Search

Contains fulltext : 229269.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Mucositis is a significant toxicity of cancer therapy with numerous systemic sequelae. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of mucositis. METHODS: The literature was reviewed systematically to identify interventions for mucositis. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws according to previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention and in each treatment setting was assigned a level of evidence based on previously published criteria. Guidelines were developed based on the level of evidence, with 3 possible guideline determinations: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: The guideline covers evidence from 1197 publications related to oral or gastrointestinal mucositis. Thirteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings, and 11 previous guidelines were confirmed after aa review of new evidence. Thirteen previously established guidelines were carried over because there was no new evidence for these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis provide professional health caregivers with a clinical setting-specific, evidence-based tool to help with the management of mucositis in patients who have cancer.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: Despite advances in personalizing the efficacy of cancer therapy, our ability to identify patients at risk of severe treatment side effects and provide individualized supportive care is limited. This is particularly the case for mucositis (oral and gastrointestinal), with no comprehensive risk evaluation strategies to identify high-risk patients. We, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Mucositis Study Group, therefore aimed to systematically review current evidence on that factors that influence mucositis risk to provide a foundation upon which future risk prediction studies can be based. METHODS: We identified 11,018 papers from PubMed and Web of Science, with 197 records extracted for full review and 113 meeting final eligibility criteria. Data were then synthesized into tables to highlight the level of evidence for each risk predictor. RESULTS: The strongest level of evidence supported dosimetric parameters as key predictors of mucositis risk. Genetic variants in drug-metabolizing pathways, immune signaling, and cell injury/repair mechanisms were also identified to impact mucositis risk. Factors relating to the individual were variably linked to mucositis outcomes, although female sex and smoking status showed some association with mucositis risk. CONCLUSION: Mucositis risk reflects the complex interplay between the host, tumor microenvironment, and treatment specifications, yet the large majority of studies rely on hypothesis-driven, single-candidate approaches. For significant advances in the provision of personalized supportive care, coordinated research efforts with robust multiplexed approaches are strongly advised.

Contains fulltext : 229269.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Mucositis is a significant toxicity of cancer therapy with numerous systemic sequelae. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of mucositis. METHODS: The literature was reviewed systematically to identify interventions for mucositis. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws according to previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention and in each treatment setting was assigned a level of evidence based on previously published criteria. Guidelines were developed based on the level of evidence, with 3 possible guideline determinations: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: The guideline covers evidence from 1197 publications related to oral or gastrointestinal mucositis. Thirteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings, and 11 previous guidelines were confirmed after aa review of new evidence. Thirteen previously established guidelines were carried over because there was no new evidence for these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis provide professional health caregivers with a clinical setting-specific, evidence-based tool to help with the management of mucositis in patients who have cancer.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: Despite advances in personalizing the efficacy of cancer therapy, our ability to identify patients at risk of severe treatment side effects and provide individualized supportive care is limited. This is particularly the case for mucositis (oral and gastrointestinal), with no comprehensive risk evaluation strategies to identify high-risk patients. We, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Mucositis Study Group, therefore aimed to systematically review current evidence on that factors that influence mucositis risk to provide a foundation upon which future risk prediction studies can be based. METHODS: We identified 11,018 papers from PubMed and Web of Science, with 197 records extracted for full review and 113 meeting final eligibility criteria. Data were then synthesized into tables to highlight the level of evidence for each risk predictor. RESULTS: The strongest level of evidence supported dosimetric parameters as key predictors of mucositis risk. Genetic variants in drug-metabolizing pathways, immune signaling, and cell injury/repair mechanisms were also identified to impact mucositis risk. Factors relating to the individual were variably linked to mucositis outcomes, although female sex and smoking status showed some association with mucositis risk. CONCLUSION: Mucositis risk reflects the complex interplay between the host, tumor microenvironment, and treatment specifications, yet the large majority of studies rely on hypothesis-driven, single-candidate approaches. For significant advances in the provision of personalized supportive care, coordinated research efforts with robust multiplexed approaches are strongly advised.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: Despite advances in personalizing the efficacy of cancer therapy, our ability to identify patients at risk of severe treatment side effects and provide individualized supportive care is limited. This is particularly the case for mucositis (oral and gastrointestinal), with no comprehensive risk evaluation strategies to identify high-risk patients. We, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Mucositis Study Group, therefore aimed to systematically review current evidence on that factors that influence mucositis risk to provide a foundation upon which future risk prediction studies can be based. METHODS: We identified 11,018 papers from PubMed and Web of Science, with 197 records extracted for full review and 113 meeting final eligibility criteria. Data were then synthesized into tables to highlight the level of evidence for each risk predictor. RESULTS: The strongest level of evidence supported dosimetric parameters as key predictors of mucositis risk. Genetic variants in drug-metabolizing pathways, immune signaling, and cell injury/repair mechanisms were also identified to impact mucositis risk. Factors relating to the individual were variably linked to mucositis outcomes, although female sex and smoking status showed some association with mucositis risk. CONCLUSION: Mucositis risk reflects the complex interplay between the host, tumor microenvironment, and treatment specifications, yet the large majority of studies rely on hypothesis-driven, single-candidate approaches. For significant advances in the provision of personalized supportive care, coordinated research efforts with robust multiplexed approaches are strongly advised.

