Search

Delivery of high-quality, evidence-based oral care for those living with and beyond cancer needed!

Purpose: The increased number and expanded utilization of biosimilars raise important considerations for their safe and appropriate use in oncology practice. This report provides an update on currently approved oncology biosimilars and identifies current knowledge gaps in the management of patients with cancer., Methods: An Expert Panel was convened to review the medical literature and to provide a practical summary of currently approved biosimilar therapeutics for cancer treatment or supportive care in the United States., Results: A total of 17 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2015. Despite years of clinical experience with oncology biosimilars, variance in their use persists. ASCO supports that biosimilars and reference products are considered equally efficacious for the purpose of inclusion in ASCO clinical practice guideline recommendations., Conclusion: The use of biosimilars might provide competitive, lower-cost alternatives to biologics used in cancer care, and specific mention in ASCO guidelines and other evidence products is supported where appropriate., Competing Interests: Gary H. LymanConsulting or Advisory Role: G1 Therapeutics, Samsung Bioepis, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Partner Therapeutics, E.R. Squibb Sons, LLC, MSD, Seattle Genetics, Kallyope, TEVA, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Frensenius KabiResearch Funding: Amgen (Inst) Richard L. SchilskyLeadership: Clarified Precision MedicineConsulting or Advisory Role: Cellworks, Scandion Oncology, Bryologyx, Illumina, EQRxResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/1138818/summary Douglas E. PetersonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Allergan (I), Celgene (I), Gilead Sciences (I), Procter & Gamble (I), Roche (I), Bristol Myers Squibb (I), Johnson & Johnson (I)Honoraria: PierianDxConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, PSI Pharma Support America, Applied Glycan-Oral Health, AEC Partners, BrainCool, Medicxi Ventures (UK) LLP, Boston MedTech Advisors Scott T. TagawaConsulting or Advisory Role: Medivation, Astellas Pharma, Dendreon, Janssen, Genentech, Endocyte, Immunomedics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, AbbVie, Tolmar, QED Therapeutics, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, Novartis, Genomic Health, POINT Biopharma, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Seattle Genetics, AIkido Pharma, 4D Pharma, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Myovant Sciences, Convergent TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Progenics (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Dendreon (Inst), Rexahn Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Newlink Genetics (Inst), Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AVEO (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Merck (Inst), Stem CentRx (Inst), Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Medivation (Inst), Endocyte (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), POINT Biopharma (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent Royalty from Immunomedics/GileadTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, Immunomedics, AmgenUncompensated Relationships: ATLAB Pharma, Phosplatin Therapeutics Mariana Chavez-MacGregorEmployment: MD Anderson Physicians NetworkHonoraria: Pfizer, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, asofar, Genomic Health, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca/Daiichi SankyoResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst)Expert Testimony: Abbott Laboratories, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: PfizerOther Relationship: RocheUncompensated Relationships: Legacy Healthcare Services, The Hope FoundationNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To provide evidence-based recommendations for prevention and management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by nonsurgical cancer therapies., Methods: Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published between January 2009 and June 2020. The guideline also incorporated two previous systematic reviews conducted by MASCC/ISOO, which included studies published from 1990 through 2008., Results: A total of 58 publications were identified: 46 addressed preventive interventions and 12 addressed therapeutic interventions. A majority of the evidence focused on the setting of radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. For the prevention of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer, there is high-quality evidence for tissue-sparing radiation modalities. Evidence is weaker or insufficient for other interventions. For the management of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia, intermediate-quality evidence supports the use of topical mucosal lubricants, saliva substitutes, and agents that stimulate the salivary reflex., Recommendations: For patients who receive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, tissue-sparing radiation modalities should be used when possible to reduce the risk of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. Other risk-reducing interventions that may be offered during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer include bethanechol and acupuncture. For patients who develop salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia, interventions include topical mucosal lubricants, saliva substitutes, and sugar-free lozenges or chewing gum. For patients with head and neck cancer, oral pilocarpine and oral cevimeline, acupuncture, or transcutaneous electrostimulation may be offered after radiation therapy.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines., Competing Interests: Reprint Requests:2318 Mill Road, Suite 800, Alexandria, VA 22314; guidelines@asco.org Jessica BaumanConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Kura Oncology, Merck, BeiGene, Lilly, Turning Point Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, JanssenResearch Funding: Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Trident Pharmaceuticals Michael T. BrennanConsulting or Advisory Role: MedImmune, DermtreatResearch Funding: Dermtreat, ActoGeniX, Meira Tx Niels JessenOther Relationship: Health Care Select Sector Barbara MurphyHonoraria: Merck, RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: TactileResearch Funding: Tactile Medical, Amgen David I. RosenthalConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Arjan VissinkResearch Funding: Colgate, Bristol Myers Squibb, European Community (Horizon 2020), Durch arthritis Foundation, IMI Necessity Jonn WuHonoraria: Genzyme, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai Deborah P. SaundersHonoraria: Amgen, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AFYX TherapeuticsResearch Funding: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Douglas E. PetersonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Allergan, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Procter & Gamble, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & JohnsonHonoraria: PierianDxConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, PSI Pharma Support America, Applied Glycan-Oral Health, AEC Partners, BrainCoolNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

