Clinical and biochemical assessment of the effect of glutamine in management of radiation induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer: Randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of oral glutamine suspension on salivary levels of transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-ß1), a cytokine involved in inflammation and Tumor progression, and the severity of radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) in head and neck cancer patients. This is the first study to investigate the impact of glutamine on TGF-ß1 levels in head and neck cancer patients with radiation induced oral mucositis (RIOM). METHODS: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 50 HNC patients were enrolled and received either glutamine oral suspension or maltodextrin as a placebo from the baseline of RIOM to the end of radiotherapy. Salivary TGF-ß1 levels were measured at baseline and after treatment. Also, RIOM was assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) Oral Toxicity Scale, the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS), the Pain Visual Analog Scale (Pain-VAS), the incidence of opioid use, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Glutamine significantly reduced salivary TGF-ß1 levels and improved RIOM symptoms, such as pain, opioid use, and weight loss. The reduction of TGF-ß1 levels was associated with the improvement of RIOM severity. CONCLUSION: Glutamine may modulate the inflammatory response and enhance wound healing in RIOM by decreasing salivary TGF-ß1 levels. These findings support the use of glutamine as a potential intervention for RIOM and nutritional support for improving radiation sensitivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on clinicalTrials.gov with identifier no. NCT05856188.

Photobiomodulation for Oral Mucositis - A Microcosting and Budget Impact Analysis from a Brazilian Perspective

ABSTRACT Objective: To measure the costs of preventive and therapeutic protocols of Photobiomodulation (PBM) for oral mucositis (OM) and their budgetary impact on Brazil's Ministry of Health (BMH). Material and Methods: A partial economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs using a bottom-up approach from a social perspective. Monetary values were assigned in Brazilian reais (BRL). The costs of the preventive protocol were calculated for five, 30, and 33 consecutive PBM sessions, depending on the antineoplastic treatment instituted. The costs of the therapeutic protocol were calculated for 5 or 10 sessions. The annual financial and budgetary impact was calculated considering the groups of oncologic patients with a higher risk of development of OM, such as those with head and neck and hematological cancer and pediatric patients. Results: The cost of a PBM session was estimated at BRL 23.75. The financial impact of providing one preventive protocol per year for all oncologic patients would be BRL 14,282,680.00, 0.030% of the estimated budget for hospital and outpatient care of the BMH in 2022. The financial and budgetary impacts of providing one treatment for OM for all patients in one year would be BRL 2,225,630.31 (0.005%, most optimistic scenario) and BRL 4,451,355.63 (0.009%, most pessimistic scenario). Conclusion: The budgetary impact of implementing PBM protocols in the Brazilian Healthcare System is small, even in a pessimistic scenario.

Monte Carlo based dosimetry of extraoral photobiomodulation for prevention of oral mucositis.

Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is recommended for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis, a painful condition that occurs in cancer patients. Intraoral PBMT is limited to treating distal oral mucosa and oropharynx. Extraoral PBMT may provide a more efficient intervention. The goal of this study was to develop a clinically viable protocol for extraoral PBMT. Monte Carlo modeling was used to predict the distribution of 850 nm light for four treatment sites, using anatomical data obtained from MRI and optical properties from the literature. Simulated incident light power density was limited to 399 mW/cm2 to ensure treatment safety and to prevent tissue temperature increase. The results reveal that total tissue thickness determines fluence rate at the oral mucosa, whereas the thickness of individual tissue layers and melanin content are of minor importance. Due to anatomical differences, the fluence rate varied greatly among patients. Despite these variations, a universal protocol was established using a median treatment time methodology. The determined median treatment times required to deliver efficacious dose between 1 and 6 J/cm2 were within 15 min. The developed PBMT protocol can be further refined using the combination of pretreatment imaging and the Monte Carlo simulation approach implemented in this study.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Assessment of salivary alpha amylase and mucin-4 before and after non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