Contains fulltext : 229269.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Mucositis is a significant toxicity of cancer therapy with numerous systemic sequelae. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of mucositis. METHODS: The literature was reviewed systematically to identify interventions for mucositis. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws according to previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention and in each treatment setting was assigned a level of evidence based on previously published criteria. Guidelines were developed based on the level of evidence, with 3 possible guideline determinations: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: The guideline covers evidence from 1197 publications related to oral or gastrointestinal mucositis. Thirteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings, and 11 previous guidelines were confirmed after aa review of new evidence. Thirteen previously established guidelines were carried over because there was no new evidence for these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis provide professional health caregivers with a clinical setting-specific, evidence-based tool to help with the management of mucositis in patients who have cancer.

Contains fulltext : 208383.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and/or treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis (GIM). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers across 13 interventions were examined of which 25 were included in the final review. No new guidelines were possible for any agent due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. Existing guidelines for probiotics and hyperbaric oxygen were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Of the agents studied for the prevention and treatment of GIM, the evidence continues to support use of probiotics containing Lactobacillus spp. for prevention of chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat radiation-induced proctitis. Additional well-designed research is encouraged to enable a decision regarding palifermin, glutamine, sodium butyrate, and dietary interventions, for the prevention or treatment of GIM.

Contains fulltext : 208383.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and/or treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis (GIM). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers across 13 interventions were examined of which 25 were included in the final review. No new guidelines were possible for any agent due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. Existing guidelines for probiotics and hyperbaric oxygen were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Of the agents studied for the prevention and treatment of GIM, the evidence continues to support use of probiotics containing Lactobacillus spp. for prevention of chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat radiation-induced proctitis. Additional well-designed research is encouraged to enable a decision regarding palifermin, glutamine, sodium butyrate, and dietary interventions, for the prevention or treatment of GIM.

Contains fulltext : 208383.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and/or treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis (GIM). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers across 13 interventions were examined of which 25 were included in the final review. No new guidelines were possible for any agent due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. Existing guidelines for probiotics and hyperbaric oxygen were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Of the agents studied for the prevention and treatment of GIM, the evidence continues to support use of probiotics containing Lactobacillus spp. for prevention of chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat radiation-induced proctitis. Additional well-designed research is encouraged to enable a decision regarding palifermin, glutamine, sodium butyrate, and dietary interventions, for the prevention or treatment of GIM.