The deleterious effects of head and neck radiation on bone, with osteoradionecrosis (ORN) as the major disabling side effect of head and neck cancer treatment, are difficult to prevent and hard to treat. This review focuses on the current state of the science regarding the pathobiology, clinical impact, and management of ORN. With regard to the pathobiology underlying ORN, it is not yet confirmed whether the current radiation schedules by 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity modified radiotherapy result in an unchanged, decreased, or increased risk of developing ORN when compared with conventional radiation treatment, the main risk factor being the total radiation dose delivered on any clinically significant surface of the mandible. With regard to the prevention of ORN, a thorough, early pre-irradiation dental assessment is still considered the first step to reduce the hazard of developing ORN post-radiotherapy, and hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment reduces the risk of developing ORN in case of dental surgery in an irradiated field. With regard to the treatment of ORN, the focus is bidirectional: elimination of the necrotic bone and improving the vascularity of the normal tissues that were included in the radiation portal. The cure rate of limited ORN by conservative therapy is approximately 50%, and the cure rate of surgical approaches when conservative therapy has failed is approximately 40%. Whether it is effective to support conservative or surgical treatment with HBO as an adjuvant is not set. HBO treatment is shown to increase the vascularity of hard and soft tissues and has been reported to be beneficial in selected cases. However, in randomized clinical trials comparing the preventive effect of HBO on developing ORN with, eg, antibiotic coverage in patients needing dental surgery, the preventive effect of HBO was not shown to surpass that of a more conservative approach. More recently, pharmacologic management was introduced in the treatment of ORN with success, but its efficacy has to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials. The major problem of performing well-designed randomized clinical trials in ORN is having access to large numbers of patients with well-defined, comparable cases of ORN. Because many institutions will not have large numbers of such ORN cases, national and international scientific societies must be approached to join multicenter trials. Fortunately, the interest of funding organizations and the number researchers with an interest in healthy aging is growing. Research aimed at prevention and reduction of the morbidity of cancer treatment fits well within these programs., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Targeted cancer therapies have fundamentally transformed the treatment of many types of cancers over the past decade, including breast, colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancers, as well as lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma. The unique mechanisms of action of these agents have resulted in many patients experiencing enhanced tumor response together with a reduced adverse event profile as well. Toxicities do continue to occur, however, and in selected cases can be clinically challenging to manage. Of particular importance in the context of this monograph is that the pathobiology for oral mucosal lesions caused by targeted cancer therapies has only been preliminarily investigated. There is distinct need for novel basic, translational, and clinical research strategies to enhance design of preventive and therapeutic approaches for patients at risk for development of these lesions. The research modeling can be conceptually enhanced by extrapolating "lessons learned" from selected oral mucosal conditions in patients without cancer as well. This approach may permit determination of the extent to which pathobiology and clinical management are either similar to or uniquely distinct from oral mucosal lesions caused by targeted cancer therapies. Modeling associated with oral mucosal disease in non-oncology patients is thus presented in this context as well. This article addresses this emerging paradigm, with emphasis on current mechanistic modeling and clinical treatment. This approach is in turn designed to foster delineation of new research strategies, with the goal of enhancing cancer patient treatment in the future., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is an oral complication in cancer patients being treated with either antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. The first reports of MRONJ were published in 2003. Hundreds of manuscripts have been published in the medical and dental literature describing the complication, clinical and radiographic signs and symptoms, possible pathophysiology, and management. Despite this extensive literature, the pathobiological mechanisms by which medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw develops have not yet been fully delineated. The aim of this manuscript is to present current knowledge about the complication ragarding to the definition, known risk factors, and clinical management recommendations. Based on this current state of the science, we also propose research directions that have potential to enhance the management of future oncology patients who are receiving these agents., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In the past decade, there have been important strategic advances relative to pathobiological modeling as well as clinical management for oral mucositis caused by cancer therapies. Prior to the 1990s, research in this field was conducted by a relatively small number of basic and clinical investigators. Increasing interest among researchers and clinicians over the past twenty years has produced a synergistic outcome characterized by a number of key dynamics, including novel discovery models for pathobiology, increased experience in designing and conducting clinical trials, and creation of international collaborations among cancer care professionals who in turn have modeled clinical care paradigms based on state-of-the-science evidence. This maturation of the science and its clinical translation has positioned investigators and oncology providers to further accelerate both the foundational research and the clinical modeling for patient management in the years ahead. The stage is now set to further capitalize upon optimizing the interactions across this interface, with the goal of strategically enhancing management of patients with cancer at risk for this toxicity while reducing the cost of cancer care., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This invited update is designed to provide a summary of the state-of-the-science regarding oral mucosal injury (oral mucositis) caused by conventional and emerging cancer therapies. Current modeling of oral mucositis pathobiology as well as evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for prevention and treatment of oral mucositis are presented. In addition, studies addressing oral mucositis as published in the Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 2008-2013 are specifically highlighted in this context. Key research directions in basic and translational science associated with mucosal toxicity caused by cancer therapies are also delineated as a basis for identifying pathobiologic and pharmacogenomic targets for interventions. This collective portfolio of research and its ongoing incorporation into clinical practice is setting the stage for the clinician in the future to predict mucosal toxicity risk and tailor therapeutic interventions to the individual oncology patient accordingly., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: This systematic review analyzed the strength of the literature and defined clinical practice guidelines for the use of oral cryotherapy for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis caused by cancer therapy., Methods: A systematic review on relevant oral cryotherapy studies indexed prior to 31 December 2010 was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) using OVID/MEDLINE, with publications selected for review based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Findings from the reviewed studies were integrated into guidelines based on the overall level of evidence for each intervention. Guidelines were classified into three types: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible., Results: Twenty-two clinical studies and two meta-analyses were analyzed. Results were compared with the MASCC/ISOO guidelines published in 2007. The recommendation for the use of oral cryotherapy to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving bolus fluorouracil (5-FU) was maintained, in agreement with the 2007 guidelines. A suggestion for use of oral cryotherapy to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving high-dose melphalan as conditioning regimen with or without total body irradiation for HCST was revised from the 2007 guidelines. No guideline was possible for any other intervention, due to insufficient evidence., Conclusions: The evidence continues to support the use of oral cryotherapy for prevention of oral mucositis in patients receiving bolus 5-FU chemotherapy or high-dose melphalan. This intervention is consistent with the MASCC/ISOO guidelines published in 2007. The literature is limited by the fact that utilization of a double-blind study design is not feasible. Future studies that compare efficacy of oral cryotherapy with other mucositis agents in patients receiving chemotherapy with relatively short plasma half-lives would be useful.

