Therapeutic efficacy by recombinant human granulocyte/monocyte-colony stimulating factor on mucositis occurring in patients with oral and oropharynx tumors treated with curative radiotherapy: a multicenter open randomized phase III study. Comparison of a patient-controlled analgesia system with continuous infusion for administration of diamorphine for mucositis. Randomized trial of opioids versus tricyclic antidepressants for radiation-induced mucositis pain in head and neck cancer. Adolescents use patient-controlled analgesia effectively for relief from prolonged oropharyngeal mucositis pain. Relaxation and imagery and cognitive-behavioral training reduce pain during cancer treatment: a controlled clinical trial. Hypnosis or cognitive behavioral training for the reduction of pain and nausea during cancer treatment: a controlled clinical trial. Comparative efficacy of patient-controlled administration of morphine, hydromorphone, or sufentanil for the treatment of oral mucositis pain following bone marrow transplantation. Patient-controlled analgesic infusions: alfentanil versus morphine. Self-administration of morphine in bone marrow transplant patients reduces drug requirement. Patient-controlled analgesic administration. A comparison of steady-state morphine infusions with bolus doses. Radiation-induced mucositis: a randomized clinical trial of micronized sucralfate versus salt & soda mouthwashes. Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 3 commonly used mouthwashes to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Debridement could be a solution to promote healing of established oral mucositis in children. Patient-controlled versus staff-controlled analgesia with pethidine after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Sucralfate in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. The effectiveness of vitamin "E" in the treatment of oral mucositis in children receiving chemotherapy. Vitamin E in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Low-level infrared laser therapy in chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial in children. The use of low-energy laser (LEL) for the prevention of chemotherapy- and/or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in cancer patients: results from two prospective studies. Mouth-washings with recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) do not improve grade III-IV oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing stem cell transplantation. Results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Decrease of duration and symptoms in chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis by topical GM-CSF: results of a prospective randomised trial. Phase III controlled evaluation of sucralfate to alleviate stomatitis in patients receiving fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Allopurinol mouthwashes in the treatment of 5-fluorouracil-induced stomatitis. Comparing pain control and ability to eat and drink with standard therapy vs Gelclair: a preliminary, double centre, randomised controlled trial on patients with radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate the role of tetrachlorodecaoxide in the management of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Efficacy of topical phenytoin on chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis; a pilot study. Clinical evaluation of human placental extract (placentrex) in radiation-induced oral mucositis.
Previous studies suggested granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) might be beneficial for radiotherapy-induced mucositis. This trial examined the efficacy of GM-CSF in reducing mucositis of the oral cavity and/or oropharynx compared with conventional treatment.
                Mucositis, documented by a five-grade scale, was defined in patients with tumors of the head-neck. Centers were allowed to use their own preferred fractionation regimen. Randomization to treatment was decided before radiotherapy. Treatment with GM-CSF 4 microg/kg/d subcutaneous, started when patients displayed a mucositis score > or = 1.5.
                Ninety-two patients entered the study according to intention-to-treat principle. Twenty did not reach a mucositis index of 1.5. Sixty-one patients were included in the statistical analysis. Forty-five percent of the patients randomized to receive GM-CSF had a significant reduction of the mucositis more than one grade compared to 9% of the conventional treated.
