BACKGROUND
A frequent complication of anticancer treatment, oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis, threatens the effectiveness of therapy because it leads to dose reductions, increases healthcare costs, and impairs patients' quality of life. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an international multidisciplinary panel of experts to create clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, evaluation, and treatment of mucositis.

METHODS
The panelists examined medical literature published from January 1966 through May 2002, presented their findings at two separate conferences, and then created a writing committee that produced two articles: the current study and another that codifies the clinical implications of the panel's findings in practice guidelines.

RESULTS
New evidence supports the view that oral mucositis is a complex process involving all the tissues and cellular elements of the mucosa. Other findings suggest that some aspects of mucositis risk may be determined genetically. GI proapoptotic and antiapoptotic gene levels change along the GI tract, perhaps explaining differences in the frequency with which mucositis occurs at different sites. Studies of mucositis incidence in clinical trials by quality and using meta-analysis techniques produced estimates of incidence that are presented herein for what to our knowledge may be a broader range of cancers than ever presented before.

CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the pathobiology of mucositis, its incidence, and scoring are essential for progress in research and care directed at this common side-effect of anticancer therapies. Cancer 2004;100(9 Suppl):1995–2025. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cncr.20162

Perspectives on cancer therapy-induced mucosal injury: pathogenesis, measurement, epidemiology, and consequences for patients

Background Bisphosphonates such as pamidronate disodium inhibit osteoclast-induced bone resorption associated with cancer that has metastasized to bone. Methods Women with stage IV breast cancer who were receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy and had at least one lytic bone lesion were given either placebo or pamidronate (90 mg) as a two-hour intravenous infusion monthly for 12 cycles. Skeletal complications, including pathologic fractures, the need for radiation to bone or bone surgery, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia (a serum calcium concentration above 12 mg per deciliter [3.0 mmol per liter] or elevated to any degree and requiring treatment), were assessed monthly. Bone pain, use of analgesic drugs, performance status, and quality of life were assessed throughout the trial. Results The efficacy of treatment was evaluated in 380 of 382 randomized patients, 185 receiving pamidronate and 195 receiving placebo. The median time to the occurrence of the first skeletal complication was greater in the pa...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199612123352401

Efficacy of Pamidronate in Reducing Skeletal Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer and Lytic Bone Metastases

Breast cancer is a major public health problem worldwide. Management of breast cancer was last reviewed in the Journal in 1992.1 The accumulation of new biologic information, the results of recent clinical trials, and the availability of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools make it appropriate to review the subject again. Epidemiology The incidence of breast cancer in the United States has been increasing gradually for the past three decades.2,3 It was estimated that 181,600 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 1997 and that 44,190 people would die of breast cancer during the same . . .

Treatment of breast cancer

Purpose: To review the current understanding of the clinical significance, detection, pathogenesis, and prevention of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search of the Eng...

Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity.

Background Adjuvant chemotherapy is widely used for breast cancer and is known to extend survival. Some clinicians seek a greater survival benefit by increasing the intensity of the dose, whereas others lower it to diminish toxicity. Methods The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) conducted a randomized trial of different levels of doses and dose intensity (dose per unit of time) of adjuvant chemotherapy in 1572 women with node-positive, stage II breast cancer who were assigned to three treatment groups. One group received 400 mg of cyclophosphamide per square meter of body-surface area and 40 mg of doxorubicin per square meter once every 28 days and 400 mg of fluorouracil per square meter twice every 28 days, for six cycles. Another group received 50 percent higher doses of the three drugs (600 mg, 60 mg, and 600 mg, respectively) but for only four cycles, so that the total dose was identical in these two groups but the dose intensity was higher in the second. The third group of women received half the t...

Dose and Dose Intensity of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II, Node-Positive Breast Carcinoma

Three hundred twenty-five women with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast who had failed one prior chemotherapeutic regimen for advanced disease were randomized to receive 14 mg/m2 of mitoxantrone or 75 mg/m2 of doxorubicin intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks. Enrollment was closed on October 31, 1984, after 165 patients were randomized to mitoxantrone and 160 patients to doxorubicin. Patients randomized to the two treatment groups were compared for response rate, duration of response, time to progression or death, time to treatment failure (TTF), and survival. The response rate to mitoxantrone was 20.6%, to doxorubicin 29.3% (P = .07). The median response duration was 151 days for the mitoxantrone group and 126 days for the doxorubicin group (P = .16). The median TTF was 70 days in the mitoxantrone group and 104 days in the doxorubicin group (P = .36). The median survival of patients initially randomized to receive mitoxantrone was 273 days; for doxorubicin 268 days (P = .40). There were three responses among 77 patients crossed over to mitoxantrone after initial treatment with doxorubicin. The major dose-limiting toxicity for both drugs was leukopenia. There was significantly less severe and less frequent toxicity with mitoxantrone administration. Severe nausea and vomiting occurred in 9.5% of mitoxantrone patients and 25.3% of doxorubicin patients (P less than .001). The incidence of severe stomatitis and mucositis was 0.6% in the mitoxantrone group and 8.4% in the doxorubicin group (P = .001). Severe alopecia occurred in 5.1% of mitoxantrone patients and 61.0% of doxorubicin patients (P less than .001). A life-table comparison of the cumulative dose to the development of a cardiac event showed that mitoxantrone had significantly less cardiotoxicity than doxorubicin (P = .0005). This study demonstrates that mitoxantrone is active as a single agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Compared with doxorubicin it appears to be marginally less active and significantly less toxic. We conclude that mitoxantrone can be used alone or with other standard drugs to palliate the symptoms of metastatic breast cancer, especially in settings where drug toxicity is an important consideration.