Evidence-based guidelines in clinical oncology practice are now prominent, with emphasis on clinical, health outcome and economic perspectives. Given the complexity of cancer management, a multidisciplinary approach is essential. Evidence-based guidelines to address supportive cancer care have merged expert opinion, systematic evaluation of clinical and research data, and meta-analyses of clinical trials. Production of supportive care guidelines by the interdisciplinary team is dependent on sufficient high-quality research studies. Once published, it is essential they be customized at institutional and national levels. Implementation in clinical practice is perhaps the greatest challenge. Optimal management occurs through integration of country-specific issues, including care access, healthcare resources, information technology, and national coordination of healthcare practices. The purpose of this article is to: (1) provide an overview of interdisciplinary cancer management using evidence-based guidelines; (2) delineate the theory and practice of guideline dissemination, utilization and outcome assessment; and (3) recommend future research strategies to maximize guidelines use in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to describe sore mouth (SM) severity and distress, associated symptoms, and consequences in cancer chemotherapy outpatients. Secondary analysis was used in this study. A total of 223 patients in 4 treatment centers participated in the study. Data from an intervention study using a computer-based telephone communication system to assess patients' daily symptom experience were analyzed to obtain highest, average, and lowest ratings of severity and distress for SM, fatigue, trouble sleeping, feeling down/blue, and feeling anxious. Consequence data included oral intake, time spent lying down, ability to work, and daily activity. Approximately 51% reported SM, with a mean highest, average, and lowest severity score of 3.1 in cycle 2 and 3.09 in cycle 3. Sore mouth severity was correlated with severity of fatigue, feeling down/blue, feeling anxious, and trouble sleeping. Sore mouth distress was correlated with the same symptoms. Sore mouth severity was correlated with the number of 8-oz glasses of liquid consumed, effect on daily activity, time spent lying down, but not with ability to work. Half of patients experienced SM, which was associated with several other symptoms and led to specific consequences. Understanding the complex symptom experience of patients with SM, including consequences, will assist nurses in developing more comprehensive clinical assessments and interventions. In addition, the association of multiple symptoms with SM will provide a foundation for further research investigation in oral mucositis.