                In severe mucositis, GM-CSF is more effective than conventional treatment. Mucositis remains an important problem following BMT and may delay discharge from hospital. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) systems have been reported to be of benefit in controlling BMT-associated mucositis. The present study comprised 65 patients (age range 16-68 years; 19 allografts, 29 peripheral blood stem cell autografts and 17 autologous bone marrow). Subjects were prospectively randomised to receive intravenous diamorphine for pain relief either by conventional continuous infusion (CI) or by PCA, using a Medex Walkman 440 delivery system. Each patient assessed his/her pain control and nausea daily by a visual analogue scale. Twenty-two patients did not require any diamorphine. Four patients required diamorphine for pain other than mucositis, and four patients failed PCA control. Of 35 assessable cases, no difference in pain control was noted between CI and PCA. However, PCA-controlled patients required significantly less diamorphine than CI controlled patients (mean, 131 +/- 23 mg for PCA vs 296 +/- 40 mg for CI; P = 0.001), and PCA required fewer days of diamorphine than CI (mean, 7.17 +/- 0.66 days for PCA, 9.00 +/- 0.65 days for CI; P = 0.03). Side-effects were minimal and equivalent in the two arms. The findings suggest that PCA and CI offer equivalent control of the pain of BMT-associated mucositis, but PCA requires less total consumption and duration of diamorphine therapy. Patients who receive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer are likely to develop painful mucositis. The pain is characterized by a burning or stinging sensation similar to neuropathic pain sensations. The purpose of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of a tricyclic antidepressant (TC), commonly used in the treatment of neuropathic pain, with the effect of opioids on radiation-induced mucositis pain. Forty-three patients receiving 66-68 Gy external radiation according to the DAHANCA guidelines (the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Study Group) were randomized to either morphine or TC when mucositis pain was insufficiently managed with weak analgesics. Patients with insufficient pain control in either treatment arm received supplementary medication from the opposite treatment arm. Pain was evaluated weekly using a VAS scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The degree of mucositis and the degree of depression were measured at the same time intervals. Twenty-two patients entered the opioid arm and 21 the TC arm. Two patients in each arm were non-evaluable. VAS pain scores were significantly reduced in the opioid treatment arm one week after randomization (p = 0.01). Eight patients in the TC arm were managed with TC alone, but for 11 patients it was necessary to add morphine. The 20 evaluable patients in the morphine arm required no additional treatment. There were no significant differences in side effects between the two groups. Higher pain scores in the TC arm, but not in the opioid arm, were significantly correlated with higher BDI scores. Some head and neck cancer patients with radiation-induced nucositis pain may have sufficient pain control on TC alone. This might be useful in patients with relative counter-indications to opioid treatment. We compared patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and continuous infusion (CI) morphine delivery in a randomized controlled trial in adolescents during oropharyngeal mucositis pain after bone marrow transplantation. Results from 20 patients who completed 7 or more days on study (10 PCA, 10 CI) were evaluated. The group means for age, weight and height were comparable. Daily measures were morphine intake, self-report of pain intensity and side effect scores. Over 10 study days, the mean cumulative morphine dose to subjects in each group was 4.94 mg/kg (PCA) vs. 12.17 mg/kg (CI); the difference is significant (P less than 0.01). No significant differences were found between the groups for patient ratings of pain intensity or side effect scores despite the large difference in mean morphine intake, but the PCA group tended to report less intense sedation and less difficulty concentrating. Adolescents can use PCA effectively and safely for 1-3 weeks. Morphine intake of adolescent patients using PCA morphine intake is significantly lower than that of similar patients receiving staff-controlled CI. Few controlled clinical trials of psychological interventions for cancer pain relief exist in spite of frequent support for their importance as adjuncts to medical treatment. This study compared oral mucositis pain levels in 4 groups of cancer patients receiving bone marrow transplants (BMT): (1) treatment as usual control, (2) therapist support, (3) relaxation and imagery training, and (4) training in a package of cognitive-behavioral coping skills which included relaxation and imagery. A total of 94 patients completed the study which involved two training sessions prior to treatment and twice a week 'booster' sessions during the first 5 weeks of treatment. Results confirmed our hypothesis that patients who received either relaxation and imagery alone or patients who received the package of cognitive-behavioral coping skills would report less pain than patients in the other 2 groups. The hypothesis that the cognitive-behavioral skills package would have an additive effect beyond relaxation and imagery alone was not confirmed. Average visual analogue scale (VAS) report of pain within the therapist support group was not significantly lower than the control group (P = 0.103) nor significantly higher than the training groups. Patient reports of relative helpfulness of the interventions for managing pain and nausea matched the results of VAS reports. From these results, we conclude that relaxation and imagery training reduces cancer treatment-related pain; adding cognitive-behavioral skills to the relaxation with imagery does not, on