MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis: sub-analysis of current interventions for the management of oral mucositis in pediatric cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this sub-analysis was to highlight the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in pediatric patients and to present unique considerations in this patient population. METHODS: This sub-analysis of the pediatric patient population is based on the systematic review conducted by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISSO) published in 2019/2020. Studies were scored and assigned a level of evidence based on previously published criteria. Data regarding adverse effects and compliance was collected from the original publications. RESULTS: A total of 45 papers were included and assessed in this sub-analysis, including 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Chewing gum was demonstrated to be not effective in preventing OM in pediatric cancer patients in 2 RCTs. The efficacy of all other interventions could not be determined based on the available literature. CONCLUSION: There is limited or conflicting evidence about interventions for the management of OM in pediatric cancer patients, except for chewing gum which was ineffective for prevention. Therefore, currently, data from adult studies may need to be extrapolated for the management of pediatric patients. Honey and photobiomodulation therapy in this patient population had encouraging potential. Implementation of a basic oral care protocol is advised amid lack of high level of evidence studies.

Oral shedding of CMV and HSV-1 in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the oral shedding of herpesviruses in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and correlate it with oral mucositis (OM). METHODS: Saliva samples were collected before the HSCT and on day D + 8. Multiplex Polymerse Chain Reaction (PCR) was performed to detect herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 and HSV-2, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Variella-zoster virus (VZV), and human herpesvirus (HHV)-6, HHV-7, and HHV-8. OM was assessed according to WHO criteria. RESULTS: Thirty one patients were enrolled, in which 20 of 31 (64.5%) were males; median age was 50 (21-70) years; 16 of 31 (51.6%) underwent allo-HSCT; and 15 of 31 (48.4%) underwent auto-HSCT. On D + 8, OM grades III and IV were observed in 8 of 31 (25.8%) patients. In the first salivary collection, EBV was found in 24 of 31 (77.4%), followed by HHV-6 (7/31, 22.6%) and HHV-7 (8/31 25.8%). In the second collection, EBV was found in 24 of 27(89%), followed by HSV-1 (8/27, 30%) and CMV, HHV-6, and HHV-7 (5/27, 18.5%, each one). On D + 8, OM grades II and IV were associated with the presence of HSV-1. HSV-1 was also associated with worsening degrees of OM on D + 15. CONCLUSION: The presence of HSV-1 and CMV in oral samples was more frequent on day D + 8 after HSCT. HSV-1 detection was associated with severity and worsening of OM. HSV-1 and CMV seem to be associated with oral dysbiosis due to HSCT.

Systematic review of oral cryotherapy for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: To update the 2013 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) clinical practice guidelines on oral cryotherapy for the management of oral mucositis (OM) caused by cancer therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO. The evidence for each intervention for specific cancer treatment modalities was assigned a level of evidence (LoE). The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2013 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the LoE, the guidelines were set as: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: A total of 114 papers were identified: 44 from PubMed and 70 from Web of Science. After abstract triage and merging with the 2013 database, 36 papers were reviewed. The LoE for prevention of OM with oral cryotherapy in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant using high-dose melphalan conditioning protocols was upgraded, and the guideline changed to recommendation. Additionally, the recommendation for prevention of OM with oral cryotherapy in patients receiving bolus 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of solid tumors was confirmed. No guidelines were possible for other clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports recommendations for the use of oral cryotherapy for the prevention of OM for either (i) patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant with high-dose melphalan conditioning protocols or (ii) patients receiving bolus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Basic oral care for hematology-oncology patients and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients: a position paper from the joint task force of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

PURPOSE: Hematology-oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are at risk for oral complications which may cause significant morbidity and a potential risk of mortality. This emphasizes the importance of basic oral care prior to, during and following chemotherapy/HSCT. While scientific evidence is available to support some of the clinical practices used to manage the oral complications, expert opinion is needed to shape the current optimal protocols. METHODS: This position paper was developed by members of the Oral Care Study Group, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in attempt to provide guidance to the health care providers managing these patient populations. RESULTS: The protocol on basic oral care outlined in this position paper is presented based on the following principles: prevention of infections, pain control, maintaining oral function, the interplay with managing oral complications of cancer treatment and improving quality of life. CONCLUSION: Using these fundamental elements, we developed a protocol to assist the health care provider and present a practical approach for basic oral care. Research is warranted to provide robust scientific evidence and to enhance this clinical protocol.

Systematic review of basic oral care for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to evaluate research in basic oral care interventions to update evidence-based practice guidelines for preventing and treating oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients undergoing radio- or chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic review of available literature was conducted by the Basic Oral Care Section of the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO. Seven interventions--oral care protocols, dental care, normal saline, sodium bicarbonate, mixed medication mouthwash, chlorhexidine, and calcium phosphate--were evaluated using the Hadorn (J Clin Epidemiol 49:749-754, 1996) criteria to determine level of evidence, followed by a guideline determination of one of the following: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible, using Somerfield's (Classic Pap Cur Comments 4:881-886, 2000) schema. RESULTS: Fifty-two published papers were examined by treatment population (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant) and by whether the intervention aimed to prevent or treat OM. The resulting practice suggestions included using oral care protocols for preventing OM across all treatment modalities and age groups and not using chlorhexidine mouthwash for preventing OM in adults with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Considering inadequate and/or conflicting evidence, no guidelines for prevention or treatment of OM were possible for the interventions of dental care, normal saline, sodium bicarbonate, mixed medication mouthwash, chlorhexidine in patients receiving chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, or calcium phosphate. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for basic oral care interventions supports the use of oral care protocols in patient populations receiving radiation and/or chemotherapy and does not support chlorhexidine for prevention of mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Additional well-designed research is needed for other interventions to improve the amount and quality of evidence guiding future clinical care.

A systematic review of viral infections associated with oral involvement in cancer patients: a spotlight on Herpesviridea.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the literature for the prevalence of and interventions for oral viral infections and, based on scientific evidence, point to effective treatment protocols. Quality of life (QOL) and economic impact were assessed if available in the articles reviewed. METHODS: Our search of the English literature focused on oral viral infections in cancer patients within the timeframe of 1989-2007. Review methods were standardized. Cohort studies were used to determine the weighted prevalence of oral viral infection in cancer patients. The quality of selected articles were assessed and scored with respect to sources of bias, representativeness, scale validity, and sample size. Interventional studies were utilized to determine management guidelines. Literature search included measures of QOL and economic variables. RESULTS: Prevalence of oral herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in neutropenic patients was higher than in patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (49.8% vs. 0%, respectively). In patients treated with radiochemotherapy for head and neck cancer, the prevalence of oral HSV infection increases up to 43.2% (CI, 0-100%). Prevalence of HSV infection was higher when oral ulcers existed. Information about other oral viral infections is sparse. There was a significant benefit of using acyclovir to prevent HSV oral infection (at 800 mg/day). Various dosing protocols of valacyclovir achieved prevention of HSV reactivation (500 or 1,000 mg/day). The prevalence of HSV reactivation was similar for acyclovir and valacyclovir. No information about impact on QOL and economic burden was available. CONCLUSIONS: Acyclovir and valacyclovir are equally effective in preventing oral HSV infection. Neutropenic patients, who were primarily treated for hematological malignancies in the studies reviewed, are at a greater risk for viral infection.