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

Efficacy of topical agents in oral mucositis prevention: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is considered one of the most common side effects of patients undergoing cancer therapy. OM prevention plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of cancer treatment and the patient's quality of life. Different preventive treatments have been proposed in clinical trials, however with inconclusive results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database to answer the PICO question: in cancer patients, do specific topical agents compared to standard treatments or placebo reduce the onset and severity of oral mucositis? The risk of bias was assessed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 2913 results, 30 randomized clinical trials were considered suitable for inclusion. A total of 2564 patients were analyzed, of which 1284 belonged to the test group and 1280 belonged to the control group. Natural products were the most used, followed mainly by antimicrobial agents, coating agents, and basic oral care measures. Topical sucralfate resulted in the most powerful intervention for the OM prevention (OR = 0.04, 95%C.I. = 0.01-0.25, p-value = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Due to its cytoprotective action, low cost, ease of administration, and safety, sucralfate could become a potential ally to prevent the onset of OM during cancer therapy.

Imaging of Complications of Chemoradiation

Chemoradiation for head and neck cancer is associated with a variety of early and late complications. Toxicities may affect the aero-digestive tract (mucositis, salivary gland injury), regional osseous and cartilaginous structures (osteoradionecrosis (ORN) and chondronecrosis), vasculature (progressive radiation vasculopathy and carotid blow out syndromes), and neural structures (optic neuritis, myelitis, and brain injury). These may be difficult to distinguish from tumor recurrence on imaging, and may necessitate the use of advanced MRI and molecular imaging techniques to reach the correct diagnosis. Secondary radiation-induced malignancies include thyroid cancer and a variety of sarcomas that may manifest several years after treatment. Checkpoint inhibitors can cause a variety of adverse immune events, including autoimmune hypophysitis and encephalitis.

Barrier therapies supporting the biology of the mucosal barrier-medical devices for common clinical mucosal disorders

Recently mucosal barrier therapies have been either CE marked or licensed by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as medical devices. A barrier therapy (BT) uses a physical non-drug mode of action as its sole mechanism to manage a clinical syndrome. A BT is verified as technically or biologically safe having efficacy that has been proven by valid clinical trials. However, it remains unclear what anatomical portions of the mucosa are physically engaged by any given BT. Therefore, this article clarifies the physical basis for clinical efficacy of any given mucosal BT's. Current regulatory classification of medical devices is defined. More importantly, the biology of mucosal barrier is detailed by structure, compartmental elements and function. A live-function or cross-sectional anatomical perspective of the mucosa is provided. A cross-sectional anatomical perspective of the mucosa is provided in order to highlight the physical point of contact for any given mucosal BT's. Five traits of an effective mucosal BT are proposed to assess traits of fitness for any given BT. A BT is either classical, possessing four to five traits, or non-classical, possessing three or fewer traits. Among 16 commercially available mucosal BT's which share nine distinct formulations, most are non-classical BT while two (alginate and polymeric sucralfate) are classical mucosal BT's.

Pre-therapy fasting slows epithelial turnover and modulates the microbiota but fails to mitigate methotrexate-induced gastrointestinal mucositis

BACKGROUND

Recent findings by Tang et al. (2020) show dietary restriction (30%, 2 weeks) prevents methotrexate-induced mortality by modulation of the microbiota, specifically the expansion of Lactobacillus. While fundamentally insightful, upscaling this schedule is a major obstacle to clinical uptake. Here, we evaluate a safe and clinically achievable schedule of pre-therapy fasting for 48 h on microbiota composition, body composition and intestinal proliferation, and assess its impact on the severity of methotrexate-induced gastrointestinal mucositis using a validated preclinical rat model.

METHODS

Age- and weight-matched male Wistar rats were treated with a sublethal dose of 45 mg/kg methotrexate with or without pre-therapy fasting. The impact of acute fasting on epithelial proliferation, body composition and the microbiota was assessed using plasma citrulline, Ki67 immunohistochemistry, miniSpec and 16S rRNA sequencing. The severity of gastrointestinal mucositis was evaluated using plasma citrulline and body weight.

RESULTS

Whilst pre-therapy fasting slowed epithelial proliferation and increased microbial diversity and richness, it also induced significant weight loss and was unable to attenuate the severity of mucositis in both age- and weight-matched groups. In contrast to Tang et al., we saw no expansion of Lactobacillus following acute fasting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the beneficial effects of acute fasting are masked by the detrimental effects on body weight and composition and lacking influence on Lactobacillus. Future studies should consider alternative fasting schedules or aim to induce comparable microbial and mucosal manipulation without compromising body composition using clinically feasible methods of dietary or microbial intervention.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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