average, further improve pain relief. Few controlled clinical trials have tested the efficacy of psychological techniques for reducing cancer pain or post-chemotherapy nausea and emesis. In this study, 67 bone marrow transplant patients with hematological malignancies were randomly assigned to one of four groups prior to beginning transplantation conditioning: (1) hypnosis training (HYP); (2) cognitive behavioral coping skills training (CB); (3) therapist contact control (TC); or (4) treatment as usual (TAU; no treatment control). Patients completed measures of physical functioning (Sickness Impact Profile; SIP) and psychological functioning (Brief Symptom Inventory; BSI), which were used as covariates in the analyses. Biodemographic variables included gender, age and a risk variable based on diagnosis and number of remissions or relapses. Patients in the HYP, CB and TC groups met with a clinical psychologist for two pre-transplant training sessions and ten in-hospital "booster" sessions during the course of transplantation. Forty-five patients completed the study and provided all covariate data, and 80% of the time series outcome data. Analyses of the principal study variables indicated that hypnosis was effective in reducing reported oral pain for patients undergoing marrow transplantation. Risk, SIP, and BSI pre-transplant were found to be effective predictors of inpatient physical symptoms. Nausea, emesis and opioid use did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. The cognitive behavioral intervention, as applied in this study, was not effective in reducing the symptoms measured. A total of 119 bone marrow transplant patients suffering from oral mucositis pain were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial comparing the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, hydromorphone and sufentanil. Patient ratings of pain and side-effects on visual analog scales were gathered daily from the start of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) therapy until the discontinuation of opioid treatment either because of resolution of oral mucositis pain, intolerable side-effects, inadequate pain control, or complications related to transplantation. Of the 119 enrolled subjects, 100 met the evaluable criteria of developing oral mucositis and remaining on the study for at least 2 days. Multivariate analysis of the outcome measures indicated that the analgesia achieved in all three opioid groups was nearly equivalent, while measures of side-effects, especially for the combination of sedation, sleep and mood disturbances, were statistically lower in the morphine group than in hydromorphone or sufentanil groups. Patients in the hydromorphone group exhibited the most variability in pain control. Event analysis also indicated significant differences in time to treatment failure between the three groups, with the morphine arm exhibiting clear superiority. The proportion of patients discontinued because of inadequate pain relief was much higher in the sufentanil group (7/36) as compared to the hydromorphone (0/34) or the morphine group (1/30). The daily opioid consumption pattern showed a continual dose escalation during the first week of therapy for all groups, coincident with worsening mucositis. Morphine consumption reached a plateau by day 5, whereas hydromorphone and sufentanil consumption continued to rise until days 7 and 9, respectively. Sufentanil dose requirement increased by approximately 10-fold compared to morphine and hydromorphone, whose requirements increased only 5-fold, suggesting the possibility of development of acute pharmacological tolerance in some patients with this phenylpiperidine opioid. This study provides support for the recommendation that morphine is the opioid of first choice when patient-controlled analgesia is employed for the treatment of severe oropharyngeal pain in bone marrow transplantation (BMT) patients. Previously, we found that cancer patients using a pharmacokinetically based patient-controlled intravenous infusion system (PKPCA) to regulate their own morphine infusion rates achieved more relief from oral mucositis pain than similar patients using morphine by bolus-dose PCA. In this study, we employed the PKPCA system to compare efficacy and side-effect intensities of 2 mu-selective opioid analgesics, alfentanil and morphine, in bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients self-administering the drugs to relieve pain from oral mucositis. Patients using morphine by PKPCA obtained more pain relief than patients regulating their own alfentanil infusions during the first 4 days of continuous opioid infusion therapy. Side-effect intensities did not differ between the 2 study groups. In contrast to patients using morphine for 4-14 days, those receiving alfentanil by PKPCA required unexpectedly high plasma concentrations of the drug to obtain equivalent pain relief. Our results indicate that either the relative potencies of these 2 mu-selective opioids differ from previous estimates or analgesic tolerance developed to alfentanil but not to morphine. We conclude that alfentanil has similar efficacy in control of prolonged pain in BMT patients, but the utility of alfentanil in long-term pain management may be limited by relatively rapid tolerance onset. Bone marrow transplant recipients were randomly assigned to receive morphine by either continuous infusion (32 patients) or self-administration of small boluses (patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), 26 patients) for control of chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis pain. All patients received morphine for a minimum of 9 days and most required morphine for at least 14 days. Patients rated their pain and side-effect intensity daily using visual analogue scales. Patient pain ratings did not differ between the groups although PCA patients used only 53% as much morphine as the continuous infusion group. Tolerance did not develop in the PCA group; in patients receiving continuous