Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible. RESULTS: A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositis-associated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible. CONCLUSIONS: Of the agents studied for the management of OM in this paper, the evidence supports a Suggestion in favor of topical morphine 0.2% in H&N cancer patients treated with RT-CT for the treatment of OM-associated pain.

Systematic review of natural and miscellaneous agents, for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines - part 2: honey, herbal compounds, saliva stimulants, probiotics, and miscellaneous agents.

OBJECTIVE: To update the clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM) that were developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). This part focuses on honey, herbal compounds, saliva stimulants, probiotics, and miscellaneous agents. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each clinical setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, one of the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, No Guideline Possible. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers were identified within the scope of this section, of which 49 were included in this review and merged with nine publications that were reported in the previous guidelines update. A new Suggestion was made for honey (combined topical and systemic delivery) for the prevention of OM in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. A new Suggestion clarified that chewing gum is not effective for the prevention of OM in pediatric patients with hematological or solid cancer treated with chemotherapy. No guideline was possible for other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous natural products and herbal remedies were studied for the management of OM. Of the agents reviewed in this systematic review, a guideline in favor was made for honey (combined topical and systemic), while a guideline against was made for chewing gum. Additional research is warranted to clarify the potential of other interventions.

Systematic review of oral cryotherapy for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: To update the 2013 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) clinical practice guidelines on oral cryotherapy for the management of oral mucositis (OM) caused by cancer therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO. The evidence for each intervention for specific cancer treatment modalities was assigned a level of evidence (LoE). The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2013 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the LoE, the guidelines were set as: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: A total of 114 papers were identified: 44 from PubMed and 70 from Web of Science. After abstract triage and merging with the 2013 database, 36 papers were reviewed. The LoE for prevention of OM with oral cryotherapy in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant using high-dose melphalan conditioning protocols was upgraded, and the guideline changed to recommendation. Additionally, the recommendation for prevention of OM with oral cryotherapy in patients receiving bolus 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of solid tumors was confirmed. No guidelines were possible for other clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports recommendations for the use of oral cryotherapy for the prevention of OM for either (i) patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant with high-dose melphalan conditioning protocols or (ii) patients receiving bolus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Systematic review of natural and miscellaneous agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines-part 1: vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements.

PURPOSE: To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of natural and miscellaneous agents for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer / International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers were identified within the scope of this section, out of which 29 were included in this part, and were analyzed with 27 previously reviewed studies. A new Suggestion was made for oral glutamine for the prevention of OM in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy. The previous Recommendation against the use of parenteral glutamine for the prevention of OM in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients was re-established. A previous Suggestion for zinc to prevent OM in H&N cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy was reversed to No Guideline Possible. No guideline was possible for other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Of the vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements studied for the management of OM, the evidence supports a Recommendation against parenteral glutamine in HSCT patients and a Suggestion in favor of oral glutamine in H&N cancer patients for the management of OM.

A systematic review of oral herpetic viral infections in cancer patients: commonly used outcome measures and interventions.

PURPOSE: To review the literature for outcome measures for oral viral infections in cancer patients. A secondary aim was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral viral infections in cancer patients. METHODS: Databases were searched for articles published in the English language, 1981-2013. Studies that met the eligibility criteria were reviewed systematically. The data about the outcome measures were classified according to the aim of the study: prevention, treatment, or non-interventional. The results of interventional studies were compared to the 2010 MASCC/ISOO publication. RESULTS: Multiple clinical and laboratory tests were used to measure oral viral infections, with great variability between studies. Most of the studies were about Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV). The outcome measure that was most commonly used was the presence of HSV infection diagnosed based on a combination of suggestive clinical presentation with a positive laboratory result. HSV culture was the most commonly reported laboratory outcome measure. Acyclovir and valacyclovir were consistently reported to be efficacious in the management of oral herpetic infections. No new data on the quality of life and economic aspects was found. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the variability in outcome measures reported to assess oral herpetic infections the researcher should select carefully the appropriate measures based on the objective of the study. Acyclovir and valacyclovir are effective in the management of oral herpetic infections in patients receiving treatment for cancer. Studies on newer anti-viral drugs may be useful to address the issue of anti-viral resistance.

Oral complications of Sjögren's syndrome.

Numerous oral manifestations associated with salivary gland dysfunction, and particularly Sjögren's syndrome, have been reported in the literature. This article discusses the evidence on a wide range of oral manifestations associated with Sjögren's syndrome.

