GOALS: Oral mucositis (OM), the painful inflammation of oropharyngeal tissues, is an economically costly chemotherapy toxicity. Several agents to prevent chemotherapy-induced OM are in development, with most studies conducted among transplantation subjects with a brief well-defined risk period. The potential value of these preventative agents among hematology-oncology populations receiving cyclic standard-dose therapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy at an outpatient oncology center over a 2-week time-frame were invited to participate in an anonymous unprompted survey. The survey instrument consisted of six demographic questions and six questions regarding toxicities of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 514 patients providing completed surveys from among approximately 1625 patients (32% response rate), 167 (32%) reported experiencing OM. Factors associated with developing OM included number of chemotherapy cycles ( P=0.001), hematologic malignancy ( P=0.02), female gender ( P=0.03), age ( P=0.05), and treatment with anthracyclines ( P=0.001), vinca alkaloids ( P=0.001), cyclophosphamide ( P=0.001), fludarabine ( P=0.01), cis/carboplatin ( P=0.05) and radiotherapy ( P=0.005). Among patients experiencing OM, 69% considered OM to be an important toxicity with 7% rating their OM very severe, 18% severe, 36% moderate and 29% mild. Recurrent OM was reported by 87 patients (53%) and was judged similar in severity by 67%, milder by 27% and more severe by 6%. OM was considered the sixth most distressing complication behind (in descending order) fatigue, hair loss, nausea, numbness and diarrhea, and more important than anxiety and heartburn. CONCLUSIONS: OM represents a common toxicity of standard-dose chemotherapy occurring in approximately one-third of patients. High-risk populations can be identified, permitting targeting of primary prophylaxis strategies whereby all patients possessing high-risk factors are treated to prevent OM. However, since OM was self-reported by only one-third of patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy, but over half of those experiencing OM developed recurrent episodes, secondary prophylaxis strategies targeting recurrent OM episodes may be more appropriate.
GOALS: Oral mucositis (OM), the painful inflammation of oropharyngeal tissues, is an economically costly chemotherapy toxicity. Several agents to prevent chemotherapy-induced OM are in development, with most studies conducted among transplantation subjects with a brief well-defined risk period. The potential value of these preventative agents among hematology-oncology populations receiving cyclic standard-dose therapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy at an outpatient oncology center over a 2-week time-frame were invited to participate in an anonymous unprompted survey. The survey instrument consisted of six demographic questions and six questions regarding toxicities of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 514 patients providing completed surveys from among approximately 1625 patients (32% response rate), 167 (32%) reported experiencing OM. Factors associated with developing OM included number of chemotherapy cycles ( P=0.001), hematologic malignancy ( P=0.02), female gender ( P=0.03), age ( P=0.05), and treatment with anthracyclines ( P=0.001), vinca alkaloids ( P=0.001), cyclophosphamide ( P=0.001), fludarabine ( P=0.01), cis/carboplatin ( P=0.05) and radiotherapy ( P=0.005). Among patients experiencing OM, 69% considered OM to be an important toxicity with 7% rating their OM very severe, 18% severe, 36% moderate and 29% mild. Recurrent OM was reported by 87 patients (53%) and was judged similar in severity by 67%, milder by 27% and more severe by 6%. OM was considered the sixth most distressing complication behind (in descending order) fatigue, hair loss, nausea, numbness and diarrhea, and more important than anxiety and heartburn. CONCLUSIONS: OM represents a common toxicity of standard-dose chemotherapy occurring in approximately one-third of patients. High-risk populations can be identified, permitting targeting of primary prophylaxis strategies whereby all patients possessing high-risk factors are treated to prevent OM. However, since OM was self-reported by only one-third of patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy, but over half of those experiencing OM developed recurrent episodes, secondary prophylaxis strategies targeting recurrent OM episodes may be more appropriate.
Authors: S T Sonis; G Oster; H Fuchs; L Bellm; W Z Bradford; J Edelsberg; V Hayden; J Eilers; J B Epstein; F G LeVeque; C Miller; D E Peterson; M M Schubert; F K Spijkervet; M Horowitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M J Dodd; S Dibble; C Miaskowski; S Paul; M Cho; L MacPhail; D Greenspan; G Shiba Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: A P Rapoport; L F Miller Watelet; T Linder; S Eberly; R F Raubertas; J Lipp; R Duerst; C N Abboud; L Constine; J Andrews; M A Etter; L Spear; E Powley; C H Packman; J M Rowe; U Schwertschlag; C Bedrosian; J L Liesveld Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Linda S Elting; Catherine Cooksley; Mark Chambers; Scott B Cantor; Ellen Manzullo; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeffrey A Jones; Elenir B C Avritscher; Catherine D Cooksley; Marisol Michelet; B Nebiyou Bekele; Linda S Elting Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rong Stephanie Huang; Emily O Kistner; Wasim K Bleibel; Sunita J Shukla; M Eileen Dolan Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.261