Contains fulltext : 154632.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: Hematology-oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are at risk for oral complications which may cause significant morbidity and a potential risk of mortality. This emphasizes the importance of basic oral care prior to, during and following chemotherapy/HSCT. While scientific evidence is available to support some of the clinical practices used to manage the oral complications, expert opinion is needed to shape the current optimal protocols. METHODS: This position paper was developed by members of the Oral Care Study Group, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in attempt to provide guidance to the health care providers managing these patient populations. RESULTS: The protocol on basic oral care outlined in this position paper is presented based on the following principles: prevention of infections, pain control, maintaining oral function, the interplay with managing oral complications of cancer treatment and improving quality of life. CONCLUSION: Using these fundamental elements, we developed a protocol to assist the health care provider and present a practical approach for basic oral care. Research is warranted to provide robust scientific evidence and to enhance this clinical protocol.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The oral cavity is frequently affected in chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), with variable clinical presentations. The literature on the effective management of patients suffering from oral cGVHD is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the clinical approaches used in the diagnosis and treatment of cGVHD in a group of health-care providers specialized in the oral care of oncology patients. The secondary objective was to assess the level of implementation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for cGVHD patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty questionnaires were sent to the members of the Oral Care Study Group (OCSG) of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The questionnaire included 50 questions about the responder's demographics, level of exposure to cGVHD patients, diagnostic and evaluation methods in their practice, preferred treatment strategies for mucosal and salivary gland involvement, and preventive measures. RESULTS: Twelve responders, representing 12 sites, stated that they treat oral cGVHD patients on a regular basis. This fraction of responders was confirmed by another online survey. Eleven out of the 12 providers were dentists. Seventy-five percent of the providers did not use biopsy in order to diagnose oral cGVHD. The NIH scale for the clinical assessment was used sporadically. The first-line topical treatment for oral mucosal cGVHD was predominantly steroids (91.7 %), and the second preferred treatment was tacrolimus (41.7 %). The preferred treatment for hyposalivation was pilocarpine (41.7 %). The recommended frequency of oral cancer screening varied; half of the providers suggest a follow-up every 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The responses described the common practices for oral cGVHD in several specialized centers across the world. The choice of topical treatments was influenced by the availability of medications in the prov

Contains fulltext : 154632.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: Hematology-oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are at risk for oral complications which may cause significant morbidity and a potential risk of mortality. This emphasizes the importance of basic oral care prior to, during and following chemotherapy/HSCT. While scientific evidence is available to support some of the clinical practices used to manage the oral complications, expert opinion is needed to shape the current optimal protocols. METHODS: This position paper was developed by members of the Oral Care Study Group, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in attempt to provide guidance to the health care providers managing these patient populations. RESULTS: The protocol on basic oral care outlined in this position paper is presented based on the following principles: prevention of infections, pain control, maintaining oral function, the interplay with managing oral complications of cancer treatment and improving quality of life. CONCLUSION: Using these fundamental elements, we developed a protocol to assist the health care provider and present a practical approach for basic oral care. Research is warranted to provide robust scientific evidence and to enhance this clinical protocol.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The oral cavity is frequently affected in chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), with variable clinical presentations. The literature on the effective management of patients suffering from oral cGVHD is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the clinical approaches used in the diagnosis and treatment of cGVHD in a group of health-care providers specialized in the oral care of oncology patients. The secondary objective was to assess the level of implementation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for cGVHD patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty questionnaires were sent to the members of the Oral Care Study Group (OCSG) of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The questionnaire included 50 questions about the responder's demographics, level of exposure to cGVHD patients, diagnostic and evaluation methods in their practice, preferred treatment strategies for mucosal and salivary gland involvement, and preventive measures. RESULTS: Twelve responders, representing 12 sites, stated that they treat oral cGVHD patients on a regular basis. This fraction of responders was confirmed by another online survey. Eleven out of the 12 providers were dentists. Seventy-five percent of the providers did not use biopsy in order to diagnose oral cGVHD. The NIH scale for the clinical assessment was used sporadically. The first-line topical treatment for oral mucosal cGVHD was predominantly steroids (91.7 %), and the second preferred treatment was tacrolimus (41.7 %). The preferred treatment for hyposalivation was pilocarpine (41.7 %). The recommended frequency of oral cancer screening varied; half of the providers suggest a follow-up every 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The responses described the common practices for oral cGVHD in several specialized centers across the world. The choice of topical treatments was influenced by the availability of medications in the prov