infusion morphine dosage continued to increase throughout the study while pain scores remained constant, indicating that tolerance had developed. Nausea, alertness and respiratory rate measurements did not differ between groups. PCA appeared more effective than the hospital staff determined treatment at delivering the least amount of morphine required to produce maximal pain relief. Patients self-administering morphine did not appear to restrict morphine intake in order to minimize opioid side-effects. The authors have shown previously that bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients who self-administered bolus doses of morphine gained equal oral mucositis pain relief while using less drug compared with similar patients receiving morphine by staff-controlled continuous infusion. In a follow-up study they compared the efficacy and side effects of morphine in two groups of marrow transplant patients who controlled their own analgesic administration either by conventional bolus-dose, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or by adjusting the rate of continuous morphine infusion to increase or decrease their plasma morphine concentration. Patients controlling their morphine infusion rates (pharmacokinetically based patient-controlled analgesia [PKPCA] group) obtained more relief from oral mucositis pain than did patients using conventional PCA. Patients in the PKPCA group used more morphine than PCA patients and achieved superior pain relief without significant increases in side effects (e.g., nausea, mood changes, sedation). The authors conclude that PKPCA improves the management of prolonged, severe pain in marrow transplant patients and that this approach to patient-controlled analgesia may be useful in other types of persistent pain. Oral mucositis is one of the major toxicities caused by radiation therapy (RT) treatments to the head and neck. The clinical efficacy of sucralfate (Carafate R) mouthwash for head and neck cancer patients (HNC) is not consistent across studies. In this study, it was hypothesized that if the particles in the original sucralfate suspension were micronized (i.e., < or = 25 microns) then the coating action of the mouthwash in the oral cavity would be enhanced. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of micronized sucralfate (Carafate R) mouthwash and salt & soda mouthwash in terms of the severity of the mucositis, the severity of mucositis-related pain, and the time required to heal RT-induced mucositis in patients with HNC. Severe mucositis and related pain can interfere with the ingestion of food and fluids, so patients' body weights were measured as well. All patients in this randomized clinical trial carried out a systematic oral hygiene protocol called the PRO-SELF: Mouth Aware (PSMA) Program. Patients who developed RT-induced mucositis anytime during their course of RT were randomized to one of the two mouthwashes and followed to the completion of RT and at one month following RT. Two referral sites were used for the study. Repeated measures occurred with the following instruments/variables: MacDibbs Mouth Assessment and weight. Demographic, disease, and cancer treatment information was also obtained. Thirty patients successfully completed the study. The typical participant was male (70%), married/partnered (70%), White (63%), not working or retired (73%), and had an average of 14.5 years of education (SD = 3.7). T-tests and Chi-square analyses with an alpha set at 0.05 were used to compare differences between the two mouthwashes. No significant differences were found in the number of days to onset of mucositis (i.e., 16 +/- 8.4 days). When patients had their worst MacDibbs score, (i.e., the most severe mucositis), there were no significant differences between the mouthwashes as to MacDibbs score, the RT dose received, or ratings of pain (upon swallowing). Similarly, at the end of RT, no significant differences were found between mouthwashes as to MacDibbs scores or ratings of pain (upon swallowing). At the one-month follow-up assessment no significant differences were found between the mouthwashes in MacDibbs scores or pain ratings (upon swallowing). The analysis of the efficacy of the two mouthwashes revealed no significant differences in the time to heal (in days) from the RT-induced mucositis. The findings from this trial provide important clinical information regarding cost analysis of RT mucositis management. Given that there is no significant difference in efficacy between micronized sucralfate and salt & soda, use of the less costly salt & soda is prudent and cost-effective. To test the effectiveness of 3 mouthwashes used to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis. The mouthwashes were as follows: salt and soda, chlorhexidine, and "magic" mouthwash (lidocaine, Benadryl, and Maalox). Study Design: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was implemented in 23 outpatient and office settings. Participants were monitored from the time they developed mucositis until cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis, or until they finished their 12-day supply of mouthwash. All participants followed a prescribed oral hygiene program and were randomly assigned a mouthwash. Nurses used the Oral Assessment Guide for initial assessment and taught patients how to assess their own mouths, then phoned the patients every other day to gather status reports.
                In 142 of 200 patients, there was a cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis within 12 days. No significant differences in time for the cessation of the signs and symptoms were observed among the 3 groups.
                Given the comparable effectiveness of the mouthwashes, the least costly was salt and soda mouthwash. The aim of the study was to present a novel approach to promote healing of established oral mucositis and to alleviate symptom clusters in a group of children who were on induction chemotherapy.
                A clinical prospective study.