Goals: The aims of this secondary data analysis were to (a) categorize patterns in the development, duration, intensity, and resolution of sore mouth (which can be considered a proxy for oral mucositis) severity and distress over two cycles of chemotherapy in cancer outpatients and (b) examine the relationship of demographic (age, gender, marital status, and educational level) and disease characteristics (type of cancer and type of chemotherapy) to specific patterns of sore mouth (SM)., Materials and Methods: Visual graphical analysis (VGA) was applied to identify individual patterns of SM severity and distress in 51 outpatients receiving chemotherapy who provided daily reports of sore mouth using a computerized interactive voice response system. The majority were female (n = 41, 8%) with a mean age of 53 (SD = 8.35). Most had breast cancer (68%), and one third received chemotherapy with adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC). VGA is a technique in which graphs of individual patients' symptoms are coded for specific individual or group profiles., Main Results: Seven distinct patterns were identified based on variability in onset, duration, and intensity (degree of severity or distress). Chemotherapy agents were significantly associated with patterns of SM. The AC regimen was significantly associated with late onset; however, the intensity did not last long. In contrast, patients receiving R-CHOP were significantly more likely to experience duration intensity (SM after day 15 and a score equal to or greater than a 5 on a 1-10 scale)., Conclusions: VGA revealed symptom patterns often hidden in traditional analysis. Understanding individual variability is important to the design and implementation of future intervention research and clinical care.

Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.

Oral mucositis can be a significant problem for cancer patients and is frequently seen in the patient population receiving high-dose head and neck radiation therapy (85%-100%), stem cell transplantation (75%-100%), and myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors (5%-40%). Current guidelines published through the joint efforts of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology recommend strategies for the prevention and treatment of mucositis in the setting of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and combined chemoradiation therapy. An improved understanding of its pathologic basis has led to the development of targeted agents to combat mucositis. One of these drugs, palifermin, is a keratinocyte growth factor agent approved for patients with hematologic malignancies receiving myelotoxic therapy requiring hematopoietic stem cell support. Another agent is AES-14, an uptake-enhanced L-glutamine suspension that has shown efficacy in phase III trials in reducing the risk of developing oral mucositis in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. As the understanding of the pathobiology of mucositis improves, clinicians should be able to customize future therapies based on each patients risk for developing the condition.

