Five-year follow-up of survival and relapse in patients who received cryotherapy during high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplantation shows no safety concerns

Cryotherapy for oral mucositis in cancer: review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

One of the most common side effects of cancer treatment is oral mucositis. Although studies have shown that oral cryotherapy has a favourable effect on oral mucositis, the reliability of the results is questionable.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this umbrella review was to provide insight into the effects of oral cryotherapy against oral mucositis in patients with cancer, as well as to assess the certainty of this evidence.

METHOD

Studies were searched for through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, with no restrictions until August 2021. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for each meta-analysis were recalculated using a random-effects model, and the certainty of the evidence was judged using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Ten meta-analyses including 25 original RCTs that fit our inclusion criteria were included. The use of oral cryotherapy markedly reduced the occurrence of overall (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.83, n=20 trials), moderate to severe (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.80, n=16 trials) and severe oral mucositis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.67, n=16 trials), as well as average severity score of oral mucositis (standardised mean difference=-0.94, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.59, n=4 trials) in comparison to a control group; however, the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was rated very low.

CONCLUSION

In patients with cancer, oral cryotherapy appears to greatly lower the severity and occurrence of oral mucositis, but, with very low certainty of evidence.

Efficacy of a novel device for cryoprevention of oral mucositis: a randomized, blinded, multicenter, parallel group, phase 3 trial

Cryoprevention (CP) using ice (IC) is an effective strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM). However, the use of IC may cause adverse reactions and requires water of safe quality to minimize risk of serious infections. This randomized, blinded, parallel group, phase 3 trial was conducted in five Scandinavian centers. Eligible patients were diagnosed with multiple myeloma or lymphoma, scheduled to receive conditioning with high-dose chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients were assigned to cooling with IC or a novel intraoral cooling device (ICD). The primary outcome was the highest OM score during the study period, expressed as peak value on the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS–total). When the entire study population (n = 172) was analyzed for peak OMAS–total, the two cooling methods were equally effective. However, when the lymphoma group was analyzed separately, the ICD significantly reduced the peak OMAS–total score to a greater extent compared to IC (x̄ ± SD; 1.77 ± 1.59 vs. 3.08 ± 1.50; p = 0.047). Combined with existing evidence, the results of the present trial confirm that CP is an effective method to prevent OM. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT03203733.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Eficacy of Cryotherapy in the Prevention of Oral Mucosistis in Adult Patients with Chemotherapy

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common side effect of cancer therapies. It causes ulcerative, painful lesions in the oral cavity that can provoke malnutrition, increased risk of infection, longer hospital stays, and seriously affect the quality of life. Cooling the mucosa with oral cryotherapy (OC) during and/or after chemotherapy is the most accessible and tolerable intervention available. The aim of this study is to define the efficacy of OC for preventing OM induced by chemotherapy/radiotherapy in adult patients with cancer. Secondary endpoints include associated problems as pain. A systematic search was performed using the Pubmed, WOS (Web of Science), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and BVS databases for articles published up to 2010. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, a total of eight articles were analyzed in this review. In seven of the eight articles, the incidence of OM of all grades was significantly lower in the OC group compared with the no-OC group. Use of opioids and level of pain were also significantly reduced. OC is an effective intervention to reduce the incidence of OM induced by chemotherapy as well as the associated severity and pain. Based on these results, OC with only water or with chamomile, associated or not with other mouthwash therapies, is an effective intervention to reduce the incidence of OM induced by chemotherapy as well as the associated severity and pain.

Meta-analysis of oral cryotherapy in preventing oral mucositis associated with cancer therapy

AIMS

To review scientific evidence related to oral cryotherapy to prevent oral mucositis after cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis is a common complication of cancer therapy. In the most severe form of oral mucositis, patients cannot eat or drink at all and must receive nutrition and fluid replacement through parenteral support. Topical cooling of the oral mucosa may be an option for the prevention of oral mucositis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

The literature search was performed using the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL Complete electronic databases for articles published up to 2017. The reference lists of all retrieved articles were manually reviewed to identify additional relevant studies.

RESULTS

Of 353 publications, 15 randomized controlled trials, involving 919 cancer patients, conducted between 1994 and 2017 were included in the present meta-analysis. Oral cryotherapy, applied during treatment of solid cancers, led to a statistically lower level (P < .05) of oral mucositis overall, and of the more severe grades (3-4 and 2-4).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study provide a scientific basis for oral cryotherapy as a viable nursing intervention that can significantly reduce the occurrence of severe oral mucositis.