                Children (40) diagnosed with Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis were randomly assigned into two groups: In Group I (n=20), accumulated debris on ulcerations was removed (debridement); In Group II (n=20), subjects had no debridement. The condition of oral lesions, speech, lips, teeth, saliva, gingiva, and swallowing ability were examined 3 x week during the study. All subjects received the same oral care regimen. They were well balanced in respect of age, the type of antineoplastic treatment, and the number.
                Debridement promoted resolution and decreased the severity of oral mucositis significantly. Thus, the subjects had less oral discomfort, pain, and nutritional difficulties. Statistics: The data were entered in the SPSS 13.0 program, and the tests used were Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney, and Spearman's correlation coefficient with a 5% significance level.
                Well-controlled, prospective clinical studies related to the management of established oral mucositis will lead to the development of potential interventions and improved patient care. Patients treated by allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (aBMT) suffer prolonged oropharyngeal mucositis pain. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with an established regimen of staff-controlled analgesia using pethidine (meperidine). Twenty patients undergoing aBMT for haematologic neoplasias or malignant lymphomas randomly received pethidine intravenously either continuously plus supplemental bolus doses on request through the transplant unit staff or by PCA. Pain intensity was assessed by patient self report using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and daily pethidine intake was documented. In addition, the pethidine consumption of 20 aBMT-patients receiving staff-controlled analgesia prior to initiation of the study, but not reporting pain, was compared retrospectively with that of patients receiving the same analgesia regimen under study conditions. PCA significantly diminished both pethidine consumption and pain intensity compared with staff-controlled analgesia. The maximum pethidine intake was 440.1 +/- 111.8 mg/24 h in the patient-controlled and 640.9 +/- 128.9 mg/24 h in the staff-controlled analgesia group (mean +/- 95% CI). Mean pain scores remained under 50% but reached 70% in the staff-controlled analgesia group. Pethidine dosage by staff-controlled analgesia increased under study conditions, suggesting that mere pain-assessment and a 'competing' analgesic method motivated the BMT-unit staff to administer higher pethidine doses. This observation is discussed as a possible Hawthorne effect. Previous studies using morphine demonstrated that PCA diminishes opioid requirement compared to continuous or staff-controlled application in bone marrow recipients. In contrast to these studies, PCA additionally improved pain relief in the present investigation. The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised pilot study to assess the efficacy of sucralfate gel in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced mucositis.
                At the onset of stomatitis, forty patients received sucralfate gel (1 gr.) or placebo and were instructed to apply the gel over oral mucosas, 3 times daily.
                Objective response was observed in 14 patients (11 complete response+3 partial response) and in 15 patients (10 CR+5 PR), in the sucralfate and placebo arms, respectively; (p = NS). Analysis of VAS (visual analogue scale) scoring of pain did not detect any statistical difference between the two groups. No important side-effects were observed. Twelve out 21 patients who obtained a complete resolution of stomatitis (5 out of 11 and 7 out of 10 in the sucralfate and in placebo arms, respectively) received further treatment at the subsequent course of chemotherapy; prevention of mucositis was observed in 4 patients in the sucralfate arm and in 6 patients in the placebo arm, respectively.
                In the present pilot study, sucralfate did not demonstrate a significant advantage in comparison to the placebo in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. The aim of this study was to study the effect of vitamin "E" in the treatment of oral mucositis. 80 patients with oral mucositis were randomly distributed into 2 groups: group A, topically applied vitamin "E" and group B, vitamin "E" was given systemically. The 2 groups were evaluated for 5 days. Results showed that in group A grades of oral mucositis improved significantly, while in group B no significant improvement was noticed. It is concluded that topical application of 100 mg vitamin "E" twice daily is an effective measure for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. To determine the efficacy of vitamin E in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced mucositis in patients with malignancy.
                A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of topical vitamin E in the treatment of oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy for various types of malignancy. A total of 18 patients, 17 of whom had solid tumors and one with acute leukemia, were included in this study. Lesions were observed daily prior to and 5 days after topical application of either vitamin E or placebo oil.
                Six of nine patients receiving vitamin E had complete resolution of their oral lesions. In eight of nine patients who received placebo, complete resolution of their oral lesions was not observed. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.025 by Fisher's exact test). No toxicity was observed in this study.
                These results suggest that vitamin E may be an effective therapy in patients with chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the most frequent complications of chemotherapy for which there is no standard therapy; treatment is mostly conservative. This study was conducted to determine whether low-intensity laser therapy (LLLT) can reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced OM.