Contains fulltext : 154632.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: Hematology-oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are at risk for oral complications which may cause significant morbidity and a potential risk of mortality. This emphasizes the importance of basic oral care prior to, during and following chemotherapy/HSCT. While scientific evidence is available to support some of the clinical practices used to manage the oral complications, expert opinion is needed to shape the current optimal protocols. METHODS: This position paper was developed by members of the Oral Care Study Group, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in attempt to provide guidance to the health care providers managing these patient populations. RESULTS: The protocol on basic oral care outlined in this position paper is presented based on the following principles: prevention of infections, pain control, maintaining oral function, the interplay with managing oral complications of cancer treatment and improving quality of life. CONCLUSION: Using these fundamental elements, we developed a protocol to assist the health care provider and present a practical approach for basic oral care. Research is warranted to provide robust scientific evidence and to enhance this clinical protocol.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The oral cavity is frequently affected in chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), with variable clinical presentations. The literature on the effective management of patients suffering from oral cGVHD is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the clinical approaches used in the diagnosis and treatment of cGVHD in a group of health-care providers specialized in the oral care of oncology patients. The secondary objective was to assess the level of implementation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for cGVHD patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty questionnaires were sent to the members of the Oral Care Study Group (OCSG) of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The questionnaire included 50 questions about the responder's demographics, level of exposure to cGVHD patients, diagnostic and evaluation methods in their practice, preferred treatment strategies for mucosal and salivary gland involvement, and preventive measures. RESULTS: Twelve responders, representing 12 sites, stated that they treat oral cGVHD patients on a regular basis. This fraction of responders was confirmed by another online survey. Eleven out of the 12 providers were dentists. Seventy-five percent of the providers did not use biopsy in order to diagnose oral cGVHD. The NIH scale for the clinical assessment was used sporadically. The first-line topical treatment for oral mucosal cGVHD was predominantly steroids (91.7 %), and the second preferred treatment was tacrolimus (41.7 %). The preferred treatment for hyposalivation was pilocarpine (41.7 %). The recommended frequency of oral cancer screening varied; half of the providers suggest a follow-up every 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The responses described the common practices for oral cGVHD in several specialized centers across the world. The choice of topical treatments was influenced by the availability of medications in the prov

1 januari 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis. 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. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible. RESULTS: A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.

1 juli 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the biological basis for cancer therapy-induced mucosal barrier injury (mucositis). The last formal review of the subject by MASCC/ISOO was published in 2007; consequently, an update is timely. METHODS: Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis pathobiology published between January 2005 and December 2011. RESULTS: Recent research has provided data on the contribution of tissue structure changes, inflammation and microbiome changes to the development of mucositis. Additional research has focused on targeted therapy-induced toxicity, toxicity clustering and the investigation of genetic polymorphisms in toxicity prediction. This review paper summarizes the recent evidence on these aspects of mucositis pathobiology. CONCLUSION: The ultimate goal of mucositis researchers is to identify the most appropriate targets for therapeutic interventions and to be able to predict toxicity risk and personalize interventions to genetically suitable patients. Continuing research efforts are needed to further our understanding of mucositis pathobiology and the pharmacogenomics of toxicity.

1 november 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

01 januari 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis. 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. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible. RESULTS: A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.

01 juli 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the biological basis for cancer therapy-induced mucosal barrier injury (mucositis). The last formal review of the subject by MASCC/ISOO was published in 2007; consequently, an update is timely. METHODS: Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis pathobiology published between January 2005 and December 2011. RESULTS: Recent research has provided data on the contribution of tissue structure changes, inflammation and microbiome changes to the development of mucositis. Additional research has focused on targeted therapy-induced toxicity, toxicity clustering and the investigation of genetic polymorphisms in toxicity prediction. This review paper summarizes the recent evidence on these aspects of mucositis pathobiology. CONCLUSION: The ultimate goal of mucositis researchers is to identify the most appropriate targets for therapeutic interventions and to be able to predict toxicity risk and personalize interventions to genetically suitable patients. Continuing research efforts are needed to further our understanding of mucositis pathobiology and the pharmacogenomics of toxicity.

01 november 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

01 januari 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis. 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. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible. RESULTS: A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.

