of symptom improvement are reviewed. Theoretical concepts underlying symptom control and clinically significant change are presented, as well as the role of symptom control as an endpoint in clinical trials. Symptom control is then surveyed in two broad categories for selected symptoms. The first area is therapy related symptoms, secondary to chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal therapy, and surgery. Symptoms reviewed include chemotherapy related mucositis, emesis, fatigue; hot flashes; and radiation related dermatitis, xerostomia, and mucositis. The second area is palliative oncologic approaches to disease-related symptoms. Results in palliative chemotherapy, palliative radiation therapy, cancer pain, and lack of appetite are summarized. Areas requiring further research are noted. Findings are presented in both a clinical and research context to help guide the reader with interpreting symptom control studies.