                A placebo-controlled randomized trial was carried out using LLLT or placebo (sham treatment). Children and adolescents with cancer receiving chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation between October 2005 and May 2006 were eligible as soon as they developed OM. Patients received intervention for 5 days. The LLLT group was treated with laser GaAlAs, wavelength (lambda): 830 nm (infrared), power: 100 mW, dose: 4 J/cm, and placebo group underwent sham treatment. The grade of OM was clinically assessed by the National Cancer Institute, Common Toxicity Criteria scale.
                Twenty-one patients developed OM and were evaluable for analysis; 18 (86%) patients had a diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma and 3(14%) had solid tumors. The mean age was 8.2 (+/-3.1) years. Nine patients were randomized in the laser group and 12 in the placebo-control group. Once OM was diagnosed, the patients had daily OM grading assessments before laser or sham application and thereafter until complete healing of the lesions. On day 7 after OM diagnosis, 1/9 of patients remained with lesions in laser group and 9/12 of patients in the placebo-control group (P=0.029). In the laser group, the mean of OM duration was 5.8+/-2 days and in the placebo group was 8.9+/-2.4 days (P=0.004).
                Our study has shown evidence that laser therapy in addition to oral care can decrease the duration of chemotherapy-induced OM. Our results confirm the promising results observed in adult cancer patients and should encourage pediatric oncologists to use laser therapy as first-line option in children with chemotherapy-induced OM. Low-energy laser (LEL) treatment has been suggested as an effective and safe method to prevent and/or treat oral mucositis induced by chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy; however, it has not gained wide acceptance so far.
                We conducted two clinical trials testing the LEL technique: firstly, as a secondary prevention in patients with various solid tumors treated with chemotherapy who all developed severe mucositis after a previous identical chemotherapy and, secondly, as therapeutic intervention (compared to sham illumination in a randomized way) in patients with hematological tumors receiving intensive chemotherapy and having developed low-grade oral mucositis.
                We entered 26 eligible patients in the first study and 36 were randomized in the second study. The success rate was 81% (95%CI = 61-93%) when LEL was given as a preventive treatment. In the second study, in patients with existing lesions, the therapeutic success rate was 83% (95%CI = 59-96%), which was significantly different from the success rate reached in the sham-treated patients (11%; 95%CI = 1-35%); the time to development of grade 3 mucositis was also significantly shorter in the sham-treated patients (p < 0.001).
                Our results strongly support the already available literature, suggesting that LEL is an effective and safe approach to prevent or treat oral mucositis resulting from cancer chemotherapy. We investigated whether daily oral washings with recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) solution improved grade III-IV oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing stem cell transplantation. Forty-one consecutive patients (21 males and 20 females, median age (range) 44 (16-69) years) were prospectively randomized to perform daily mouth-washes with either a 400 microg rhGM- CSF (Molgramostin, Schering-Plough) solution (group A, n = 18) or with a saline solution (group B, n = 23). Primary end-points were the intensity of OM, night rest quality and characteristics of food intake. Secondary end-points were need for and duration of parenteral nutrition, oral and intravenous analgesic requirements, incidence of viral or fungal oral infections and development of neutropenic fever. No differences were found between the placebo and rhGM-CSF-treated groups regarding overall duration of OM, maximum grade, reduction in at least one grade of OM (nine patients (56%) in group A vs 13 patients (68%) in group B), reduction of spontaneous or swallowing-induced pain, improvement in oral food intake, use of parenteral nutrition or use of systemic analgesics. In conclusion, mouth-washings with a 400 microg of rhGM-CSF solution do not improve severe OM in hematological patients undergoing stem cell transplantation. We have conducted a prospective controlled randomised clinical study testing for the efficacy of topical GM-CSF (molgramostim), as compared to the combined topical use of an antiseptic agent (povidone-iodine) and amphotericin B (AA) in patients with chemotherapy-induced mucositis World Health Organization (WHO) grades I-III. 31 patients (17 females, 14 males) developing oral mucositis following the administration of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy were entered into the present trial. 