BACKGROUND: The present study was based on the null hypothesis that there is no difference in clinicoradiographic parameters and whole salivary alpha amylase (AA) and mucin-4 levels before and after non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) of patients with peri-implant mucositis (PM). The aim was to assess whole salivary AA and mucin-4 levels before and after treatment of PM. METHODS: Patients with PM (Group-1) and individuals without peri-implant diseases (Group-2) were included. Demographic data was collected and peri-implant modified plaque and bleeding indices (mPI and mBI, respectively), probing depth (PD) and crestal bone loss were measured at baseline. Levels of AA and mucin-4 were assessed in unstimulated whole saliva samples. All patients underwent full-mouth non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) and NSMD; and clinical parameters and salivary biomarkers were re-assessed after 3 months. Level of significance was set at P < 0.01. RESULTS: Twenty-six and 32 individuals were included in groups 1 and 2, respectively. None of the participants had periodontitis. At baseline clinical periodontal parameters (PI [P < 0.001], GI [P < 0.001], clinical AL [P < 0.001] and PD [P < 0.001]) were significantly high in Group-1 than Group-2. At 3-month follow-up, there was a statistically significant reduction in clinical periodontal and peri-implant parameters (PI [P < 0.01], GI [P < 0.01], and PD [P < 0.01]) in Group-1 compared with their baseline values. At baseline, salivary AA levels were significantly high in Group-1 than Group-2 (P < 0.01). At 3-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in whole salivary AA levels among patients in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: The AA and mucin-4 levels are potential biomarkers for evaluation of peri-implant diseases including PM. Mechanical instrumentation continues to be the most predictable treatment option for the management of peri-implant diseases.

Confounding factors in the assessment of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer.

Treatment of locally advanced head and neck carcinoma not amenable for surgical resection or resected with high-risk features is usually based on (chemo-)radiation treatment. Oral mucositis represents one of the main side effects of (chemo-)radiation, with an important impact on quality of life and causing approximately 20% of early interruption of treatment, leading to a suboptimal dose administered. Treatment and prevention of oral mucositis have a central role in the therapeutic pathways of head and neck cancer patients but remains quite challenging. Although extensive research is conducted to identify interventions for the management of mucositis, very few interventions had sufficient evidence to generate an international expert consensus. This may be partially explained by confounding factors that could influence the development and assessment of oral mucositis. Little is known about the confounding factors of oral mucositis, which, if not well balanced in an experimental study, could lead to non-solid results. The current paper aims to review the main oral mucositis confounding factors related to head and neck cancer patients.

Development and Validation of the Oral Mucositis Risk Assessment Scale in Hematology Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted as a methodological study to develop a valid and reliable scale to evaluate the risk of developing oral mucositis in hematology patients. DATA SOURCES: The universe and sample were comprised of one hundred eighty-seven in-patients who were taken to receive chemotherapy in the hematology clinics over a six-month period. The data were collected through the Patient Diagnosis Form, the World Health Organization's Mucositis Evaluation Form and Oral Mucositis Risk Assessment Scale in Hematology Patients developed. Risk of "taking high-dose chemotherapy regimen", "neutropenia", "dry mouth", "pain", "leukopenia", "parenteral feeding", "previous history of oral mucositis" and "chemotherapy or radiotherapy in the past" were found as an oral mucositis risk factor. We have added "using high-risk chemotherapeutic agents", "bone marrow transplant", " head-neck or mouth cancer" which we consider clinically important. The scale consists of 11 items. The sensitivity value is 0.941 and the selectivity value is 0.724. CONCLUSION: We recommend that use the Oral Mucositis Risk Assessment Scale in Hematology Patients. Similar studies should be performed in oncology clinics and especially in patients receiving head and neck, oral radiotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oral mucositis is an important problem for hematology patients. nurses' risk assessment and early intervention to oral mucositis prevent the formation and complications of oral mucositis.