01 november 2013, Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

1 maart 2012, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy induces changes in the oral microflora that may cause oral and systemic infections in myelosuppressed cancer patients. These complications prompted us to assess the antimicrobial activity of a topical Iseganan HCl mouthwash vs. placebo on the aerobic and facultatively anaerobic oral flora in these patients. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-five chemotherapy patients were recruited into a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted at multiple centers. The study compared the antimicrobial efficacy of Iseganan HCl vs. placebo (95% of the Iseganan and 97% of the control group received myeloablative chemotherapy). Iseganan HCl 9 mg/3 ml was administered as a swish and swallow solution, six times daily for 21-28 days. Microbial cultures were made before and after the daily Iseganan mouth rinse on the first and final days of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The reduction in total microbial load after the first day of treatment was statistically significant (1.59 vs. 0.18 log10 CFU for the Iseganan HCl and placebo groups, respectively, P < 0.0001). Iseganan HCl rinse had a cumulative effect demonstrated by the significant difference between the two groups on the last day of the study (i.e. completion of Iseganan daily treatment) (P < 0.05). The reduction was mainly due to decreased densities of viridans streptococci, non-hemolytic streptococci, and yeasts. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Iseganan HCl remained the same throughout the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical Iseganan HCl significantly reduces the total oral aerobic bacterial, streptococcal, and yeast load. Its potential as an oral antimicrobial agent in preventing these types of infections is clear.

01 maart 2012, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy induces changes in the oral microflora that may cause oral and systemic infections in myelosuppressed cancer patients. These complications prompted us to assess the antimicrobial activity of a topical Iseganan HCl mouthwash vs. placebo on the aerobic and facultatively anaerobic oral flora in these patients. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-five chemotherapy patients were recruited into a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted at multiple centers. The study compared the antimicrobial efficacy of Iseganan HCl vs. placebo (95% of the Iseganan and 97% of the control group received myeloablative chemotherapy). Iseganan HCl 9 mg/3 ml was administered as a swish and swallow solution, six times daily for 21-28 days. Microbial cultures were made before and after the daily Iseganan mouth rinse on the first and final days of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The reduction in total microbial load after the first day of treatment was statistically significant (1.59 vs. 0.18 log10 CFU for the Iseganan HCl and placebo groups, respectively, P < 0.0001). Iseganan HCl rinse had a cumulative effect demonstrated by the significant difference between the two groups on the last day of the study (i.e. completion of Iseganan daily treatment) (P < 0.05). The reduction was mainly due to decreased densities of viridans streptococci, non-hemolytic streptococci, and yeasts. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Iseganan HCl remained the same throughout the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical Iseganan HCl significantly reduces the total oral aerobic bacterial, streptococcal, and yeast load. Its potential as an oral antimicrobial agent in preventing these types of infections is clear.

01 maart 2012, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy induces changes in the oral microflora that may cause oral and systemic infections in myelosuppressed cancer patients. These complications prompted us to assess the antimicrobial activity of a topical Iseganan HCl mouthwash vs. placebo on the aerobic and facultatively anaerobic oral flora in these patients. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-five chemotherapy patients were recruited into a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted at multiple centers. The study compared the antimicrobial efficacy of Iseganan HCl vs. placebo (95% of the Iseganan and 97% of the control group received myeloablative chemotherapy). Iseganan HCl 9 mg/3 ml was administered as a swish and swallow solution, six times daily for 21-28 days. Microbial cultures were made before and after the daily Iseganan mouth rinse on the first and final days of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The reduction in total microbial load after the first day of treatment was statistically significant (1.59 vs. 0.18 log10 CFU for the Iseganan HCl and placebo groups, respectively, P < 0.0001). Iseganan HCl rinse had a cumulative effect demonstrated by the significant difference between the two groups on the last day of the study (i.e. completion of Iseganan daily treatment) (P < 0.05). The reduction was mainly due to decreased densities of viridans streptococci, non-hemolytic streptococci, and yeasts. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Iseganan HCl remained the same throughout the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical Iseganan HCl significantly reduces the total oral aerobic bacterial, streptococcal, and yeast load. Its potential as an oral antimicrobial agent in preventing these types of infections is clear.