Potential Benefits of Oral Cryotherapy for Chemotherapy-Induced Mucositis

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.

Randomized controlled trial of cryotherapy to prevent paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (RU221511I); an ACCRU trial

PURPOSE

This pilot trial aimed to assess if cooling hands and feet with crushed ice during receipt of paclitaxel helps prevent peripheral neuropathy.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized trial compared cryotherapy to standard care in patients initiating paclitaxel weekly x 12. For those on cryotherapy, hands and feet were cooled starting 15 min prior to and ending 15 min after each paclitaxel dose. EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 was completed at baseline, weekly x12, then monthly x6. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for subscale scores, adjusting for baseline, and compared between arms (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Cross-study comparisons used data from 2 prior similarly-conducted neuropathy trials.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were accrued. Three withdrew and one was ineligible. Of the remaining 42 (21 cryotherapy, 21 control), 39 (19 cryotherapy, 20 control) were analyzable for AUC. Cryotherapy was well tolerated, but the AUC of the CIPN20 sensory scores over 12 weeks of paclitaxel was not found to differ between the study arms (mean difference 3.45, 95% CI -3.13 to 10.02, p = 0.26). However, the control arm of the current trial experienced less neuropathy than did the placebo arms of two previous similar trials. When our cryotherapy arm was compared to the combined control arms from all three trials, the cryotherapy arm had less neuropathy (Wilcoxon Rank-Sum p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

While there was no difference in CIPN20 scores identified between the 2 study arms in the current phase II trial, further investigation is needed given that the control arm experienced less neuropathy than was expected.

Prevention effect of low-temperature atomization inhalation for radiation induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy

Purpose: To investigate the prevention effect of low-temperature atomization inhalation for radiation induced oral mucositis (OM) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiotherapy. Patients and methods: A total of 68 patients with HNC (including nasopharyngeal cancer) undergoing radiotherapy were divided into an intervention group (33 cases) and a control group (35 cases). During radiotherapy, the intervention group received low-temperature (between 4°C and 8°C) atomization inhalation; while the control group received normal temperature (between 18°C and 24°C) atomization inhalation. Atomization inhalation was performed twice a day, 20 minutes per time, using distilled water. The incidence and severity of OM was evaluated every week during radiotherapy. The comparation was made between the two groups. Results: The two groups were comparable among age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology group (ECOG) score, body mass index (BMI) before radiotherapy, BMI loss during radiotherapy, original tumor site, pathological type, TNM stage, and mean oral cavity irradiated dose. There was a significant difference in the incidence of OM between the two groups (P<0.05). There were fewer patients with severe OM in the intervention group compared to the control group (P<0.05). The onset time of OM in the intervention group was delayed by about 4 days compared to that in the control group (P<0.05). Low-temperature atomization inhalation helped to avoid radiotherapy interruption in the intervention group. No patient in the intervention group suffered any adverse reaction for low-temperature atomization inhalation treatment. Conclusions: Low-temperature atomization inhalation can reduce the incidence and severity of OM, and slow down the progression process of it. It can be used as a new prevention method during radiotherapy, and should be promoted in clinical practice.