Search

Objectives Materials and Methods Results Conclusion To assess the prevalence of cutaneous and oral immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) in cancer patients, risk factors for its development, and overall survival (OS).This retrospective observational study which included 748 medical records of cancer patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics were collected and analyzed.Most patients were male (59.4%), with stage IV cancer (65%) and received pembrolizumab (46.7%). Four hundred fourteen (55.34%) patients developed cutaneous lesions, 84 (11.2%) developed oral mucosal lesions, and 70 (9.3%) developed xerostomia. The median time for irAEs development was 11 weeks for cutaneous and oral mucosal lesions, and 21.5 weeks for xerostomia. Patients who received PD‐1 + CTLA‐4 had a higher risk for developing cutaneous irAEs (p = 0.001), while those who underwent ICI and concurrent chemotherapy had a higher risk (p = 0.008) for developing oral mucosal lesions. Patients who presented oral and cutaneous irAEs had better OS than those who did not present (p = 0.0001).Cutaneous effects affected more than half of the patients, while oral effects and xerostomia were found in around 11% and 9% of patients, respectively. Concurrent chemotherapy and PD‐1 + CTLA‐4 were more associated with oral and cutaneous irAEs, respectively. Patients who developed such irAEs had better overall survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment; however, their oral toxicity profile is not well elucidated. This review aimed to investigate the prevalence of oral toxicities including xerostomia, mucositis/stomatitis, dysgeusia, dysphagia, oral/oropharyngeal pain, oral infections, angular cheilitis, osteonecrosis, osteomyelitis, and oral mucosal reactions with ICIs. A review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023391674). A systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted as of April 10, 2022. Studies were selected, assessed, and data extracted using PRISMA guidelines. Oral toxicity data were extracted from study arms using a single immunotherapy drug. Meta-analyses were conducted to summarize prevalence of oral toxicities using random-effects models. Of 750 screened records, 95 trials were included in the meta-analysis with published results. Time between study completion and first publication on ClinicalTrials.gov was 1 to 146 months (mean = 20.3, SD = 18.4). Weighted pooled prevalence was 5% (95% CI: 4–6%) for xerostomia, 3% (95% CI: 3–4%) for mucositis/stomatitis, 3% (95% CI: 2–3%) for dysgeusia, 2% (95% CI: 1–2%) for dysphagia, 3% (95% CI: 2–4%) for oropharyngeal/oral pain, 2% (95% CI: 1–3%) for oral candidiasis, and 2% (95% CI: 0–4%) for angular cheilitis. Subgroup differences based on ICI drugs were minimal. No trials reported lichenoid or pemphigoid mucosal reactions. Meta-analysis results revealed low prevalence of oral toxicities with ICIs; however, data reporting was limited and inconsistent. Limitations of study dataset reveal a significant need for systematic collection of oral morbidity data as well as improved consistency and compliance of reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Purpose: Many patients experience oral adverse events during head and neck cancer radiotherapy (RT). The methods of management of such events are under debate. One such technique is the intraoral stent (IOS) technique, which removes normal tissue from the irradiation field. This retrospective study examined the factors associated with the occurrence of oral mucositis (OM) and dysgeusia and the efficacy of IOSs in preventing them. Methods: Twenty-nine patients who underwent RT in the maxilla or nasal cavity between 2016 and 2022 were included. They were investigated for background characteristics, treatment factors (IOS and dose-volume histogram), and oral adverse events (OM and dysgeusia). Results: Significant risk factors for the incidence of grade ≥ 2 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0) OM were the non-use of IOSs (p = 0.004) and diabetes (p = 0.025). A significant risk factor for the incidence of grade ≥ 1 dysgeusia was concomitant chemotherapy (p = 0.019). The radiation dose to the tongue was significantly lower in the IOS group than in the non-IOS group. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the use of an IOS during RT reduces the severity of OM by reducing irradiation to the tongue. Therefore, the use of an IOS is recommended during RT performed in the maxilla or nasal cavity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment; however, their oral toxicity profile is not well elucidated. This review aimed to investigate the prevalence of oral toxicities including xerostomia, mucositis/stomatitis, dysgeusia, dysphagia, oral/oropharyngeal pain, oral infections, angular cheilitis, osteonecrosis, osteomyelitis, and oral mucosal reactions with ICIs. A review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023391674). A systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted as of April 10, 2022. Studies were selected, assessed, and data extracted using PRISMA guidelines. Oral toxicity data were extracted from study arms using a single immunotherapy drug. Meta-analyses were conducted to summarize prevalence of oral toxicities using random-effects models. Of 750 screened records, 95 trials were included in the meta-analysis with published results. Time between study completion and first publication on ClinicalTrials.gov was 1 to 146 months (mean = 20.3, SD = 18.4). Weighted pooled prevalence was 5% (95% CI: 4-6%) for xerostomia, 3% (95% CI: 3-4%) for mucositis/stomatitis, 3% (95% CI: 2-3%) for dysgeusia, 2% (95% CI: 1-2%) for dysphagia, 3% (95% CI: 2-4%) for oropharyngeal/oral pain, 2% (95% CI: 1-3%) for oral candidiasis, and 2% (95% CI: 0-4%) for angular cheilitis. Subgroup differences based on ICI drugs were minimal. No trials reported lichenoid or pemphigoid mucosal reactions. Meta-analysis results revealed low prevalence of oral toxicities with ICIs; however, data reporting was limited and inconsistent. Limitations of study dataset reveal a significant need for systematic collection of oral morbidity data as well as improved consistency and compliance of reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Melanoma cancer represents the most lethal type of skin cancer originating from the malignant transformation of melanocyte cells. Almost 50% of melanomas show the activation of BRAF mutations. The identification and characterization of BRAF mutations led to the development of specific drugs that radically changed the therapeutic approach to melanoma. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature according to a written protocol before conducting the study. This article is based on previously conducted studies. We identified articles by searching electronic databases (Medline, Google Scholar and PubMed). We used a combination of "melanoma", "Braf-Mek inhibitors", " targeted therapy" and "oral side effects". Results: Eighteen studies were reported in this article showing the relationship between the use of targeted therapy in melanoma cancer and the development of oral side effects, such as mucositis, hyperkeratosis and cellular proliferation. Conclusion: Targeted therapy plays an important role in the treatment of melanoma cancer, showing a notable increase in response rate, prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients. Oral side effects represent a common finding over the course of treatment. However, these adverse effects can be easily managed in a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between medical oncologists and dental doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Melanoma cancer represents the most lethal type of skin cancer originating from the malignant transformation of melanocyte cells. Almost 50% of melanomas show the activation of BRAF mutations. The identification and characterization of BRAF mutations led to the development of specific drugs that radically changed the therapeutic approach to melanoma. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature according to a written protocol before conducting the study. This article is based on previously conducted studies. We identified articles by searching electronic databases (Medline, Google Scholar and PubMed). We used a combination of “melanoma”, “Braf-Mek inhibitors”, “ targeted therapy” and “oral side effects”. Results: Eighteen studies were reported in this article showing the relationship between the use of targeted therapy in melanoma cancer and the development of oral side effects, such as mucositis, hyperkeratosis and cellular proliferation. Conclusion: Targeted therapy plays an important role in the treatment of melanoma cancer, showing a notable increase in response rate, prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients. Oral side effects represent a common finding over the course of treatment. However, these adverse effects can be easily managed in a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between medical oncologists and dental doctors.