Reduction in oral mucositis severity using a topical vasoconstrictor: A case report of three bone marrow transplant patients

Background:

Grade 3 oral mucositis (OM) is historically observed in >90% of bone marrow transplant patients who received the cyclophosphamide + total body irradiation (CY+TBI) conditioning regimen. It was previously shown that orotopically applied adrenergic vasoconstrictor prevented up to 100% of radiation-induced oral mucositis in two preclinical animal models.

Methods:

Adrenergic vasoconstrictor (i.e., phenylephrine in an aqueous-alcohol NG11–1 formulation) was orotopically applied to three patients (ages 24–29) who received the CY+TBI conditioning regimen; they were compared to five matched controls who received no orotopical vasoconstrictor. All patients received the CY+TBI conditioning regimen for acute lymphoblastic leukemia within the University of Wisconsin Adult Bone Marrow Transplant Program. Over the seven-day Cy+TBI conditioning regimen, 20 min before each treatment, either radiation or chemotherapy, vasoconstrictor was applied topically to the oral cavity, and patients then received either 1.5 Gy whole-body radiation or IV cyclophosphamide.

Results:

OM severity was scored over a three-week period using: i) physican assessments, ii) daily photos of the oral cavity, iii) oral pain and oral function score sheets, and iv) recorded narcotic consumption. Both “Grade 3 OM” duration and “any OM” duration in vasoconstrictor-treated patients were substantially lower than for the five control patients. Though nasogastric tube or total parenteral nutrition were used in 3 out of 5 control patients, there was no use of these supportive care measures in the three vasoconstrictor-treated patients.

Conclusion:

Orotopically applied NG11–1 vasoconstrictor formulation substantially reduced the incidence and severity of “Grade 3” and “any” oral mucositis when compared to matched control patients, all of whom received the same CY+TBI conditioning regimen. The liquid orotopical formulation was easily tolerated by patients both in its ease of use and lack of side effects.

Practice insights on patient care-management overview for chemoradiation toxic mucositis-guidelines, guideline-supported therapies and high potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate (ProThelial)

AIM

To offer a practice insight for the management of chemoradiation toxic mucositis.

METHOD

Review chemoradiation toxic mucositis, its pathobiology and breadth of symptom presentation. Review mucositis guidelines and guideline-supported anti-mucositis therapies. Offer guidance on guidelines and an abbreviated review of high potency cross-linked sucralfate for management of chemoradiation toxic mucositis.

RESULT

There are six major mucositis guidelines but only one that is current and regularly updated. Guidelines from the Multinational Association Supportive Cancer Care suggest 14 interventions gleaned from controlled trials, 12 of which are off-label uses of therapies that offer statistically significant but incrementally beneficial outcomes. Several evidence-based limitations of guidelines are discussed. Data on high potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate confirming complete prevention and rapid (2-3 days) elimination, sustained throughout cancer treatment is verified as high quality evidence in accordance to standards adopted by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A 96-97% reduction in mucositis duration qualifies as a positive Glasziou treatment effect, which is discussed as an additional measure of evidence-based medicine.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant but fractional treatment effects of guideline-supported interventions are not likely to substantially alter the course of mucositis when it occurs nor completely prevent its onset. Complete prevention and rapid sustained elimination should be the goal, therefore high potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate may be useful. Where guidelines fail, institution-based protocols led by oncology pharmacists could succeed. In an effort to eliminate toxic mucositis, enhance compliance to chemoradiation regimens, and improve survival, such protocols for practice may verify pharmacoeconomic benefits, if any, in using high potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate to manage toxic mucositis.

US oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths from chemoradiation mucositis and antimucositis therapy benefits

Approximate oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths associated with mucositis and identify health economic benefits of antimucositis therapies. Review the literature relevant to the clinical experience of mucositis by pathophysiology, incidence, duration, costs and deaths. Use US insurance actuarial and epidemiology on cancer to generalize an oncology-wide impact of toxic mucositis. Toxic mucositis causes oropharyngoesophageal ulcerations, chemo-induced nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Acutely, it lasts 102 days/six cycles of chemotherapy, 60 days in human stem-cell transplantation patients and 70-84 days in head and neck cancer patients at annual costs of US$13.23 billion/522,166 treated patients (US$20,892/erosive-type mucositis patient, US$25,337/physiologic mucositis patient) and 46,699 deaths. Using antimucositis therapies prior to 2013 provided fractional benefits at high costs. By completely preventing and rapidly reversing mucositis, high-potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate promises superior health economic benefits.