15 patients were randomised to receive GM-CSF mouthwashes, whereas 16 patients were randomised into the control arm to receive AA. Reported history (P=0.6109) and grading of oral mucositis (2.1+/-0.7, respectively; P=0.9867) were balanced and equally distributed between the two groups. The mean size of lesions of oral mucositis was 1.5+/-0.6 cm (range: 0.7-2.5 cm) in the GM-CSF group and 1.2+/-0.5 cm (range: 0.5-2.5 cm) in the AA group (P=0.08), respectively. The mean number of oral mucositis lesions was 1.9+/-1.1 (range: 1-4) in the GM-CSF group and 2.1+/-1.2 (range: 1-4) in the AA group (P=0.63), respectively. None of the patients had previously received colony stimulating factors either topically or systemically. Treatment for oral mucositis was initiated on day 2.7+/-1.2 (range: day 1-8) after onset of symptoms in the GM-CSF group and on day 1.8+/-1.4 (range: day 1-3; P=0.11) in the AA group. The topical application of GM-CSF resulted in a significantly shorter duration and quicker resolution of oral mucositis, as compared to AA including both, pretreatment plus treatment periods (5.3+/-2.5 versus 8.1+/-1.5 days; P=0.0008) as well as the necessary duration of treatment needed until complete remission of lesions (2.8+/-0.7 versus 6.3+/-1.1 days; P<0.0001). A systemic effect of topical GM-CSF upon the number of peripheral blood leukocytes or granulocytes was excluded. We conclude that the topical application of GM-CSF by mouthwash significantly abbreviated the duration and relieved patients from symptoms of chemotherapy-induced mucositis and was superior to the topical application of AA. Stomatitis is a major dose-limiting toxicity of bolus fluorouracil (5FU)-based chemotherapy regimens, despite the use of oral cryotherapy. Pursuant to preliminary data that suggested a sucralfate oral solution could alleviate chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis, we developed a prospective trial to test this contention.
                A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was designed. Patients were entered onto the study at the time of the first cycle of 5FU-based chemotherapy. All patients received oral cryotherapy for 30 minutes with each dose of 5FU. In addition, each patient was randomized to receive either a sucralfate solution or a placebo solution to be used if they developed mouth tenderness or mouth sores. The study solution was to be used four times daily for 7 days starting on the first day of mouth tenderness or mouth sores. Stomatitis scores were determined by health care providers and by patients themselves.
                There was a total of 131 assessable patients entered onto this trial, 50 of whom developed mucositis and used the study medication (27 sucralfate and 23 placebo). There was no suggestion of any difference in stomatitis severity or duration on either protocol arm.
                The resultant data from this clinical trial did not support the prestudy hypothesis that sucralfate would be beneficial for the treatment of 5FU-induced stomatitis. This study was aimed at assessing the efficacy of allopurinol mouthwashes in the treatment of 5-fluorouracil-induced stomatitis. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was thus designed to test its efficacy to treat oral mucositis in advanced cancer patients receiving 5-fluorouracil-containing chemotherapy. There were 44 patients randomized to receive allopurinol mouthwashes, or placebo, as soon as mucosal lesions were observed during any treatment cycle. Stomatitis was evaluated at the end of each 5-day treatment cycle. Allopurinol mouthwashes resolved stomatitis in 9 of 22 treated patients (40.9%), and diminished its intensity in 10 more patients (45.4%); stomatitis resolved completely in none of the 22 patients, and partially in 3 patients in the placebo group (p < .001 by chi 2 test). Duration of symptoms was also significantly different between the two groups (median: 4 days for the allopurinol group, 7.5 days for the control group; p < .0005 by Student's t-test). In conclusion, our results suggest that allopurinol mouthwashes can be effective to treat 5-fluorouracil-induced stomatitis. GOAL OF THE WORK: Oral mucositis (OM) is a functionally destructive complication of aggressive head and neck cancer therapy, often resulting in intense pain, an inability to eat and drink and secondary malnutrition and dehydration. The barrier-forming properties of Gelclair have shown promise in relieving such symptoms. The aim of this randomised-controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of Gelclair, as compared to standard therapy, as a means of short-term symptom control for patients suffering from radiotherapy-induced OM.
                Twenty patients, with radiotherapy-induced OM seen in two oncology centres in Devon, were randomised to either standard therapy (Sucralfate and Mucaine) or Gelclair and assessed over 24 h. Both treatments were taken four times during the 24-h period, 30 min before meals.