Although the oral cavity has been identified as a potential site of infection in hematologic malignancies and oral adverse events (OAEs) have been reported to cause life-threatening systemic morbidity, OAEs-related risk factors in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients remain unclear. We retrospectively assessed OAEs and risk factors in HSCT recipients in a single center in Japan and discussed the effectiveness of tooth extraction as a method of radically removing dental focal infections (DFIs) prior to HSCT. After exclusions, 99 HSCT recipients (61 men, 38 women) with a median age of 54 (range, 17–69) years at the time of HSCT were identified from a total of 525 patients with hematologic malignancy. Of these, 36 patients (36.4%) experienced OAEs following HSCT, including oral mucositis (n = 29; 80.6%), acute periodontitis (n = 3; 8.3%), oral mucosal edema (n = 3; 8.3%), and oral candidiasis (n = 1; 2.8%). Sepsis derived from OAE was seen in 7 out of 36 (19.4%) patients. None of the tooth extraction cases from our work showed surgical site infections (SSI). A lack of continuous oral evaluation and oral care following HSCT were linked to OAEs (P < 0.05). In addition, as a laboratory factor, a prolonged low absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (<500/μL) resulted in a significantly higher tendency to develop OAE and OAE-related sepsis (P < 0.05). Specialists should continuously monitor the oral health of patients undergoing HSCT. Unpreservable teeth causing dental focal infections should be assessed and extracted prior to HSCT while carefully monitoring the patient's condition following surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) drugs have led to a revolution in the treatment of different forms of cancer, shifting the target of action from cancer cells to the patient's immune system, enhancing their responses against the tumor itself. On the other hand, this mechanism can lead to responses against oneself, with the appearance of immune-related adverse events. The aim of the present study was to examine the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) affecting the mucous membranes of the oral cavity and the possible correlation between these and skin toxicities, which are reported in the literature as the most common adverse events. Materials and methods: Thirteen patients treated with anti-Programmed Death (PD-1) drugs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and cemiplimab) were selected. The data collected include the general history of the patient and the type of anticancer treatment. The sample was then analyzed by recording the alterations found on the mucous membranes of the oral cavity and on the skin. Finally, the average time that elapsed between the start of immunotherapy and the onset of lesions was analyzed. Results: Patients often had multiple lesions at the same time. Hyperkeratosis was found in three patients, candidiasis (pseudomembranous and median rhomboid glossitis) in two patients, epithelial atrophy in four patients, and ulcerative areas in two patients. One patient reported xerostomia with dysphagia. The anatomical areas most involved were the dorsal tongue and palate. Skin irAEs included skin rash erythema (n = 7) with diffuse redness, the presence of small bubbles with a crusty outcome, and dryness of the skin in the affected areas. Discussion: In the literature, there are few studies that analyze how irAEs affect the mucous membranes of the oral cavity in patients treated with ICI drugs. The most frequently described lesions are lichenoid reactions and xerostomia. Moreover, the development of mucositis, generally of low grade, has been reported. The present study has confirmed the data from the literature and, in addition, reports two cases of candidiasis, an adverse event that has never been shown in the literature. Conclusions: irAEs have the potential to affect any organ. The only way to avoid the occurrence of serious events that is currently available is early interception, which is only possible through the knowledge of these manifestations. It is therefore considered necessary to deepen our knowledge of oral irAEs and their correlation with dermatological toxicities, allowing for a multidisciplinary classification of the patient and a timely diagnosis of any adverse event and avoiding progression to more advanced stages, which could lead to the temporary or permanent suspension of anticancer drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nivolumab, an antibody against anti‐programmed death type 1, has been used for treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer with improvement of overall survival. Usually, diarrhea, cutaneous rash, and pruritus are reported as the most common immune‐related adverse effects of nivolumab therapy. Oral lesions and secondary adrenal insufficiency sometimes occur but usually are rare events. We report a case of a patient treated with nivolumab who then showed persistent oral ulcerative and lichenoid lesions, which were refractory to topical corticosteroids. The oral lesions were concomitant to nivolumab‐induced adrenal insufficiency. These adverse events led to nivolumab discontinuation, which favored oral lesion healing and adrenal insufficiency remission. Through a brief review of the literature concerning nivolumab toxicity in the oral cavity, we discuss the clinical aspect and management of these lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) drugs have led to a revolution in the treatment of different forms of cancer, shifting the target of action from cancer cells to the patient’s immune system, enhancing their responses against the tumor itself. On the other hand, this mechanism can lead to responses