The effectiveness of probiotics in prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common and troublesome adverse side effect of many cancer therapy modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemo-radiotherapy), which can cause pain, ulceration, dysphagia, malnutrition, even treatment interruption. Probiotics may be effective in preventing and treating of cancer therapy-induced OM. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of probiotics in prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced OM. Four databases and one trial registry were searched as of the 12th of May 2019 to identify all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT). Five studies involving 435 patients were included in this study. Methodological quality and outcomes were evaluated in every study included. Pooled results showed a moderate heterogeneity (P = 0.15, I2 = 44%). The pooled RRs indicated that the use of probiotics decreased the risk of OM for grade ≥3 (RR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.54-0.81, P < 0.0001) as well as all grades (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.72-0.97, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between probiotics and placebo for cancer therapy completion rate (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.65-2.00, P = 0.64). The subgroup analysis indicated that the use of probiotics was not statistically significant for patients receiving chemo-radiotherapy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.26-1.04, P = 0.07). In conclusion, probiotics may reduce the incidence and mitigate the severity of cancer therapy-induced OM. Further trials with a randomized, double-blind and multicentric study design are needed to confirm this effect. The PROSPERO registration number of this systematic review and meta-analysis is CRD42019130414.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatment for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Compared the overall outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively compared overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), locoregional control (LRC), and disease-free survival (DFS) at our institution between January 2012 and December 2016. Propensity score-matching was performed to reduce patient selection bias based on age, gender, Karnofsky performance score, Charlson comorbidity index, pulmonary function, and tumor diameter. RESULTS: A total of 567 patients treated with SBRT (n = 109) or surgery (n = 458) were included. Of those, 104 patients were matched for further analyses. Median follow-up was 44 months. At 3 and 5 years, OS was 88.6 and 79.9% for SBRT, and 94.2 and 91.6% for surgery (p = 0.097). There were no differences noted in 5-year CSS (83.7 vs. 91.6%, respectively; p = 0.270). The cumulative incidence of LRC at 3 and 5 years was comparable (93.5 and 93.5% vs. 94.0 and 85.9%, respectively; p = 0.621). Differences in the rates of disease-free survival at 5 years were not statistically significant (79.0 and 80.5%, respectively; p = 0.624). CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score-matching analysis suggests that SBRT can be an alternative option to VATS lobectomy for stage I-II NSCLC.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the primary treatment method for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered inoperable due to medical comorbidities. However, the application of SBRT in patients aged ≥ 75 years has not been adequately studied. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of SBRT in early-stage NSCLC patients aged ≥ 75 years, and the impact of treatment on nutritional status and self-care ability. METHODS: Histopathologically confirmed early-stage (T1-3N0M0) NSCLC patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with SBRT between 2013 and 2018 at our center were identified from the electronic database. Treatment efficacy, treatment toxicities, impact of treatment on nutritional status, and self-care ability were retrospectively analyzed. Toxicities were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) (Common 2010) version 4.0. Nutritional status was assessed by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 criteria, and self-care ability by Barthel index and fall risk index. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up duration was 46.3 (3.9-80.1) months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 92.6%, 77.2%, and 59.1%, respectively, and the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year local control rates were 95.6%, 88.9% and 85.6%, respectively. Grade 1-2 and grade 3 radiation pneumonitis occurred in 60/68 (96.8%) and 1/68 (1.5%) patients, respectively. Fall risk at 3 months after treatment was not significantly different from that before treatment (P = 0.22). Barthel index increased significantly after treatment (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT appears to be effective and safe for NSCLC patients aged ≥ 75 years, with no adverse impact on nutritional status and self-care ability.

A prospective randomized controlled trial on the value of prophylactic oral nutritional supplementation in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiving chemo-radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effect of prophylactic oral nutrition supplements (ONS) in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group were supported with prophylactic ONS from the beginning of CCRT. The control group received nutritional support only when necessary. Bodyweight, hematological indexes, nutritional status, and quality of life were measured at baseline and before, during, and after RT. RESULTS: We evaluated 114 patients from October 2016 to May 2018. More than half of patients experienced significant weight loss during CCRT, which continued for three months after radiotherapy (RT). Compared to baseline, the rate of weight loss ≥ 5% before, during, at the end of RT, and one and three months after RT were 3.5%, 28.9%, 51.8%, 61.4%, and 61.4%, respectively. Nutritional status and global health status scores progressively decreased during treatment. The rate of RT interruption was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (7.14% vs. 0%, χ2 = 4.29, P = 0.04). More patients experienced concurrent chemotherapy interruption in the control group than in the intervention group (28.57% vs 10.34%, χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in weight loss, nutritional status, quality of life, and global health status between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition and weight loss progressively increased during treatment. Prophylactic ONS can improve tolerance to CCRT, but it offers no advantage on short-term weight loss or nutritional assessment scores.

Nutritional Status and Its Association With Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma During Radiotherapy: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Malnutrition is a concern in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) during chemoradiotherapy (CRT)/radiotherapy (RT), which is considered to be related with radiation-induced oral mucositis (ROM). The study aimed to evaluate the nutritional status of NPC patients during RT and investigate its association with ROM. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in NPC patients. Patients were divided into three subgroups (mild, moderate, and severe groups) based on the duration of severe ROM (≥ grade 3). Body weight, body mass index (BMI), albumin, prealbumin, NRS2002, and ROM grade were assessed on a weekly basis before and during CRT/RT. The statistical analysis was performed in the overall group and between three subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included. In the overall group, body weight and BMI kept decreasing since week 1 of RT, and NRS2002 score and ROM grade increased (p < 0.001). NRS2002 score and prealbumin levels were significantly different between each subgroup (p ≤ 0.046). Significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients receiving enteral nutrition, duration of parenteral nutrition, and total calories provided by nutritional support among three subgroups (p = 0.045-0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition occurred early in NPC patients and worsened continuously during RT. ROM was strongly associated with nutritional status. Nutritional support should be provided at the start of RT, especially in patients at high-risk of severe ROM.