Extraoral photobiomodulation for prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic extraoral photobiomodulation (PBM) for the prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) on clinical outcomes and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC). METHODS: OOPSCC patients who received radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively randomized to two groups: prophylactic extraoral PBM and placebo. OM grade (NCI), pain (VAS), analgesia, and anti-inflammatory prescriptions were assessed weekly. Quality of life questionnaires (QoL) were performed at the first and last day of RT. Following RT, participants were evaluated quarterly for oncological outcomes follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The first occurrence of OM was observed at week 1, for the placebo group (p = 0.014). Later, OM onset and severity was observed for the PBM group, with first occurrence at week 2 (p = 0.009). No difference in severe OM incidence was observed (p > 0.05). Lower mean pain score was noted at week 7 for the PBM group (2.1) compared to placebo group (4.5) (p = 0.009). Less analgesics (week 3; p = 0.009/week 7; p = 0.02) and anti-inflammatory prescription (week 5; p = 0.0346) were observed for the PBM group. Better QoL scores were observed for the PBM group at last day of RT (p = 0.0034). No difference in overall survival among groups was observed in 1 year of follow-up (p = 0.889). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic extraoral PBM can delay OM onset, reduce pain, and reduce analgesic and anti-inflammatory prescription requirements. Extraoral PBM was associated with better QoL. There was no evidence of PBM impact on oncological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN:RBR-4w4swx (date of registration: 01/20/2020).

Cost-effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy for the prevention and management of cancer treatment toxicities: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To identify and summarize the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy for the prevention and treatment of cancer treatment-related toxicities. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE). Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically. RESULTS: A total of 1490 studies were identified, and after a two-step review, 4 articles met the inclusion criteria. The included studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of PBM therapy used in the context of lymphedema for breast cancer and oral mucositis (OM) induced by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Better outcomes were associated with PBM therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 3050.75 USD to 5592.10 USD per grade 3-4 OM case prevented. PBM therapy cost 21.47 USD per percentage point reduction in lymphedema in comparison with 80.51 USD for manual lymph drainage and physical therapy. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence that PBM therapy is cost-effective in the prevention and treatment of specific cancer treatment-related toxicities, namely, OM and breast cancer-related lymphedema. Studies may have underreported the benefits due to a lack of a comprehensive cost evaluation. This suggests a wider acceptance of PBM therapy at cancer treatment centers, which has thus far been limited by the number of robust clinical studies that demonstrate cost-effectiveness for the prevention and treatment of toxicities.

Patterns of oral mucositis in advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma patients managed with prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy-insights for future protocol development.

To characterize oral sites affected by radiation-induced oral mucositis (OM) and related clinical outcomes in oral cancer patients subjected to prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT). This study included advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated with prophylactic PBMT for OM. The site distribution of OM, OM grading (CTCAE NCI, Version 4.0, 2010), OM-related pain (VAS), analgesic protocol (WHO Analgesic Ladder), and use of enteral nutrition were evaluated weekly during treatment. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics expressed as median values and percentages. A total of 145 OSCC patients were included. OM most frequently affected the lateral border of the tongue (44.1%), buccal mucosa (37.2%), and labial mucosa (33.8%). Keratinized oral mucosa sites, including the tongue dorsum (6.21%), retromolar trigone (8.3%), and hard palate (2.76%), were less frequently affected. Peak OM scores were observed at weeks 5, 6, and 7, with severe OM (NCI grades 3 and 4) rates of 11%, 20%, and 25%, respectively. The cumulative occurrence of severe OM was 23%, which developed as early as week 3 and as late as week 7. The highest mean value of OM-related pain (2.7) was observed at the sixth week, and 13.8% of the patients required feeding support. This study showed, compared with studies that did not provide PBMT, reduced severity of mucositis, reduced pain and analgesic use, and reduced tube feeding in patients treated with PBMT. OM involving keratinized and non-keratinized surfaces should be included in the prophylactic PBMT to reduce severe OM in future studies.

Impact of pandemic COVID-19 outbreak on oral mucositis preventive and treatment protocols: new perspectives for extraoral photobiomodulation therapy.

This communication discusses the current challenges of oral mucositis (OM) management during the pandemic COVID-19 outbreak and reflects about an extraoral photobiomodulation protocol as an optimal alternative for preventing and treating OM in advanced cancer patients while minimizing the risk of infection by avoiding intraoral manipulation.

Is photobiomodulation therapy effective in reducing pain caused by toxicities related to head and neck cancer treatment? A systematic review.

Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has been considered an effective method for preventing and managing certain cancer-related toxicities in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. However, the potential effects of PBMT on pain control and analgesia resulting from these toxicities is still controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to compile available evidence of the effects of PMBT on pain control and reduced use of analgesics in HNC patients. We searched three indexed databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The databases were reviewed up to and including December 2018. Only human clinical studies in English language were selected. Information was only available for mucositis and radiodermatitis. Fifteen out of 1112 studies met the inclusion criteria (14 for oral mucositis (OM) and 1 for radiodermatitis). From the 14 studies involving the prevention and treatment of OM, 10 had the study subjects compared to a placebo group. Of these 10 studies, all but 1 showed statistically significant difference related to pain control favoring the PBMT group. The study that compared PBMT with other treatment modality showed better results in pain control with PBMT. It appears that PBMT application frequency and potency impact on pain control. The only study involving the prevention and treatment of radiodermatitis was compared to placebo arm and showed statistically significant difference related to pain control favoring the PBMT group. Seven studies compared the need of analgesic medication between PBMT and placebo groups. Of these, five studies showed that the use of analgesic medication was significantly higher in the placebo group. The current evidence supports that PBMT is effective in pain control resulting from OM and radiodermatitis and may also reduce the need for analgesics. The evidence is not yet available of the effects of PBMT in other HNC treatment-related toxicities.

Tumor safety and side effects of photobiomodulation therapy used for prevention and management of cancer treatment toxicities. A systematic review.

Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), also known as low-level laser therapy (LLLT), has been increasingly used for the treatment of toxicities related to cancer treatment. One of the challenges for the universal acceptance of PBMT use in cancer patients is whether or not there is a potential for the light to stimulate the growth of residual malignant cells that evaded oncologic treatment, increasing the risk for tumor recurrences and development of a second primary tumor. Current science suggests promising effects of PBMT in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema and oral mucositis, among other cancer treatment toxicities. Nevertheless, this seems to be the first systematic review to analyze the safety of the use of PBMT for the management of cancer-related toxicities. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically. A total of 27 articles met the search criteria. Selected studies included the use of PBMT for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis, lymphedema, radiodermatitis, and peripheral neuropathy. Most studies showed that no side effects were observed with the use of PBMT. The results of this systematic review, based on current literature, suggest that the use of PBMT in the prevention and management of cancer treatment toxicities does not lead to the development of tumor safety issues.

Locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with photobiomodulation for prevention of oral mucositis: retrospective outcomes and safety analyses.

PURPOSE: The well-established clinical efficacy of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy in management of oral mucositis (OM) is leading to increasing use in oncology care. This protection and enhanced repair of damage to mucosal tissue have led to the question of the potential effects of PBM therapy on pre-malignant and malignant cells. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcome of cancer therapy and incidence of tumor recurrence in locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated with PBM therapy for OM. METHODS: A retrospective clinical analysis of 152 advanced OSCC patients treated with prophylactic PBM therapy for radiotherapy-induced OM from January 2009 to December 2014 was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 152 OSCC patients treated with PBM therapy in this study, 19 (12.5%) had stage III and 133 (87.5%) had stage IV tumors. Of these, 52 (34.2%) received initial treatment with surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, 94 (61.8%) with exclusive chemoradiation, and 6 (4%) with induction chemotherapy followed by surgery and radiotherapy. After a mean follow-up of 40.84 (± 11.71) months, the overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 46.7 and 51.8%, respectively. Forty-five (29.6%) patients developed local-regional recurrence, 10 (6.57%) patients developed distant relapse, and 19 (12.5%) developed new (second) primary tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathological features and survival outcomes in the PBM-treated patients were similar to previously published data for conventional treatments in patients with advanced OSCC. In this study, prophylactic use of PBM therapy did not impact treatment outcomes of the primary cancer, recurrence or new primary tumors, or survival in advanced OSCC patients.

Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: effect of LED and laser phototherapy treatment protocols.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Over the last few decades, many studies have focused on the effect of lasers on the management of oral mucositis in oncologic patients treated with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. However, the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) has been poorly studied, and was not compared with that of laser phototherapy (LPT). For this reason, the aim of the present study was to clinically compare the effect of these two therapies on chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (CIOM) and pain. METHODS: Forty patients with CIOM were divided into two groups: G1, patients treated with LPT; G2, patients treated with LED. The treatment was administered during 10 consecutive days, with exception of weekends. LPT was applied using an InGaAlP laser (660 nm/40 mW/6.6 J cm-(2)/0.24 J per point/0.036 cm(2) of spot size). LED phototherapy was applied using 0.24 J per point/80 mW/630 nm/1 cm(2) of spot size. CIOM was assessed during each session in accordance to the World Health Organization (WHO) score. The patient self-assessed pain was scored on a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The mean VAS and WHO scores were significantly smaller in the LED group (p<0.05). However, both groups required the same number of days to reach score zero for mucositis and pain (p>0.05). Moreover, in the group with severe mucositis (score III), there was a lower frequency of patients with complete healing and pain relief, with the exception of analgesia in G2, in which almost all patients were completely relieved from pain. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that LED therapy is more effective than LPT in the treatment of COIM, with the parameters used in the present study.