Objective: To highlight selected research directed to new drug and device technologies to manage mucositis in cancer patients and to illustrate potential impact of successful therapies., Data Sources: Published research articles and abstracts, clinical experience., Conclusion: Advances in molecular modeling of mucosal injury in cancer patients have created new opportunities for therapy. Research is analyzing the impact of single-agent interventions; varying degrees of efficacy are being reported. Once optimal dosing strategies for single-agent management are defined, the opportunity for multi-agent therapies will emerge., Implications for Nursing Practice: The oncology nurse plays a pivotal role in assessing and managing mucositis in cancer patients.

This paper identifies future research strategies relative to prevention of oral complications of cancer and its treatment, with specific emphasis on radiation and/or myelosuppressive therapy. Data relative to both oral/pharyngeal cancers and cancers the treatment of which profoundly affects the oral cavity are highlighted. The basis for the presentation is: (a) the report that emanated from the 1989 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on "Oral Complications of Cancer Therapies: Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment," the proceedings of which were published in 1990; and (b) the Statistics Review Monograph "Cancers of the Oral Cavity and Pharynx, 1973-1987," published in 1991. In this context, discussion on preventive research strategies relative to surgical therapy of the cancer patient is minimal. Emphasis is placed on prevention of oral complications in the older adult cancer patient.

This article has reviewed selected oral complications that can develop in the myelosuppressed or head and neck radiation cancer patient. Many of these complications can be prevented by treating diseased oral sites prior to initiation of cancer therapy. Further, cancer treatment often causes changes in oral tissues that require long-term management. The dentist thus can play an important role in the overall care of many cancer patients.

It is important to understand the pathogenesis of acute oral infections in patients with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in order to develop strategies to prevent such complications. Four distinct oral sites that can either be acutely infected or contribute to acute systemic infection are the oral mucosa, dental pulp and periapical tissues, periodontium, and salivary glands. Many cytotoxic drugs can be directly stomatotoxic to replicating oral mucosa. Once mucosal integrity is affected, secondary acute infection can occur. Even without clinical ulceration, deleterious shifts in the oral microbial population can develop. Gram-negative bacilli have been identified as frequent colonizers of myelosuppressed patients, although coagulase-negative staphylococci are being recovered with increasing frequency. Strategies to prevent oral mucosal infection include reducing trauma and preventing proliferation of organisms. Dental pulpal infection is most commonly caused by extensive dental caries. Most pulpal infection is of bacterial origin and can progress to involve the periapical tissues of the involved tooth if not treated. Specific endodontic interventions will usually stabilize or eliminate the source of the infection until the patient's hematologic status returns to normal and definitive pulpal therapy can be provided. In part because acute pulpal complications in the myelosuppressed cancer patient are relatively infrequent, research on the causative organisms and the appropriate therapy of acute, systemic infection of pulpal origin has been limited. Many adults have chronic, asymptomatic periodontal disease. In its advanced stages, extensive ulceration may be present that is not clinically observable. In patients with reduced host defenses, exacerbation of preexistent periodontal disease can have systemic sequelae and is associated with elevated levels of periodontopathic organisms or pathogens typically associated with systemic infection in myelosuppressed cancer patients. Mechanical and chemical antimicrobial techniques are available to reduce prevalence and improve patient comfort and oral hygiene. Dental extractions may be indicated to eliminate the nidus of infection of either pulpal or periodontal origin in patients who are scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Data indicate that such procedures may be performed without undue risk. Unlike patients who undergo bone marrow transplantation or radiotherapy, patients who receive chemotherapy do not commonly experience subjective salivary gland dysfunction. Occasionally, a transient xerostomia may occur; this condition is frequently attributed to the patient's oral habits, such as breathing through the mouth. The dessicating effect of breathing through the mouth can contribute to oral mucosal injury during function as well as provide a setting for acute infection of commensal origin. More research is needed on the effects of chemotherapy on salivary host defenses.

Common oral complications of chemotherapy include mucositis, infections secondary to profound bone marrow aplasia, and gingival bleeding. Mucositis and infections were treated with appropriate antibiotic therapy; a symptomatic tooth was extracted before chemotherapy was begun. Transfusions were performed to obtain adequate platelet levels. A regimen of ticarcillin disodium and gentamicin sulfate is recommended for antibiotic prophylaxis for selected dental procedures.