                No significant difference was found between the Gelclair and standard therapy arms in terms of general pain (F = 1.512, df = 1, 17, ns). There did appear to be a trend towards pain improvement initially after the use of Gelclair, but this did not last for the full 24-h assessment period. There was no significant reduction in pain on speaking (F = 0.261, df = 1, 17, ns) nor an improvement in capacity to eat and drink, although the effects of standard therapy did appear to last longer than the Gelclair.
                This study indicates that Gelclair is no more effective than current standard practice in relieving the pain associated with radiotherapy-induced OM. Nevertheless, observations from this preliminary study warrant further investigation, with a view to shaping the way forward for head and neck cancer practice on a national level. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tetrachlorodecaoxide (TCDO) in patients with chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Sixty-two patients with World Health Organization grade II-IV oral mucositis were eligible for the study. They were randomized to receive TCDO or placebo, 10 ml, twice daily, swish and swallow, for 7 days. Patients were evaluated for oral pain, dysphagia, and oral intake. Downgrading and total duration of mucositis were documented. Thirty-two were randomized to receive TCDO. Thirty received the placebo. All were evaluable. Both arms were well matched for age, gender, type of underlying neoplasm, and prior history of oral mucositis. Intensity of initial symptoms, degree of mucositis, and time period between delivery of chemotherapy and development of mucositis were also similar. Post-therapy evaluation revealed no significant difference in the mean grade of oral and esophageal pain, or dysphagia between TCDO and placebo. Downgrading or total duration of mucositis did not differ between the two groups. Oral intake improved significantly in patients taking TCDO. Time to subjective improvement in oral pain was significantly shorter with TCDO (3.1 versus 3.6 days). Evaluation on day 3 revealed that 77% of those receiving TCDO were free of oral pain in comparison to 46% receiving placebo (P = 0.05). These results indicate that TCDO may be helpful in palliating some of the symptoms related to oral mucositis. The therapeutic benefit, however, is small and needs to be confirmed in a larger trial. BACKGROUND AND THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Oral mucositis is one of the most common complications of malignancy chemotherapy. As yet, no absolute treatment has been demonstrated to be effective for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. This study evaluates the effectiveness of phenytoin mouthwash as a wound healing agent, on the basis of stimulating effects on fibroblast proliferation.
                In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial; twelve patients received phenytoin mouthwash (0.5%) or placebo for about two weeks. Oral pain severity was scored on the daily basis using a VAS (visual analogue scale) of 10 centimeters. National Cancer Institute (NCI) scale was used to grade the intensity of mucositis. To determine the effect of treatment, a quality of life questionnaire, consisting of 35 queries, was filled out for all patients. Statistical analyses of data was performed using Mann-Whitney test.
                The average time for complete remission of mucositis in phenytoin-treated group was less than that of the placebo group. The quality of life improved dramatically in the phenytoin group with the healing process being more evident in the first week. Furthermore, reduction in the wound area was greater in the phenytoin group than controls at the end of the first week of treatment. Both groups eventually demonstrated reduction in pain intensity; however no statistically significant difference was observed between two groups.
                Phenytoin mouthwash accelerated wound healing and resolution of mucositis and improved life quality impressively. To evaluate human placental extract in the treatment of radiation mucositis involving the oral/oropharyngeal region, a prospective randomized study was carried out in 120 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck from August 1997 to March 1999. The study was conducted in patients receiving radical external radiation therapy, planned for = > 60 Gy/30 F/6 weeks, who developed grade 2 radiation mucositis (patchy mucositis) during radiation treatment. The patients were randomized in two groups of 60 patients each to receive either placentrex treatment (placentrex group) or conventional treatment (control group). Placentrex treatment was given as Inj Placentrex 2 ml by deep intramuscular injection 5 days a week for 15 injections. Conventional treatment given in the control group was disprin gargles and betamethasone oral drops. A subjective decrease in pain was observed in 48/60 (80%) of patients in the placentrex group compared with 22/60 (36.7%) in the control group. The progression to grade 3 radiation mucositis was 24/60 (40%) in the placentrex group compared with 52/60 (86.7%) in the control group. The subjective improvement in difficulty in swallowing was seen in 56/60 (93%) of patients in the placentrex group compared with 9/60 (15%) of patients in the control group. Only one patient in the placentrex group compared with three in the control group required interruption of radiation therapy because of severe radiation reactions. Human placental extract appears to be effective in the management of radiation-induced oral/oropharyngeal mucositis and especially in controlling subjective symptoms.
There is limited evidence from two small trials that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.