BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ten interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

/pdf/interventions-for-treating-oral-mucositis-for-patients-with-wjcln0nmlw.pdf

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to review the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis (OM).

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00520-011-1202-0.pdf

A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis

Oral mucositis (OM) has emerged as a common cause of dose delays and interruptions of cancer therapies such as multicycle chemotherapy, myeloablative chemotherapy, and radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy of head and neck cancer. Research into both preventive and management strategies has lagged behind research into the common cancer treatment-related morbidities of nausea, vomiting, and cytopenias. This disparity is related to the complex risk assessment of multifactorial patient and treatment factors and different techniques of rating mucositis. In addition, relatively few clinical trials have focused on mucositis as a specific outcome. Currently, the only effective preventive strategies include the use of palifermin to prevent OM in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and oral cryotherapy used in conjunction with bolus 5-FU, melphalan, or edatrexate. For the most part, managing OM relies on supportive care and symptom palliation. However, OM is a common problem associated with significant patient morbidity and increased resource use. The magnitude of the problem demands innovative approaches based on expert judgment as evidence accumulates to support specific recommendations. To improve this situation, the NCCN convened a multidisciplinary task force to address key issues. This report integrates expert judgment with a review of key literature on risk assessment, prevention, and treatment strategies, and provides recommendations for the overall management of OM.

/pdf/nccn-task-force-report-prevention-and-management-of-2h2rxry76e.pdf

NCCN Task Force Report. prevention and management of mucositis in cancer care.

Mucositis, an inflammation of the mucous membranes, is a commonly occurring side effect of chemotherapy and radiation. Oral mucositis can cause significant clinical consequences, such as pain, malnutrition, and local and systemic infections. Nurses have a critical role in all aspects of managing mucositis, including assessing it, teaching oral care, administering pharmacologic interventions, and helping patients cope with symptom distress. Mucositis can have a negative impact on the overall treatment experience, especially when severe pain or infections occur. Many interventions for managing mucositis exist; however, some are based in tradition or expert opinion and have not been studied in large, randomized, controlled trials. In addition, a variety of assessment tools are available, which creates confusion and difficulties when comparing interventions across studies. This article reviews empirical evidence related to interventions for oral mucositis. Oral care and rinses, pharmacologic interventions, and other techniques are evaluated. Gaps in the literature and opportunities for research, education, and practice changes are discussed.

Putting Evidence Into Practice®: Evidence-Based Interventions for the Management of Oral Mucositis

Purpose of review To discuss the promising state of the art low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for preventive and therapeutic usage in oral mucositis due to cancer therapy. Recent findings Photomedicine using LLLT is very effective with intraoral and extraoral devices in the management of oral mucositis, based on several studies including randomized control studies. A systematic review identified 33 relevant articles that were subjected to meta-analysis based on which laser parameters in routine practice are being defined. Meta-analysis showed that LLLT reduced risk of oral mucositis with relative risk (RR) 2.45 [confidence interval (CI) 1.85-3.18], reduced duration, severity of oral mucositis and reduced number of days with oral mucositis (4.38 days, P찮0009). RR was similar between the red (630-670 nm) and infrared (780-830 nm) LLLT. Pain-relieving effect based on the Cohen scale was at 1.22 (CI 0.19-2.25). Summary No adverse side effects of LLLT were reported; hence, we recommend red or infrared LLLT with diode output between 10-100mW, dose of 2-3 J/cm2/cm2 for prophylaxis and 4 J/cm2 (maximum limit) for therapeutic effect, application on single spot rather than scanning motion. Lesions must be evaluated by a trained clinician and therapy should be repeated daily or every other day or a minimum of three times per week until resolution. There is moderate-to-strong evidence in favor of LLLT at optimal doses as a well tolerated, relatively inexpensive intervention for cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis. It is envisaged that LLLT will soon become part of routine oral supportive care in cancer.

Low-level laser therapy in the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced mucositis: 2012 state of the art based on literature review and meta-analysis.

Forty patients with multiple myeloma scheduled to receive melphalan 200 mg/m(2) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation were randomly assigned to receive oral cryotherapy or room temperature normal saline rinses 30 min before and for 6 h after high-dose therapy. Patients were evaluated for the development of mucositis using the National Cancer Institute grading system as well as evaluation of secondary measures such as days of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), narcotic use, hospitalization, weight loss and resumption of oral caloric intake for 28 days after transplant. Patients self-scored their pain, swallowing, drinking, eating, sleeping and taste alterations for 28 days. The primary end point of this trial was the incidence of grades 3-4 mucositis. Compared to the normal saline group, patients using cryotherapy experienced less grade 3-4 mucositis, 14 vs 74%, P=0.0005. Patients receiving cryotherapy also had statistically lower uses of narcotics and TPN, although there were no differences in length of hospitalization or weight loss. Patient-reported pain was significantly lower and activities were significantly better in the cryotherapy group.

A prospective, randomized study of cryotherapy during administration of high-dose melphalan to decrease the severity and duration of oral mucositis in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.

P McDonnnell

Papers

A prospective, randomized study of cryotherapy during administration of high-dose melphalan to decrease the severity and duration of oral mucositis in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.