Aspergillosis typically occurs in patients with reduced host defenses; such patients include renal and marrow recipients as well as patients with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. Pulmonary structures are most frequently involved; non-pulmonary involvement (including sinus) has not been frequently reported. In the present study, paranasal sinusitis occurred in 52 myelosuppressed cancer patients treated over 5 years at the UMCC with chemotherapy. Twenty-one patients had Aspergillus sinusitis; Aspergillus spp., including flavus and niger, were directly recovered from sinus in 19 of the 21 infections. Two other patients were considered clinically, although not microbiologically, documented. Multiple predisposing factors for Aspergillus sinusitis during the 60 days prior to infection diagnosis appear to exist; these include: 1) granulocyte count less than 500 mm3 (mean duration, 42 days versus 14 days for sinusitis of other etiology; P less than 0.001); 2) prolonged hospitalization (mean duration, 22 days versus 14 days for patients with non-fungal sinusitis; P less than 0.001); and 3) prolonged antibiotic therapy (mean duration, 22 days versus 9 days; P less than 0.001). The Aspergillus sinusitis resolved in 18 of 21 patients following treatment with amphotericin B; however, 11 of 18 patients had infection recurrence that always developed when tumor recurred and chemotherapy was reinstituted.

Dentures for the patient receiving cancer chemotherapy must be constructed and maintained carefully, using sound basic principles of denture construction and tissue management inherent in the highest level of prosthodontic treatment. The objective of removable prosthodontic therapy is to improve the patient's quality of life, enhance nutrition by reducing oral irritation and ulceration, and control the oral microbial populations associated with chemotherapy and the wearing of a denture.

Paranasal sinusitis occurred in 52 immunosuppressed cancer patients treated over 5 years at the University of Maryland Cancer Center. Twenty-one patients had aspergillus sinusitis; Aspergillus sp, including flavus and niger were directly recovered from sinus in 19 of the 21 infections. Two other patients with sinus involvement and positive nose cultures for Aspergillus flavus or fumigatus and microbiologically documented pulmonary aspergillosis were considered clinically, although not microbiologically, documented. Predisposing factors for aspergillus sinusitis during the 60 days prior to infection diagnosis were granulocyte count less than 500 microliter (mean duration, 42 days versus 14 days for sinusitis of other etiology; P less than 0.001), prolonged hospitalization (mean duration, 22 days versus 14 days for patients with nonfungal sinusitis; P less than 0.001), and prolonged antibiotic therapy (mean duration, 22 days versus 9 days; P less than 0.001). Treatment with amphotericin B was initially successful for 18 of 21 patients; however, 11 of 18 patients had infection recurrence that always developed at time of tumor exacerbation and reinstitution or intensification of chemotherapy. These findings suggest that aspergillus sinusitis in cancer patients is seen in association with prolonged neutropenia and antibiotic therapy, is amenable to therapy, but tends to recur with relapse of malignancy.

This study characterized the subgingival microbial flora associated with 27 acute exacerbations of preexistent periodontal disease in 24 patients with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. All but two acute periodontal infections developed at low granulocyte levels (less than 1,000/microL). Suspected pathogens were detected in high concentrations in subgingival plaque specimens in 17 episodes of acute periodontal infection; a single pathogen was recovered in ten acute infections, and more than one pathogen was recovered in seven acute infections. Staphylococcus epidermidis, Candida albicans, S aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa predominated, with combinations of these detected in some patients. Concomitant bacteremias developed in two of these patients. The subgingival microflora associated with ten acute periodontal infections was characterized by predominantly indigenous microorganisms, which in nine episodes were in abnormal proportions compared with microbial profiles in noncancer patients with similar degrees of periodontal disease. These data demonstrate that pathogens normally associated with infections in myelosuppressed cancer patients, as well as indigenous oral flora, are associated with acute periodontal infections during granulocytopenia. This finding is important, since this body site has not commonly been recognized as a source for acute infection in these patients.