Randomized clinical trial comparing mitoxantrone with doxorubicin in previously treated patients with metastatic breast cancer.

In animal tumor models the dose-response curve for cytotoxic agents, especially cyclophosphamide, may be steep, but the slope and shape of this curve depends not only on the drug used but on the schedule of drug administration, the specific tumor type, tumor cell kinetics, and tumor mass. It might be anticipated from these studies that the human tumors most sensitive to dose effects would be leukemia, lymphoma, small-cell carcinoma of the lung, and testicular tumors rather than the low growth fraction, relatively less responsive tumors such as breast cancer. However, the clinical evidence for a steep dose-response curve in any tumor type is limited. For breast cancer such evidence is largely retrospective or derived from uncontrolled trials. The data available from randomized trials makes it seem unlikely that small, or even moderate, reductions in drug dose for nontrivial reasons will compromise the survival of patients with either early or metastatic disease. In spite of promising data from small trials...

Dose-response in the treatment of breast cancer: a critical review.

Mitoxantrone (Novantrone®; dihydroxyanthracenedione) is an anthraquinone previously shown to be active in human breast cancer. It appears to have less toxicity than doxorubicin. Results of this phase II–III randomized cross-over trial to determine the relative efficacy and toxicity of mitoxantrone in comparison to doxorubicin, are presented. Patients with measurable, recurrent breast cancer with limited prior chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy for metastatic disease, and who had not been exposed to prior doxorubicin, were randomized to receive either mitoxantrone or doxorubicin every three weeks with crossover on progression. Response rates, duration of remission, time to treatment failure, and drug toxicity, including cardiac toxicity evaluated with serial radionuclide angiocardiography, were evaluated. Differences in the response rates for the two groups were not statistically significant. Neither time to treatment failure nor duration of response are significantly different (p>0.05). With respect to toxicity, mitoxantrone treated patients consistently exhibited a lower incidence and less severe drug toxicity as compared to their doxorubicin-treated counterparts. Cardiac toxicity was carefully monitored and thus four patients on doxorubicin have had drug related congestive heart failure, as compared to none on mitoxantrone.

A randomized trial comparing mitoxantrone with doxorubicin in patients with stage IV breast cancer.

PURPOSEAs an alternative to single-cycle cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin (CTCb) intensification, we evaluated the feasibility of administering one-quarter dose CTCb for four cycles with peripheral-blood progenitor-cell (PBPC) and filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) in advanced-stage breast cancer patients.PATIENTS AND METHODSFrom June 1992 to August 1993, 20 stage IIIB (n = 7) and IV (n = 13) breast cancer patients received 78 cycles of induction with doxorubicin 90 mg/m2 by intravenous (IV) bolus with G-CSF 5 microg/kg/d by subcutaneous injection (SC) repeated every 14 to 21 days for four cycles. PBPC were collected by 2-hour single-blood volume leukapheresis on 2 consecutive days at the time of hematologic recovery from each cycle of doxorubicin. Eighteen patients received 61 cycles of intensification with cyclophosphamide 1,500 mg/m2, thiotepa 125 mg/m2, and carboplatin 200 mg/m2 by IV continuous infusion with G-CSF 10 microg/kg/d SC and PBPC support repeated every 21...

Repetitive cycles of cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin intensification with peripheral-blood progenitor cells and filgrastim in advanced breast cancer patients.

I C Henderson

Papers

Randomized clinical trial comparing mitoxantrone with doxorubicin in previously treated patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Dose-response in the treatment of breast cancer: a critical review.

A randomized trial comparing mitoxantrone with doxorubicin in patients with stage IV breast cancer.

Repetitive cycles of cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin intensification with peripheral-blood progenitor cells and filgrastim in advanced breast cancer patients.

CAF in metastatic breast cancer: standard therapy or another effective regimen?