Assessment and prevalence of concomitant chemo-radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Background/aim: Quantification of oral mucositis that progresses during concomitant chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) is essential for its management. It is important to determine the methods that are simple, reliable and beneficial in foreseeing mucositis at earlier stages of treatment. Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted on 100 oral cancer patients receiving CCRT following the inclusion criteria. Patients were evaluated for mucositis i.e. erythema and ulcers by using the World Health Organization (WHO) scale and the oral mucositis assessment scale (OMAS), whereas mature and immature cells were identified by exfoliative cytology. Clinical examination and procedure of oral cavity were performed before, on days 5, 17, and at the end of treatment. Results: Oral mucositis was observed in all oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients receiving CCRT on different days with noteworthy increase from day 5 of CCRT to the end of treatment. For OMAS grading related to ulceration and erythema, Grade 1 (7.2%; 34%) was most commonly seen on the 5th day of CCRT, Grade 2 (29%; 19%) and Grade 3 (19%) were most frequently seen at the 17th day and end of CCRT, accordingly. With respect to WHO scale grades 1 and 2 (18.3%; 21.5%) was most frequently observed at the 17th day of CCRT, whereas grades 3 and 4 (12.5%; 2%) was noted at the end of CCRT. There was statistically significant increase in the percentage of immature cells at the end of CCRT (99%). A significant association (P < 0.0000) was observed among the days of smear and maturation stages of epithelial cells as well as among WHO mucositis grading, OMAS and types of epithelial cells, respectively. Conclusion: According to the findings of the study, oral mucositis grade is directly proportional to the progressing days of CCRT. Oral mucositis is frequently related to adverse clinical outcomes, affecting the patient's quality of life. It is essential to develop methods that can be employed for the assessment of CCRT associated oral mucositis.

Photobiomodulation in oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) is an oral toxicity caused by cancer treatment, found often in patients with head and neck cancer. Low-intensity laser therapy for OM has anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and tissue reparative properties. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials of OM laser therapy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis of the therapy. METHOD: The search terms, mucositis and phototherapy, laser therapy and mucositis, photobiomodulation and mucositis, and low-level laser therapy and mucositis, were used to search the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Randomized clinical trials were divided into two groups: one treated with laser therapy and the other given a placebo. Only 13 studies were included in the systematic review, and 6 studies in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis show that the laser therapy presented good results in clinical improvement and pain reduction, decreasing the patients' likelihood of developing OM, with degrees of debilitating lesions, to 64% (RR = 0.36 [95% CI = 0.29-0.44]). The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an incremental cost of R$ 3687.53 for the laser group, with an incremental effectiveness of 132.2. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 27.89, for the severe OM cases that were avoided. CONCLUSION: It was concluded, therefore, that photobiomodulation for OM in patients receiving head and neck cancer treatment was clinically effective and cost-effective.

Epidemiology, patient adherence, and costs of oral mucositis in routine care in stem cell transplantation.

PURPOSE: Limited data about oral mucositis (OM) in stem cell transplant patients with underlying hematological disease is available in Germany. The purpose of this feasibility study was to determine the incidence, treatment patterns, patients' adherence, and costs of OM. METHODS: Prospective, noninterventional single-center observational study. INCLUSION CRITERIA: allogenic/autologous stem cell transplant patients ≥ 18 years, high-dose chemotherapy. OM assessment: WHO Oral Toxicity Scale. Adherence was measured in patient interviews. Preventive and therapeutic measures were extracted from patients' charts. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (25 allogenic, 20 autologous) were enrolled. Twenty-six (58%) patients developed OM (54% grade I/II, 46% grade III/IV). Age ≥ 65 (31% vs 69%, p = 0.021) was associated with a lower OM incidence. A positive history of smoking (1.77 vs 2.69, p = 0.036) was associated with a lower OM grade, patients with unrelated donors (2.63 vs 1.29, p = 0.014) were associated with higher OM grades and females (80% vs 47%, RR = 1.71, p = 0.035) with a higher incidence. OM patients were less adherent to recommended daily mouth rinses (35% vs 68%, p = 0.027). More analgesic treatment (80% vs 32%, p = 0.001) and intravenous opioids (24% vs 0%, p = 0.023) were prescribed in OM patients. Total drug treatment and nutrition costs were 824€ (p = 0.037) higher in autologous transplanted patients. CONCLUSION: Initial risk and consecutive OM assessment, determination of patients' adherence, resource consumption, and costs are prerequisites to evaluate OM care. In the best case, several centers will follow the same methodological approach and the collected data will serve as a basis for benchmarking analyses to optimize OM care where required.

