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).

COVID-19 impact on anxiety and depression in head and neck cancer patients: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the coronavirus disease 2019 has increased anxiety, depression, and distress levels in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, RT-HNC patients were surveyed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for anxiety and depression and the distress thermometer (DT) for distress. HADS scores were compared with data pre-COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the COVID-19 impact on daily routines, treatment, and cancer care through a questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. The HADS mean score and estimated rates were 4.34 (±4.06)/22% for anxiety and 5.08 (±4.82)/22% for depression; in comparison, our historical control had 4.04 (±3.59)/20% for anxiety (p = .79) and 4.03 (±3.62)/17% for depression (p = .49). Mean DT score was 3.68 (±2.77). Responders were aware of COVID-19, afraid of having medical complications, believed it was life-threatening, did not miss appointments, believed their treatment was not impacted, and felt safe at the hospital amid the pandemic. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that anxiety, depression, and distress levels found in RT-HNC patients did not increase during the pandemic. Patients were afraid of being infected by COVID-19; however, they complied with their cancer treatment.

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.

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.

Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO: an international Delphi study.

Background: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022-July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022-May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023-May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received.

Twenty-year analysis of photobiomodulation clinical studies for oral mucositis: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to review the first 20 years of photobiomodulation (PBM) clinical studies for oral mucositis (OM) mitigation. STUDY DESIGN: A scoping review screened controlled clinical studies. The PBM devices, protocols, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The first study dated from 1992, and the term "PBM" was first published in 2017. Public services, placebo-controlled randomized trials, and patients with head and neck chemoradiation were predominant among included studies. Prophylactic red intraoral laser protocols were mostly used. Comparing the outcomes of all protocols was unfeasible due to missing treatment parameters and nonhomogeneous measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The main barrier to optimizing clinical protocols of PBM for OM was the lack of standardization in clinical studies. Although PBM use is now globally present in oncology settings and generally marked by good outcomes reported, additional randomized clinical trials with well-described methods are necessary.

Direct costs associated with the management of mucositis: A systematic review.

Mucositis is one of the more frequent and costly adverse events following cancer treatment. To evaluate and report the direct economic outcomes associated with the management of mucositis across several cancer treatments we conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically and a total of 37 relevant studies were included. The costs attributable to mucositis in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation setting ranged from 1124,47 US dollars (USD) to 299 214,14 USD per patient. The radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy plus molecular targeted therapy accounted for mucositis costs that ranged from 51,23 USD to 33 560,58 USD per patient. Costs for mucositis in the chemotherapy setting ranged from 4,18 USD to 31 963,64 USD per patient. When the cancer treatment was not specified, costs of mucositis ranged from 565,85 USD to as high as 20 279, 12 USD per patient. Mucositis costs from multimodal therapy ranged from 12,42 USD to 5670,46 USD per patient. The molecular targeted therapy setting included only one study and depending on the healthcare providers' perspective of each country evaluated, mucositis' costs ranged from 45,78 USD to 3484,91 USD per patient. Mucositis is associated with increased resource use, consultations, hospitalizations and extended hospitalizations, leading to a substantial incremental cost that exacerbates the economic burden on the patient, health plan and health system across several cancer treatments and diagnosis. More studies with a prospective evaluation of the economic costs associated with mucositis management are needed.