Risk of oral and gastrointestinal mucosal injury among patients receiving selected targeted agents: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the risk and severity of oral and gastrointestinal mucosal toxicities associated with selected targeted agents. METHODS: We searched the English-language literature in February 2011 for reports of randomized clinical trials comparing a FDA-approved targeted agent to a standard of care regimens. Long-term follow-up and secondary reports of trials were excluded, leaving 85 studies for analysis. Using meta-analytic methods, we calculated the relative risks of oral and gastrointestinal toxicities, adjusting for sample size using the inverse variance technique. For each targeted agent and each side effect, we calculated the number needed to harm, the number of patients that, if treated with the more toxic regimen, would produce one additional episode of the toxicity. RESULTS: Oral mucositis was significantly more frequent among patients treated with bevacizumab, erlotinib, sorafenib, or sunitinib, although this difference was confined to low-grade mucositis. The clinical significance of these findings is unclear given its low incidence and mild severity. In contrast, diarrhea was significantly more frequent with most of the targeted agents studied, with adjusted relative risks between 1.5 and 4.5. An additional patient with diarrhea will be observed for every three to five patients treated with these targeted agents, compared with conventional regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Oral mucosal toxicities occasionally complicate treatment with these targeted agents, but the clinical significance of this finding is not clear. Diarrhea is a hallmark of treatment with these targeted agents; this side effect should be carefully ascertained to permit early intervention and control.

Swallowing dysfunction in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Dysphagia (swallowing dysfunction) is a debilitating, depressing, and potentially life-threatening complication in cancer patients that is likely underreported. The present paper is aimed to review relevant dysphagia literature between 1990 and 2010 with a focus on assessment tools, prevalence, complications, and impact on quality of life in patients with a variety of different cancers, particularly in those treated with curative chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. METHODS: The literature search was limited to the English language and included both MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE. The search focused on papers reporting dysphagia as a side effect of cancer and cancer therapy. We identified relevant literature through the primary literature search and by articles identified in references. RESULTS: A wide range of assessment tools for dysphagia was identified. Dysphagia is related to a number of factors such as direct impact of the tumor, cancer resection, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy and to newer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Concomitant oral complications such as xerostomia may exacerbate subjective dysphagia. Most literature focuses on head and neck cancer, but dysphagia is also common in other types of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Swallowing impairment is a clinically relevant acute and long-term complication in patients with a wide variety of cancers. More prospective studies on the course of dysphagia and impact on quality of life from baseline to long-term follow-up after various treatment modalities, including targeted therapies, are needed.

A retrospective, cohort study of the prevalence and risk factors of oral burning in patients with dry mouth.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of oral burning in a dry mouth cohort of patients and to determine associated factors. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing the charts of 170 patients who presented to Carolinas Medical Center's Department of Oral Medicine from January 2004 to June 2009. Information collected from their charts was extensive. RESULTS: Forty percent (68 of 170) of dry mouth patients had a concomitant complaint of oral burning. Sixty-four were female and 4 were male. The mean age was 61.1 years (range 25-89). Cofactors associated with oral burning included age (OR 1.03, CI 1.00-1.05, P = .028) and use of herbal medications (OR .26, CI .10-.67, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Oral burning is often concomitant with oral dryness. Targeting factors associated with oral dryness may help alleviate an oral burning complaint in select populations.

Receipt of dental care and barriers encountered by persons with disabilities.

A study was conducted to describe the receipt of dental care by patients with disabilities and to understand their perspective with regard to barriers to dental care. Subjects for this study were recruited among patients with disabilities seen at Carolinas Rehabilitation's outpatient clinic. A questionnaire consisting of 66 questions was completed by 344 subjects; with the topics related to both medical and dental care. Among the study population, 57.2% of subjects reported being seen by a dentist within the last 12 months, versus 67.3% before they became disabled. The last dental appointment was a routine examination for 59.5% of the respondents. Since becoming disabled, 16.6% of subjects reported problems receiving dental care. Financial challenges were the primary problem followed by physical accessibility issues. Further research is required to discover how barriers to care can be overcome to assure that those with disabilities receive adequate dental care.

The effect of air abrasion preparation on the shear bond strength of an orthodontic bracket bonded to enamel.

The purpose of this study was to determine the method of preparation of enamel which best retains a bonded orthodontic bracket against a shear force. Two hundred and twelve human lower premolars were randomly divided into four equal groups. Group 1 underwent no air abrasion, group 2 received treatment with 25 microm aluminium oxide particles, group 3 with 50 microm particles, and group 4 with 100 microm particles. All groups were treated with a self-etching primer before bonding of an orthodontic bracket. Each tooth was tested in a JJ Lloyd M30K machine to determine the maximum shear force required to dislodge the bracket from the tooth. A one-way analysis of variance test conducted at a 95 percent confidence level (CL) demonstrated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) with respect to the four methods of preparation of the enamel surface. An unpaired t-test was then applied at a 95 percent CL. There was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2. There was, however, a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 3 (P < 0.01), as well as between groups 1 and 4 (P < 0.01). In addition, there was significant difference found between groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05), groups 2 and 4 (P < 0.01), and groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.05).