Assessment of Oral Mucositis among Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: An Audit.

Background Radiation-induced oral mucositis is one of the major ionizing radiation toxicities and normal tissue injuries resulting from radiotherapy. It occurs in up to 80% of head and neck cancer irradiated patients, reaching up to 100% in patients with altered fractionation. Objective To assess the grade of Radiation induced oral mucositis as per World Health Organization grading system among post-radiotherapy patients of Head and Neck cancer. Method World Health Organization grading for oral mucositis was done in patients reporting to Department of Radiation oncology for radiotherapy at BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bharatpur. A total of 71 patients in 1 month duration were included. Result Grade 2 mucositis was most common, 52.11% followed by grade 1 (22.5%), grade 3 (18.3%) and grade 4 (7.04%). There were no post-radiotherapy patients who presented without mucositis. Conclusion Radiation induced oral mucositis is a common adverse reaction of radiotherapy. With increase in dose and duration of radiotherapy, grade of mucositis was increasing.

Effect of photobiomodulation on the severity of oral mucositis and molecular changes in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a study protocol for a cost-effectiveness randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) is the most frequent and debilitating acute side effect associated with head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. When present, severe OM negatively impacts the quality of life of patients undergoing HNC treatment. Photobiomodulation is a well-consolidated and effective therapy for the treatment and prevention of severe OM, and is associated with a cost reduction of the cancer treatment. Although an increase in the quality of life and a reduction in the severity of OM are well described, there is no study on cost-effectiveness for this approach considering the quality of life as a primary outcome. In addition, little is known about the photobiomodulation effects on salivary inflammatory mediators. Thus, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the photobiomodulation therapy for the prevention and control of severe OM and its influence on the salivary inflammatory mediators. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial will include 50 HNC patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. The participants will be randomized into two groups: intervention group (photobiomodulation) and control group (preventive oral care protocol). OM (clinical assessment), saliva (assessment of collected samples) and quality of life (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 and Patient-Reported Oral Mucositis Symptoms questionnaires) will be assessed at the 1st, 7th, 14th, 21st and 30th radiotherapy sessions. Oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokine levels will be measured in the saliva samples of all participants. The costs are identified, measured and evaluated considering the radiotherapy time interval. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be estimated. The study will be conducted according to the Brazilian public health system perspective. DISCUSSION: Photobiomodulation is an effective therapy that reduces the cost associated with OM treatment. However, little is known about its cost-effectiveness, mainly when quality of life is the effectiveness measure. Additionally, this therapy is not supported by the Brazilian public health system. Therefore, this study widens the knowledge about the safety of and strengthens evidence for the use of photobiomodulation therapy, providing information for public policy-makers and also for dental care professionals. This study is strongly encouraged due to its clinical relevance and the possibility of incorporating new technology into public health systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials-ReBEC, RBR-5h4y4n . Registered on 13 June 2017.