against oneself, with the appearance of immune-related adverse events. The aim of the present study was to examine the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) affecting the mucous membranes of the oral cavity and the possible correlation between these and skin toxicities, which are reported in the literature as the most common adverse events. Materials and methods: Thirteen patients treated with anti-Programmed Death (PD-1) drugs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and cemiplimab) were selected. The data collected include the general history of the patient and the type of anticancer treatment. The sample was then analyzed by recording the alterations found on the mucous membranes of the oral cavity and on the skin. Finally, the average time that elapsed between the start of immunotherapy and the onset of lesions was analyzed. Results: Patients often had multiple lesions at the same time. Hyperkeratosis was found in three patients, candidiasis (pseudomembranous and median rhomboid glossitis) in two patients, epithelial atrophy in four patients, and ulcerative areas in two patients. One patient reported xerostomia with dysphagia. The anatomical areas most involved were the dorsal tongue and palate. Skin irAEs included skin rash erythema (n = 7) with diffuse redness, the presence of small bubbles with a crusty outcome, and dryness of the skin in the affected areas. Discussion: In the literature, there are few studies that analyze how irAEs affect the mucous membranes of the oral cavity in patients treated with ICI drugs. The most frequently described lesions are lichenoid reactions and xerostomia. Moreover, the development of mucositis, generally of low grade, has been reported. The present study has confirmed the data from the literature and, in addition, reports two cases of candidiasis, an adverse event that has never been shown in the literature. Conclusions: irAEs have the potential to affect any organ. The only way to avoid the occurrence of serious events that is currently available is early interception, which is only possible through the knowledge of these manifestations. It is therefore considered necessary to deepen our knowledge of oral irAEs and their correlation with dermatological toxicities, allowing for a multidisciplinary classification of the patient and a timely diagnosis of any adverse event and avoiding progression to more advanced stages, which could lead to the temporary or permanent suspension of anticancer drugs.

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of cutaneous and oral immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in cancer patients, risk factors for its development, and overall survival (OS)., Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study which included 748 medical records of cancer patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics were collected and analyzed., Results: Most patients were male (59.4%), with stage IV cancer (65%) and received pembrolizumab (46.7%). Four hundred fourteen (55.34%) patients developed cutaneous lesions, 84 (11.2%) developed oral mucosal lesions, and 70 (9.3%) developed xerostomia. The median time for irAEs development was 11 weeks for cutaneous and oral mucosal lesions, and 21.5 weeks for xerostomia. Patients who received PD-1 + CTLA-4 had a higher risk for developing cutaneous irAEs (p = 0.001), while those who underwent ICI and concurrent chemotherapy had a higher risk (p = 0.008) for developing oral mucosal lesions. Patients who presented oral and cutaneous irAEs had better OS than those who did not present (p = 0.0001)., Conclusion: Cutaneous effects affected more than half of the patients, while oral effects and xerostomia were found in around 11% and 9% of patients, respectively. Concurrent chemotherapy and PD-1 + CTLA-4 were more associated with oral and cutaneous irAEs, respectively. Patients who developed such irAEs had better overall survival., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize clinical and histopathological features, and management outcomes of patients with oral immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) secondary to programmed cell death‐1 (PD‐1) inhibitors. Methods: This was a case series of cancer patients receiving PD‐1 inhibitor therapy who were referred to oral medicine for the development of oral irAEs. Demographic, clinical, and histopathological data were collected from electronic medical records. Results: There were 13 patients (7 males) with a median age of 68 years (range: 39–82) who were treated with nivolumab (n = 7) or pembrolizumab (n = 6). Oral irAEs included lichenoid lesions (n = 10), erythema multiforme (EM) (n = 2), and acute graft‐versus‐host disease reactivation (n = 1), with or without ulcerations (n = 8). Four patients (31%) presented with only oral irAEs. Oral biopsies showed lichenoid mucositis (n = 4). Management with topical and systemic steroids led to complete symptomatic response in most patients (n = 12). PD‐1 inhibitor therapy was temporarily discontinued (n = 3) and discontinued indefinitely (n = 2) due to severe oral irAEs. Conclusion: Patients receiving PD‐1 inhibitors may develop oral irAEs characterized by lichenoid lesions, ulcers, or EM. Topical and systemic steroids appear to be effective in managing oral lesions although the severity of irAEs may necessitate PD‐1 inhibitor therapy dose modification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to identify the characteristics of dysgeusia caused by cancer chemotherapy. We investigated 181 patients with oral adverse events from cancer chemotherapy who were referred to an oral surgery clinic. Oral mucositis, dysgeusia and dry mouth were found in 62 (34.3%), 61 (33.7%) and 28 (15.5%) patients, respectively. Most dysgeusia was grade 1 (95.1%, P < 0.001) and was found in 20 (50.0%), 16 (43.2%) and 5 (27.8%) patients with colorectal, breast and gynecological types of cancer, respectively. Dysgeusia was identified in 14 (70.0%), 13 (76.4%) and 10 (55.6%) patients treated with oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and doxorubicin, respectively. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was evident in 70 (38.7%) patients, and 40 patients had both PN and dysgeusia. Frequency of dysgeusia was significantly higher in patients with PN than in patients without PN (P < 0.001). Dysgeusia tended to occur during treatment with oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and doxorubicin, and an association with PN was also suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, targeted therapies have emerged as promising forms of cancer treatment and are increasingly included in chemotherapeutic regimens for an ever-growing list of human cancers. Targeted therapies are so-named due to their specific targeting of dysregu-lated signaling pathways in cancer cells. This enhanced discrimination between tumor and normal cells is a more promising and efficacious approach to cancer treatment than conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, targeted therapies still have side effects, and some manifest in the oral cavity. Oral adverse events tend to be mild and thus may be overlooked in the context of a patient's overarching diagnosis and management. These oral lesions are often noted during an intraoral examination and identified in the context of the patient's medical history and medication list. It is imperative that the dentist be informed of the oral sequelae of targeted therapies. Many of these side effects can be successfully managed in a palliative manner with conservative therapy. This article discusses the clinical presentations and treatment of intraoral adverse events attributable to the following classes of targeted therapies: epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors, and selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of Protein Kinase Inhibitors (PKI) in the treatment of various types of cancer is increasingly prominent. Their clinical application is accompanied by the development of side effects, among which patient-reported taste alterations. These alterations are missed frequently, but impair nutritional intake, are associated with weight loss and often result in significant morbidity, especially in the context of chronic administration. Accurate reporting of taste alterations is hampered by lack of modules for symptom objectification and inadequate understanding on the underlying mechanisms. In this review we initially describe the physiology of taste and smell and the mechanism of action of PKIs. We proceed to summarize taste related side effects as reported in major clinical trials and describe possible causal factors. Lastly, an in-depth analysis is given on potential molecular pathways responsible for the PKI-induced taste alterations. Objectification of patient-reported symptoms and universal reporting, along with a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms, will lead to early recognition and optimized treatment, ultimately improving patient adherence and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Development of biological targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors has redefined the treatment for many cancers; however, the increasing use of new protocols has led to physicians observing a new spectrum of toxicities. To date, oral adverse events induced by these new anticancer therapies have been mainly reported using nonspecific terminology ("stomatitis," "mucosal inflammation," "mucositis") and remain poorly characterized, with the exception of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor-associated stomatitis. Oral toxicities of targeted therapies often display very characteristic features which clearly differ from classic oral injuries observed with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. In addition, they frequently affect more than 20% of treated patients and can lead to a significant morbidity or permanent treatment discontinuation. Oral mucosal toxicities described in this review include mTOR inhibitor-associated stomatitis (mIAS); stomatitis, benign migratory glossitis, and osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with multi-targeted kinase inhibitors of the VEGF and PDGF receptors; mucositis induced by EGFR inhibitors (in monotherapy or in combination with head and neck radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy); hyperkeratotic lesions with BRAF inhibitors; pigmentary changes and lichenoid reactions secondary to imatinib; and more recent data on the "Osler-Weber-Rendu-like syndrome" described with the antibody-drug conjugate, TDM-1. Finally, we provide, to our knowledge, the first available structured data on oral toxicities induced by the new recently FDA- and EMA-approved monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1. Clinical management of these targeted therapy-related oral changes is also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study characterized the incidence and clinical features of oral adverse events among cancer patients who received VEGFR-directed multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VR-TKI) therapies.Methods: Electronic medical records of adult cancer patients treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, regorafenib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, imatinib, and bevacizumab therapy at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 2009 to 2012 were reviewed. Data collected included patient