A morphometric study of the protective effect of cryotherapy on oral mucositis in cancer patients treated with 5-fluorouracil

We investigated cytological changes in oral mucosa smears from patients treated with cryotherapy to determine whether cryotherapy prevented mucositis caused by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy. Patients with gastrointestinal malignancies were divided into four groups; control patients before 5-FU therapy, patients after 5-FU therapy without cryotherapy, patients with cryotherapy before 5-FU therapy and patients with cryotherapy after 5-FU therapy. Oral mucosa samples from all patients were assessed at the beginning and on day 14 of chemotherapy. We used exfoliative cytology to evaluate cellular changes in the oral mucosa that were caused by 5-FU. Smears from each patient were stained using the Papanicolaou method and analyzed using stereology. Smears were taken from each group before and after 5-FU infusion. We found that nuclear volume was decreased significantly in cells of the 5-FU therapy after cryotherapy patients compared to the 5-FU therapy before cryotherapy patients. We also found significantly decreased cytoplasmic volumes in the 5-FU therapy after cryotherapy patients compared to the 5-FU therapy before cryotherapy patients. The results of cytomorphometric estimations revealed that cryotherapy may be used to prevent damage to oral tissue and may decrease the frequency and duration of oral mucositis caused by 5-FU.

Equivalent chemotherapy efficacy against leukemia in mice treated with topical vasoconstrictors to prevent cancer therapy side effects

Topically applied vasoconstrictor is a new strategy to prevent oral mucositis and alopecia, two complications of chemotherapy and stem-cell transplant. We sought to determine whether mice treated with topical vasoconstrictor minutes before chemotherapy to suppress L1210 leukemia would develop a vasoconstrictor-induced L1210 cell sanctuary, and with it, significantly worse survival outcomes. B6D2F1 mice received 10(4) mouse L1210 leukemia cells via retro-orbital intravenous injection and were then divided into treatment groups, which included: (i) no further treatment, (ii) a single, sub-curative, intraperitoneal dose of cyclophosphamide (90 µg/gm bw) 24 hr after L1210 cell inoculation, (iii) topical epinephrine (25-400 mM) to clipped dorsal backs 20 min before cyclophosphamide or (iv) orotopical phenylephrine (16-130 mM), epinephrine (10 mM) or norepinephrine (25 mM) 20 min before cyclophosphamide. All mice were then followed until day of death. Differences in median survival time and percent survival between mice receiving cyclophosphamide alone and mice treated with either orotopical phenylephrine, epinephrine or norepinephrine; or topical epinephrine before cyclophosphamide were not significantly different. A discernible leukemia sanctuary was not created by topical vasoconstrictor treatment prior to chemotherapy; there was no significant difference in leukemia progression between untreated mice and those treated with either orotopical or topical vasoconstrictor before chemotherapy. We have opened a Phase I/IIa dose escalation trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of orotopical phenylephrine in preventing oral mucositis in subjects undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant conditioning with cyclophosphamide plus total body irradiation. This could provide a cost-effective and convenient method to prevent oral mucositis.

Supportive cryotherapy: a review from head to toe

CONTEXT

Conventional chemotherapy leads to multiple adverse mucocutaneous complications such as oral mucositis, alopecia, ocular toxicity, and onycholysis. Limited pharmacologic interventions are available for preventing these clinical problems.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to critically review the role of cryotherapy (regional hypothermia) for alleviating these adverse symptoms.

METHODS

A narrative review was performed, with an emphasis on randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive search using PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and MEDLINE(®) was completed. References of all cited articles also were reviewed. Data from the review were composed of articles published between 1970 and May 2013.

RESULTS

Available evidence suggests that regional hypothermia decreases the burden of chemotherapy-related oral mucositis, alopecia, ocular toxicity, and onycholysis. The major limitations of studies include the absence of blinded control groups and variable clinical end points.

CONCLUSION

Regional hypothermia decreases the burden of these four chemotherapy-induced complications and is well tolerated. More research is needed to determine what subgroups of cancer patients are most likely to respond to different types of regional hypothermia, the ideal duration of cooling needed, and further improve the ease of use of the cooling devices.