A Quantitative Clinical Decision-Support Strategy Identifying Which Patients With Oropharyngeal Head and Neck Cancer May Benefit the Most From Proton Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Developing a quantitative decision-support strategy estimating the impact of normal tissue complications from definitive radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). We developed this strategy to identify patients with oropharyngeal HNC who may benefit most from receiving proton RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Recent normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for dysphagia, esophagitis, hypothyroidism, xerostomia, and oral mucositis were used to estimate NTCP for 33 patients with oropharyngeal HNC previously treated with photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Comparative proton therapy plans were generated using clinical protocols for HNC RT at a collaborating proton center. Organ-at-risk (OAR) doses from photon and proton RT plans were used to calculate NTCPs; Monte Carlo sampling 10,000 times was used for each patient to account for model parameter uncertainty. The latency and duration of each complication were modeled from calculated NTCP, accounting for age-, sex-, smoking- and p16-specific conditional survival probability. Complications were then assigned quality-adjustment factors based on severity to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost from each complication. RESULTS: Based on our institutional-delivered photon IMRT doses and the achievable proton therapy doses, the average QALY reduction from all HNC RT complications for photon and proton therapy was 1.52 QALYs versus 1.15 QALYs, with proton therapy sparing 0.37 QALYs on average (composite 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.53 QALYs). Long-term complications (dysphagia and xerostomia) contributed most to the QALY reduction. The QALYs spared with proton RT varied considerably among patients, ranging from 0.06 to 0.84 QALYs. Younger patients with p16-positive tumors who smoked ≤10 pack-years may benefit most from proton therapy, although this finding should be validated using larger patient series. A sensitivity analysis reducing photon IMRT doses to all OARs by 20% resulted in no overall estimated benefit with proton therapy with -0.02 QALYs spared, although some patients still had an estimated benefit in this scenario, ranging from -0.50 to 0.43 QALYs spared. CONCLUSIONS: This quantitative decision-support strategy allowed us to identify patients with oropharyngeal cancer who might benefit the most from proton RT, although the estimated benefit of proton therapy ultimately depends on the OAR doses achievable with modern photon IMRT solutions. These results can help radiation oncologists and proton therapy centers optimize resource allocation and improve quality of life for patients with HNC.

The Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale Is Valid and Reliable for the Assessment of Mucositis Among Brazilian Children With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES) is considered a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of mucositis in pediatric patients aged 0-18 years. OBJECTIVE: To perform the translation and cultural adaptation of ChIMES to Brazilian Portuguese and assess its psychometric properties. METHODS: Methods for translation and cultural adaptation were used. Other measurements obtained concomitantly for the assessment of psychometric properties included the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire, a visual analog scale, the World Health Organization grading scale for mucositis, and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity scale. For test-retest analysis, patients and guardians responded to the self-report and proxy versions of ChIMES within intervals of one to seven days. RESULTS: Regarding internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha (α) values were 0.769 (95% CI = 0.631-0.868) and 0.879 (95% CI = 0.872-0.920) for the self-reported and proxy versions, respectively. The convergent validity criteria were met for the self-reported and proxy versions (Spearman's rho = 0.466-0.751; P < 0.001 and Spearman's rho = 0.410-0.551; P < 0.001, respectively). Test-retest reliability assessment for the total score and Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in both versions showed an intraclass correlation coefficient of ≥0.7. CONCLUSIONS: The Portuguese self-reported and proxy versions of ChIMES were considered to be culturally adapted, valid, and reliable for Brazilian pediatric patients ranging from an age of one month to 18 years and were named ChIMES-BR.

