Search

Introduction: Among the evidence-based agents outlined in the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) mucositis guidelines, benzydamine and morphine are advised for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in certain cancer patients. This study is aimed to collect information from a group of highly experienced healthcare professionals in the field of oral mucositis about their clinical experience with these agents.Methods: A survey questionnaire about the clinical experience with topical benzydamine and morphine to manage oral mucositis and their related adverse effects (AEs) was electronically distributed to the members of the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO.Results: Eighty-eight entries were recorded (response rate 25%), and 54 entries submitted complete questionnaires about the drug-related AE (completion rate 65%) and were used for the data analysis. Of the respondents, 44% and 27.7% prescribed benzydamine and morphine to manage their patients' oral mucositis, respectively. Lack of availability in the respondent's country was the common reason for not prescribing benzydamine and morphine (18.9% and 5.4%, respectively); however, a large portion of the respondents indicated that 'another reason' stopped them from prescribing these agents (51.3% and 73%, respectively). AEs to benzydamine or morphine were observed by 25.9% and 12.9% of respondents, respectively, with mild numbness and tingling as the most common drug-related AE for both agents.Conclusion: The use of topical benzydamine and morphine for the management of OM varies between countries. While relatively common, the AEs related to these agents are mild. Mitigating the barriers for prescribing them may increase their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this sub-analysis was to highlight the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in pediatric patients and to present unique considerations in this patient population.Methods: This sub-analysis of the pediatric patient population is based on the systematic review conducted by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISSO) published in 2019/2020. Studies were scored and assigned a level of evidence based on previously published criteria. Data regarding adverse effects and compliance was collected from the original publications.Results: A total of 45 papers were included and assessed in this sub-analysis, including 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Chewing gum was demonstrated to be not effective in preventing OM in pediatric cancer patients in 2 RCTs. The efficacy of all other interventions could not be determined based on the available literature.Conclusion: There is limited or conflicting evidence about interventions for the management of OM in pediatric cancer patients, except for chewing gum which was ineffective for prevention. Therefore, currently, data from adult studies may need to be extrapolated for the management of pediatric patients. Honey and photobiomodulation therapy in this patient population had encouraging potential. Implementation of a basic oral care protocol is advised amid lack of high level of evidence studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Purpose: To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of growth factors and cytokines for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).Methods: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible.Results: A total of 15 new papers were identified within the scope of this section and were merged with 51 papers that were reviewed in the previous guidelines update. Of these, 14, 5, 13, 2, and 1 were randomized controlled trials about KGF-1, G-CSF, GM-CSF, EGF, and erythropoietin, respectively. For the remaining agents there were no new RCTs. The previous recommendation for intravenous KGF-1 in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioned with high-dose chemotherapy and TBI-based regimens is confirmed. The previous suggestion against the use of topical GM-CSF for the prevention of OM in the setting of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation remains unchanged.Conclusions: Of the growth factors and cytokines studied for the management of OM, the evidence supports a recommendation in favor of KGF-1 and a suggestion against GM-CSF in certain clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To systematically review the literature and update the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the use of photobiomodulation (PBM), such as laser and other light therapies, for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).Methods: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) using PubMed and Web of Science. We followed the MASCC methods for systematic review and guidelines development. The rigorously evaluated evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned a level-of-evidence (LoE). Based on the LoE, one of the following guidelines was determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, or No Guideline Possible.Results: Recommendations are made for the prevention of OM and related pain with PBM therapy in cancer patients treated with one of the following modalities: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy (without chemotherapy), and H&N radiotherapy with chemotherapy. For each of these modalities, we recommend 1-2 clinically effective protocols; the clinician should adhere to all parameters of the protocol selected. Due to inadequate evidence, currently, No Guideline Possible for treatment of established OM or for management of chemotherapy-related OM. The reported clinical settings were extremely variable, limiting data integration.Conclusions: The evidence supports the use of specific settings of PBM therapy for the prevention of OM in specific patient populations. Under these circumstances, PBM is recommended for the prevention of OM. The guidelines are subject to continuous update based on new published data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New studies and literature continue to emerge on the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. The evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for mucositis were first published in 2004 and updated in 2007 and 2014 by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The existing 2014 guidelines for mucositis are being updated in line with new literature to inform clinical practice. This paper describes the materials and methods employed for the comprehensive updates to the guidelines for managing mucositis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of anti-inflammatory agents in the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis.Methods: A systematic review was conducted by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/ International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) subcommittee on mucositis guideline update. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the clinical practice guidelines published in 2014. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guidelines.Results: A total of 11 new papers across five interventions were examined. The recommendation for the use of benzydamine mouthwash for the prevention of radiotherapy-induced mucositis remained unchanged. New suggestion for the use of the same for prevention of mucositis associated with chemoradiotherapy was made. No guideline was possible for any other anti-inflammatory agents due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.Conclusions: Of the anti-inflammatory agents studied for oral mucositis, the evidence supports the use of benzydamine mouthwash in the specific populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on other (class of agents) interventions and in other cancer treatment settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of basic oral care (BOC) interventions for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).Methods: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention in each cancer treatment setting was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2013 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: Recommendation, Suggestion, No guideline possible.Results: A total of 17 new papers across six interventions were examined and merged with a previous database. Based on the literature, the following guidelines were possible. The panel suggests that the implementation of multi-agent combination oral care protocols is beneficial for the prevention of OM during chemotherapy, head and neck (H&N) radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Level of Evidence III). The panel suggests that chlorhexidine not be used to prevent OM in patients undergoing H&N RT (Level of Evidence III). No guideline was possible for professional oral care, patient education, saline, and sodium bicarbonate, and expert opinion complemented these guidelines.Conclusions: The evidence supports the use of multi-agent combination oral care protocols in the specific populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on the other BOC interventions prior to guideline formulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mucositis research and treatment are a rapidly evolving field providing constant new avenues of research and potential therapies. The MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Study Group regularly assesses available literature relating to pathogenesis, mechanisms, and novel therapeutic approaches and distils this to summary perspectives and recommendations. Reviewers assessed 164 articles published between January 2011 and June 2016 to identify progress made since the last review and highlight new targets for further investigation. Findings were organized into sections including established and emerging mediators of toxicity, potential insights from technological advances in mucositis research, and perspective. Research momentum is accelerating for mucositis pathogenesis, and with this has come utilization of new models and interventions that target specific mechanisms of injury. Technological advances have the potential to revolutionize the field of mucositis research, although focused effort is needed to move rationally targeted interventions to the clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]