Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of the original Cochrane Review published in July 2005 and updated previously in 2012 and 2016. Cancer is a significant global health issue. Radiotherapy is a treatment modality for many malignancies, and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI), developing months or years following radiotherapy. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based on the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of complications following surgery and radiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating or preventing late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) compared to regimens that excluded HBOT. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. survival from time of randomisation to death from any cause; 2. complete or substantial resolution of clinical problem; 3. site-specific outcomes; and 4. ADVERSE EVENTS: Our secondary outcomes were 5. resolution of pain; 6. improvement in quality of life, function, or both; and 7. site-specific outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies contributed to this review (1071 participants) with publications ranging from 1985 to 2022. We added four new studies to this updated review and evidence for the treatment of radiation proctitis, radiation cystitis, and the prevention and treatment of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). HBOT may not prevent death at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.83; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 166 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is some evidence that HBOT may result in complete resolution or provide significant improvement of LRTI (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89; I2 = 64%; 5 RCTs, 468 participants; low-certainty evidence) and HBOT may result in a large reduction in wound dehiscence following head and neck soft tissue surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.94; I2 = 70%; 2 RCTs, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pain scores in ORN improve slightly after HBOT at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -10.72, 95% CI -18.97 to -2.47; I2 = 40%; 2 RCTs, 157 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events, HBOT results in a higher risk of a reduction in visual acuity (RR 4.03, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.84; 5 RCTs, 438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was a risk of ear barotrauma in people receiving HBOT when no sham pressurisation was used for the control group (RR 9.08, 95% CI 2.21 to 37.26; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 357 participants; high-certainty evidence), but no such increase when a sham pressurisation was employed (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.21; I2 = 74%; 2 RCTs, 158 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These small studies suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, bladder and rectum, HBOT may be associated with improved outcomes (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). HBOT may also result in a reduced risk of wound dehiscence and a modest reduction in pain following head and neck irradiation. However, HBOT is unlikely to influence the risk of death in the short term. HBOT also carries a risk of adverse events, including an increased risk of a reduction in visual acuity (usually temporary) and of ear barotrauma on compression. Hence, the application of HBOT to selected participants may be justified. The small number of studies and participants, and the methodological and reporting inadequacies of some of the primary studies included in this review demand a cautious interpretation. More information is required on the subset of disease severity and tissue type affected that is most likely to benefit from this therapy, the time for which we can expect any benefits to persist and the most appropriate oxygen dose. Further research is required to establish the optimum participant selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should also be undertaken.

Hyperbaric oxygenation for tumour sensitisation to radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a common disease and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HBOT) may improve the ability of radiotherapy to kill hypoxic cancer cells, so the administration of radiotherapy while breathing hyperbaric oxygen may result in a reduction in mortality and recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of administering radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant tumours while breathing HBO. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library Issue 8, 2017, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Database of Randomised Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine using the same strategies used in 2011 and 2015, and examined the reference lists of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the outcome of malignant tumours following radiation therapy while breathing HBO versus air or an alternative sensitising agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of and extracted data from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials in this review (2286 participants: 1103 allocated to HBOT and 1153 to control).For head and neck cancer, there was an overall reduction in the risk of dying at both one year and five years after therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 11 and RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, high-quality evidence), and some evidence of improved local tumour control immediately following irradiation (RR with HBOT 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). There was a lower incidence of local recurrence of tumour when using HBOT at both one and five years (RR at one year 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). There was also some evidence with regard to the chance of metastasis at five years (RR with HBOT 0.45 95% CI 0.09 to 2.30, single trial moderate quality evidence imprecision). No trials reported a quality of life assessment. Any benefits come at the cost of an increased risk of severe local radiation reactions with HBOT (severe radiation reaction RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.23, high-quality evidence). However, the available evidence failed to clearly demonstrate an increased risk of seizures from acute oxygen toxicity (RR 4.3, 95% CI 0.47 to 39.6, moderate-quality evidence).For carcinoma of the uterine cervix, there was no clear benefit in terms of mortality at either one year or five years (RR with HBOT at one year 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). Similarly, there was no clear evidence of a benefit of HBOT in the reported rate of local recurrence (RR with HBOT at one year 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). We also found no clear evidence for any effect of HBOT on the rate of development of metastases at both two years and five years (two years RR with HBOT 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31, high quality evidence; five years RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency). There were, however, increased adverse effects with HBOT. The risk of a severe radiation injury at the time of treatment with HBOT was 2.05, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.46, high-quality evidence. No trials reported any failure of local tumour control, quality of life assessments, or the risk of seizures during treatment.With regard to the treatment of urinary bladder cancer, there was no clear evidence of a benefit in terms of mortality from HBOT at one year (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27, high-quality evidence), nor any benefit in the risk of developing metastases at two years (RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.91, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). No trial reported on failure of local control, local recurrence, quality of life, or adverse effects.When all cancer types were combined, there was evidence for an increased risk of severe radiation tissue injury during the course of radiotherapy with HBOT (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.33, high-quality evidence) and of oxygen toxic seizures during treatment (RR with HBOT 6.76, 96% CI 1.16 to 39.31, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that HBOT improves local tumour control, mortality, and local tumour recurrence for cancers of the head and neck. These benefits may only occur with unusual fractionation schemes. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy is associated with severe tissue radiation injury. Given the methodological and reporting inadequacies of the included studies, our results demand a cautious interpretation. More research is needed for head and neck cancer, but is probably not justified for uterine cervical or bladder cancer. There is little evidence available concerning malignancies at other anatomical sites.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a significant global health problem. Radiotherapy is a treatment for many cancers and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) developing months or years later. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based upon the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of problems following surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of HBOT for treating or preventing LRTI. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE, EMBASE, DORCTIHM and reference lists of articles in December 2015. We also searched for ongoing trials at clinicaltrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant trials using the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and extracted the data from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials contributed to this review (753 participants). There was some moderate quality evidence that HBOT was more likely to achieve mucosal coverage with osteoradionecrosis (ORN) (risk ratio (RR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 1.6, P value = 0.003, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; 246 participants, 3 studies). There was also moderate quality evidence of a significantly improved chance of wound breakdown without HBOT following operative treatment for ORN (RR 4.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 16.8, P value = 0.04, NNTB 4; 264 participants, 2 studies). From single studies there was a significantly increased chance of improvement or cure following HBOT for radiation proctitis (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.9, P value = 0.04, NNTB 5), and following both surgical flaps (RR 8.7; 95% CI 2.7 to 27.5, P value = 0.0002, NNTB 4) and hemimandibulectomy (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8, P value = 0.001, NNTB 5). There was also a significantly improved probability of healing irradiated tooth sockets following dental extraction (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7, P value = 0.009, NNTB 4).There was no evidence of benefit in clinical outcomes with established radiation injury to neural tissue, and no randomised data reported on the use of HBOT to treat other manifestations of LRTI. These trials did not report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These small trials suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, anus and rectum, HBOT is associated with improved outcome. HBOT also appears to reduce the chance of ORN following tooth extraction in an irradiated field. There was no such evidence of any important clinical effect on neurological tissues. The application of HBOT to selected participants and tissues may be justified. Further research is required to establish the optimum participant selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should be undertaken.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a significant global health problem. Radiotherapy is a treatment for many cancers and about 50% of patients having radiotherapy with be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) developing months or years later. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based upon the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of problems following surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of HBOT for treating or preventing LRTI. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2011 we updated the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, DORCTIHM and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant trials using the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and extracted the data from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials contributed to this review (669 participants). For pooled analyses, investigation of heterogeneity suggested important variability between trials but there was some evidence that HBOT is more likely to achieve mucosal coverage with osteoradionecrosis (ORN) (risk ratio (RR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 1.6, P = 0.003, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). From single studies there was a significantly increased chance of improvement or cure following HBOT for radiation proctitis (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.9, P = 0.04, NNTB 5), and following both surgical flaps (RR 8.7; 95% CI 2.7 to 27.5, P = 0.0002, NNTB = 4) and hemimandibulectomy (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8, P = 0.001, NNTB 5). There was also a significantly improved probability of healing irradiated tooth sockets following dental extraction (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7, P = 0.009, NNTB 4).There was no evidence of benefit in clinical outcomes with established radiation injury to neural tissue, and no data reported on the use of HBOT to treat other manifestations of LRTI. These trials did not report adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These small trials suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, anus and rectum, HBOT is associated with improved outcome. HBOT also appears to reduce the chance of ORN following tooth extraction in an irradiated field. There was no such evidence of any important clinical effect on neurological tissues. The application of HBOT to selected patients and tissues may be justified. Further research is required to establish the optimum patient selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should be undertaken.

Hyperbaric oxygenation for tumour sensitisation to radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a common disease and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HBOT) may improve the ability of radiotherapy to kill hypoxic cancer cells, so the administration of radiotherapy while breathing hyperbaric oxygen may result in a reduction in mortality and recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of radiotherapy while breathing HBO. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2011 we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, DORCTHIM and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the outcome of malignant tumours following radiation therapy while breathing HBO versus air. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant trials and extracted the data from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials contributed to this review (2286 patients: 1103 allocated to HBOT and 1153 to control). With HBOT, there was a reduction in mortality for head and neck cancers at both one year and five years after therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, P = 0.03, number needed to treat (NNT) = 11; and RR 0.82, P = 0.03, NNT = 5 respectively), as well as improved local tumour control at three months (RR with HBOT 0.58, P = 0.006, NNT = 7). The effect of HBOT varied with different fractionation schemes. Local tumour recurrence was less likely with HBOT at one year (head and neck: RR 0.66, P < 0.0001, NNT = 5), two years (uterine cervix: RR 0.60, P = 0.04, NNT = 5) and five years (head and neck: (RR 0.77, P = 0.01, NNT = 6). Any advantage is achieved at the cost of some adverse effects. There was a significant increase in the rate of both severe radiation tissue injury (RR 2.35, P < 0.0001, (number needed to harm (NNH) = 8) and the chance of seizures during therapy (RR 6.76, P = 0.03, NNH = 22) with HBOT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that HBOT improves local tumour control and mortality for cancers of the head and neck, and local tumour recurrence in cancers of the head and neck, and uterine cervix. These benefits may only occur with unusual fractionation schemes. HBOT is associated with significant adverse effects including oxygen toxic seizures and severe tissue radiation injury. The methodological and reporting inadequacies of the studies included demand a cautious interpretation. More research is needed for head and neck cancer, but is probably not justified for bladder cancer. There is little evidence available concerning malignancies at other anatomical sites on which to base a recommendation.