Assessment of indomethacin oral spray for the treatment of oropharyngeal mucositis-induced pain during anticancer therapy.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of indomethacin (IM) oral spray (OS) as a pain control therapy for oropharyngeal mucositis due to anticancer chemo- and radiotherapy were assessed in patients with head and neck carcinomas and haematological tumours. METHOD: We observed 35 patients (male/female, 20/15; 53 ± 17 years) with oropharyngeal mucositis who were treated with IM-OS preparation for pain relief at University of Tsukuba Hospital, Japan. Analgesic effects were assessed using the six-grade face scale for pain in 28 patients at the start of IM oral spray treatment. Systemic exposure was assessed by determining urinary excretions of IM in seven patients. RESULTS: Pain relief was achieved in 26 (93%) patients at 25 (5-60) min after applying the IM-OS preparation (15.6 ± 3.4 µg/kg) and analgesic effects were maintained for 120 (10-360) min. The pain was significantly decreased after using the spray (3.6 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.9, p < 0.01). Moreover, urinary IM excretion rates after applying the IM spray preparation were 1.8 ± 0.8% of the IM oral spray dose (130.5 ± 77.7 µg/kg/day), which was markedly lower than that following oral administration of IM (60%). No adverse events were observed following application of the spray. CONCLUSIONS: The present IM spray is an effective and safe preparation for pain relief and can be used as an alternative therapeutic option for oropharyngeal mucositis in cancer patients.

Biomarkers in the assessment of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the capability of biomarkers to predict the risk of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients, as well as to assess the correlation between these biomarkers and the severity of mucositis. METHODS: The search was performed at LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. A search of the gray literature was performed on Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MAStARI) tool, and the evidence quality was assessed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: After a two-step selection process, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. In total, 27 biomarkers were evaluated, and the most frequent were the epidermal growth factor (EGF), C-reactive protein (CRP), genetic polymorphisms, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). The meta-analysis showed an expression of polymorphisms in XRCC1 (32.66%), XRCC3 (31.00%), and RAD51 (39.16%) genes, as well as an expression of protein biomarkers (39.57%), in patients with an increased risk of developing oral mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: Dosing biomarkers before starting radiation therapy may be a promising method to predict the risk of developing mucositis and allow radiosensitive patients to have a customized treatment. Although there is currently limited evidence to confirm the putative implementation of serum and salivary biomarkers to assess the correlation between them and the severity of mucositis, this current review provides new research directions.

Prospective assessment of oral mucositis and its impact on quality of life and patient-reported outcomes during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common acute side effect during radiotherapy treatments for head and neck cancer (HNC), with a potential impact on patient's compliance to therapy, quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. Its timely and appropriate management is of paramount importance. Several quantitative scoring scales are available to properly assess OM and its influence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and QoL. We prospectively assessed OM in a cohort of HNC patients submitted to radiation using the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS), while its impact on PROs and QoL was evaluated employing the Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer (OMWQ-HN) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Cancer (FACT-HN). Evaluation of OMAS scores highlighted a progressive increase in OM during treatment and a partial recovery after the end of radiation. These trends were correlated to PROs and QoL as evaluated with OMWQ-HN and FACT-HN questionnaires. In the present study, we provided a quantitative assessment of OM, PROs and QoL in HNC patient undergoing radiotherapy, potentially useful for future comparison.

Confounding factors associated with oral mucositis assessment in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify patient-centered, mucositis-associated adverse impact factors and events that might confound physician-assessed oral mucositis (OM) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a previously conducted randomized trial to determine the efficacy of 5% phenylbutyrate mouthwash in preventing chemoradiotherapy-induced OM. This analysis identified patient-centered symptomatic, observable, and measurable factors that may confound physician scoring of the severity of OM during chemoradiotherapy. Confounding factors were then combined with physician-rated OM scores according to World Health Organization (WHO) and OM Assessment Scale (OMAS) criteria to investigate the therapeutic implications of OM treatment. RESULTS: The original analysis found no significant differences between experimental and placebo groups with respect to the cumulative incidence of physician-recorded severe OM (WHO ≥3 or OMAS ≥2), patient-reported adverse events, and opioid use. However, patients in the experimental arm had relatively lower rates of OM-associated adverse clinical issues including unplanned short radiation breaks, skipping of chemotherapy, nausea/vomiting, late loss of body weight, and early opioid use, all of which could potentially interfere with physician-assessed OM scoring. When WHO OM grade (functional impact and pain), OMAS ulceration size (organic impact), and prolonged radiation treatment time (cancer treatment impact) were combined, there were significantly fewer interruptions of chemoradiotherapy treatment in symptomatic OM patients in the experimental compared to the placebo group. The benefits conferred by reducing the amount of chemoradiotherapy-related, OM-associated adverse impacts in the experimental group were reflected by better 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study raises questions as to whether the severity reflected by physician-rated OM scores is in concordance with OM-induced adverse impacts on HNC patients. Further investigations are warranted to identify patient-related and cancer-associated symptom burdens that may affect tolerance, compliance, and outcome of chemoradiotherapy and confound the evaluation of therapeutic effects on chemoradiotherapy-induced OM.