characteristics, oral and non-oral adverse events, and time to onset. Time oral adverse event-free was the primary outcome.Results: A total of 747 patients with 806 individual courses of therapy were treated for a median of 3.9months with sunitinib (n=161), sorafenib (n=172), regorafenib (n=15), pazopanib (n=132), cabozantinib (n=23), imatinib (n=144), or bevacizumab (n=159) for lung cancer (21%), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (15%), and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (13%). An oral adverse event was reported in 23.7% of patients at a median of 1.9months after starting therapy. The most commonly reported oral adverse event was oral mucosal sensitivity (dysesthesia), occurring in 12% of patients, typically without clinical findings. Multivariate models showed patients who received VR-TKI therapy were at greater risk of any oral adverse event compared with patients treated with imatinib or bevacizumab. Patients receiving VR-TKI therapy who developed an oral adverse event were also at increased risk for hand-foot skin reaction (15.9%).Conclusions: VR-TKI associated oral adverse events are characterized primarily by dysesthesia with lack of clinical signs. Oral dysesthesia is more commonly associated with VR-TKIs than with bevacizumab or imatinib. Management is largely empirical and requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Oral adverse events (OAEs) associated with multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORIs) are underestimated but frequent and novel presentations of mucosal manifestations. Because optimal antitumor activity requires maintaining the optimal dose, it is essential to avoid unintended treatment delays or interruptions. Methods. We review the reported prevalence and appearance of OAEs with TKIs and mTORIs and the current oral assessment tools commonly used in clinical trials. We discuss the correlations between OAEs and hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and rash. Results. The reported prevalence of oral mucositis/stomatitis of any grade is 4% for pazopanib, 28% for sorafenib, 38% for sunitinib, 41% for temsirolimus, and 44% for everolimus. Oral lesions associated with these agents have been reported to more closely resemble aphthous stomatitis than OM caused by conventional agents. In addition, these agents may result in symptoms such as oral mucosal pain, dysgeusia, and dysphagia, in the absence of clinical lesions. Because of these factors, OAEs secondary to targeted agents may be underreported. In addition, a correlation between OAEs and HFSR was identified. Conclusions. OAEs caused by TKIs and mTORIs may represent dose-limiting toxicities, especially considering the fact that even low grades of OAEs may be troubling to the patient. We discuss how these novel AEs can be assessed because current mucositis assessment tools have limitations. Prospective studies investigating the pathogenesis, risk factors, and management of OAEs are needed in order to minimize the impact on patient's health-related quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The aim of the present study was to investigate the available literature regarding the oral side effects or adverse events associated with targeted cancer therapy. Common oral toxicities include the terms mucositis, stomatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, pharyngitis, and taste alterations. Aims of treatment included molecules and pathways involved in carcinogenesis reported in the literature were EGFRI, VEGF, mTOR, mAbs, TKIs, and multi-kinase inhibitors. Common targeted therapies used in clinical practice or under-investigation included cetuximab, panitumumab, erlotinib, sorafenib, sunitinib malate, imatinib mesylate, bevacizumab, trastuzumab, lapatinib, and mTORs. One hundred and forty-three articles were considered relevant and included in this review. The majority of studies did not specifically address oral toxicities or include an oral clinical exam, which may lead to underreported and under-investigated oral toxicities. Further investigation is necessary to determine if the initial impression that targeted therapy produces milder oral toxicities than conventional cancer treatment is accurate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The purpose of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors use among cancer patients from the medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) cohort of the University of Messina. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients with either intravenous bisphosphonates or denosumab-related MRONJ reported in the electronic health records of the Unit of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Messina between the first quarter of 2018 and the first quarter 2020 to identify eligible patients. We observed six cases of MRONJ associated with CDK4/6 inhibitors concomitantly with intravenous bisphosphonates and/or denosumab in breast cancer patients. The CDK4/6 inhibitors registered were palbociclib (n = 5) and abemaciclib (n = 1). Data of cancer patients diagnosed with MRONJ in the same period (n = 10) were extracted for comparison. The comparative assessment with this group of patients showed a similar distribution of MRONJ stage ranged and clinical course after treatment. The degree of risk for osteonecrosis in patients taking these new classes of drugs is uncertain but warrants awareness and close monitoring. The role of premedication dental evaluation as a prevention strategy has been acknowledged for cancer patients about to initiate intravenous bisphosphonates and/or denosumab for treatment of bone metastasis, but additional attention should be paid to whom are assuming CDK4/6 inhibitors because of their oral adverse events.