Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective To update the clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM) that were developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). This part focuses on honey, herbal compounds, saliva stimulants, probiotics, and miscellaneous agents. Methods A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each clinical 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, one of the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, No Guideline Possible. Results A total of 78 papers were identified within the scope of this section, of which 49 were included in this review and merged with nine publications that were reported in the previous guidelines update. A new Suggestion was made for honey (combined topical and systemic delivery) for the prevention of OM in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. A new Suggestion clarified that chewing gum is not effective for the prevention of OM in pediatric patients with hematological or solid cancer treated with chemotherapy. No guideline was possible for other interventions. Conclusions Numerous natural products and herbal remedies were studied for the management of OM. Of the agents reviewed in this systematic review, a guideline in favor was made for honey (combined topical and systemic), while a guideline against was made for chewing gum. Additional research is warranted to clarify the potential of other interventions.

PurposeTo update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of natural and miscellaneous agents for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).MethodsA 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.ResultsA total of 78 papers were identified within the scope of this section, out of which 29 were included in this part, and were analyzed with 27 previously reviewed studies. A new Suggestion was made for oral glutamine for the prevention of OM in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy. The previous Recommendation against the use of parenteral glutamine for the prevention of OM in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients was re-established. A previous Suggestion for zinc to prevent OM in H&N cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy was reversed to No Guideline Possible. No guideline was possible for other interventions.ConclusionsOf the vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements studied for the management of OM, the evidence supports a Recommendation against parenteral glutamine in HSCT patients and a Suggestion in favor of oral glutamine in H&N cancer patients for the management of OM.

To characterize oral sites affected by radiation-induced oral mucositis (OM) and related clinical outcomes in oral cancer patients subjected to prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT). This study included advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated with prophylactic PBMT for OM. The site distribution of OM, OM grading (CTCAE NCI, Version 4.0, 2010), OM-related pain (VAS), analgesic protocol (WHO Analgesic Ladder), and use of enteral nutrition were evaluated weekly during treatment. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics expressed as median values and percentages. A total of 145 OSCC patients were included. OM most frequently affected the lateral border of the tongue (44.1%), buccal mucosa (37.2%), and labial mucosa (33.8%). Keratinized oral mucosa sites, including the tongue dorsum (6.21%), retromolar trigone (8.3%), and hard palate (2.76%), were less frequently affected. Peak OM scores were observed at weeks 5, 6, and 7, with severe OM (NCI grades 3 and 4) rates of 11%, 20%, and 25%, respectively. The cumulative occurrence of severe OM was 23%, which developed as early as week 3 and as late as week 7. The highest mean value of OM-related pain (2.7) was observed at the sixth week, and 13.8% of the patients required feeding support. This study showed, compared with studies that did not provide PBMT, reduced severity of mucositis, reduced pain and analgesic use, and reduced tube feeding in patients treated with PBMT. OM involving keratinized and non-keratinized surfaces should be included in the prophylactic PBMT to reduce severe OM in future studies.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06141-9

Purpose To assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic extraoral photobiomodulation (PBM) for the prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) on clinical outcomes and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC). Methods OOPSCC patients who received radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively randomized to two groups: prophylactic extraoral PBM and placebo. OM grade (NCI), pain (VAS), analgesia, and anti-inflammatory prescriptions were assessed weekly. Quality of life questionnaires (QoL) were performed at the first and last day of RT. Following RT, participants were evaluated quarterly for oncological outcomes follow-up. Results Fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The first occurrence of OM was observed at week 1, for the placebo group ( p  = 0.014). Later, OM onset and severity was observed for the PBM group, with first occurrence at week 2 ( p  = 0.009). No difference in severe OM incidence was observed ( p  > 0.05). Lower mean pain score was noted at week 7 for the PBM group (2.1) compared to placebo group (4.5) ( p  = 0.009). Less analgesics (week 3; p  = 0.009/week 7; p  = 0.02) and anti-inflammatory prescription (week 5; p  = 0.0346) were observed for the PBM group. Better QoL scores were observed for the PBM group at last day of RT ( p  = 0.0034). No difference in overall survival among groups was observed in 1 year of follow-up ( p  = 0.889). Conclusion Prophylactic extraoral PBM can delay OM onset, reduce pain, and reduce analgesic and anti-inflammatory prescription requirements. Extraoral PBM was associated with better QoL. There was no evidence of PBM impact on oncological outcomes. Trial registration TRN:RBR-4w4swx (date of registration: 01/20/2020).

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to evaluate the impact of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for the prevention of oral mucositis (OM) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiation therapy. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search strategy was performed in five electronic databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). The included studies assessed the QoL of patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for HNC and undergoing PBMT for the management of OM. Seven articles met the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was performed in the selected studies including the PBMT parameters (active medium, application procedure, wavelength, fluence, power, irradiance, irradiation time, spot size, energy per point, schedule of irradiation, and total energy). The included studies were qualitatively analyzed, and descriptive analyses were performed. Also, summary results were evaluated for group comparison analysis. All included studies confirmed a decrease in the QoL of the patients that developed OM throughout the RT progress when compared to baseline. Of the informed cases, most of the patients who received PBMT showed grades 1 and 2 OM, while the control group showed more individuals with severe forms of OM (grades 3 and 4). In this sense, patients submitted to PBMT reported better QoL at the end of the treatment compared with the control group. PBMT used for the management of OM preserves the QoL of patients with head and neck cancer.