Association of human papillomavirus and p16 status with mucositis and dysphagia for head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy with or without cetuximab: Assessment from a phase 3 registration trial.

BACKGROUND: Mucositis and dysphagia are common adverse effects of radiotherapy (RT) treatment of locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Chemotherapy added to RT increases survival rates but causes worse mucositis and dysphagia. The aim of this analysis was to assess the impact of p16 status on mucositis, dysphagia, and feeding tube use in LA-SCCHN among patients treated with RT±cetuximab in the phase 3 IMCL-9815 trial. METHODS: Patients received RT plus weekly cetuximab or RT alone. Subgroup analyses were conducted on patients with p16-positive (n=75) or p16-negative (n=106) oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), as determined by immunohistochemical analysis. The onset and duration of mucositis and dysphagia by treatment arm and p16 status were displayed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. P values for the incidence of mucositis and dysphagia were calculated using the Fisher exact test. Feeding tube use was assessed as the percent of patients reporting use. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of patients treated with RT±cetuximab were similar in both the p16-positive and p16-negative OPC subgroups. Patients within the p16-positive OPC subgroup had higher Karnofsky scores and were more likely to have stage T1-T3 cancer and be from the United States. Regardless of p16 status, there was no difference in the onset or duration of grade 3/4 mucositis or dysphagia in patients receiving RT plus cetuximab compared with those receiving RT alone. In the overall population, and the p16-positive and p16-negative OPC subpopulations, feeding tube use was not different for patients receiving RT plus cetuximab compared with RT alone. CONCLUSION: Regardless of p16 status, the addition of cetuximab to RT did not alter the incidence, time to onset, severity, or duration of mucositis and dysphagia and did not impact the frequency of feeding tube use.

[Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the oral assessment guide (OAG) in cancer patients]. / Validez y fiabilidad de la versión española de la guía de valoración oral (OAG) en pacientes con cáncer.

BACKGROUND: The Oral Assessment Guide (OAG) is a widely used tool designed for evaluating problems of oral mucous in cancer patients, but it has not been validated in Spanish. The aim of this work is to translate and validate into Spanish the scale of the OAG designed by Eilers. METHOD: The translation process was carried out using the method of back-translation by bilingual translators. The study was carried out with cancer patients, both outpatient and inpatients, of the Hematology/Oncology Department and with oncology nurses. The following psychometric properties of the OAG were evaluated: internal consistency, concurrent validity with WHO's mucositis scale, interjudge agreement between two different nurses. The perception of patients and nurses on the use of the OAG was also assessed. RESULTS: An adequate Spanish version of the OAG was obtained. All the participants (n=40) completed the study. Internal consistency measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.71 and interjudge agreement obtained a moderate to good Kappa index in the majority of items (k=0.4-0.81), except in "tongue and gums" (k=0.33-0.37). Concurrent validity with WHO mucositis scale was acceptable (r=0.458). All the nurses (n=6) considered that the scale was easy to understand and useful in clinical practice. The patients said that oral evaluation with the scale did not cause them discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the OAG is a valid and reliable instrument in cancer patients. It is a scale that is easy to use in clinical practice and is well accepted by patients.