Valeria Mercadante1, Arwa Al Hamad2, Giovanni Lodi3, Stephen Porter4, Stefano Fedele5. 1. University College London, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK. Electronic address: v.mercadante@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Dental Services, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. University of Milan, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Milan, Italy. 4. University College London, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK. 5. University College London, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK; NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Salivary gland hypofunction is a common and permanent adverse effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Randomised trials of available treatment modalities have produced unclear results and offer little reliable guidance for clinicians to inform evidence-based therapy. We have undertaken this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of available interventions for radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and hyposalivation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMED, and CINAHL database through July 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing any topical or systemic intervention to active and/or non-active controls for the treatment of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia. The results of clinically and statistically homogenous studies were pooled and meta-analyzed. RESULTS: 1732 patients from twenty studies were included in the systematic review. Interventions included systemic or topical pilocarpine, systemic cevimeline, saliva substitutes/mouthcare systems, hyperthermic humidification, acupuncture, acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-level laser therapy and herbal medicine. Results from the meta-analysis, which included six studies, suggest that both cevimeline and pilocarpine can reduce xerostomia symptoms and increase salivary flow compared to placebo, although some aspects of the relevant effect size, duration of the benefit, and clinical meaningfulness remain unclear. With regard to interventions not included in the meta-analysis, we found no evidence, or very weak evidence, that they can reduce xerostomia symptoms or increase salivary flow in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Pilocarpine and cevimeline should represent the first line of therapy in head and neck cancer survivors with radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and hyposalivation. The use of other treatment modalities cannot be supported on the basis of current evidence.
INTRODUCTION:Salivary gland hypofunction is a common and permanent adverse effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Randomised trials of available treatment modalities have produced unclear results and offer little reliable guidance for clinicians to inform evidence-based therapy. We have undertaken this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of available interventions for radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and hyposalivation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMED, and CINAHL database through July 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing any topical or systemic intervention to active and/or non-active controls for the treatment of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia. The results of clinically and statistically homogenous studies were pooled and meta-analyzed. RESULTS: 1732 patients from twenty studies were included in the systematic review. Interventions included systemic or topical pilocarpine, systemic cevimeline, saliva substitutes/mouthcare systems, hyperthermic humidification, acupuncture, acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-level laser therapy and herbal medicine. Results from the meta-analysis, which included six studies, suggest that both cevimeline and pilocarpine can reduce xerostomia symptoms and increase salivary flow compared to placebo, although some aspects of the relevant effect size, duration of the benefit, and clinical meaningfulness remain unclear. With regard to interventions not included in the meta-analysis, we found no evidence, or very weak evidence, that they can reduce xerostomia symptoms or increase salivary flow in this population. CONCLUSIONS:Pilocarpine and cevimeline should represent the first line of therapy in head and neck cancer survivors with radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and hyposalivation. The use of other treatment modalities cannot be supported on the basis of current evidence.
Authors: Laura W J Baijens; Margaret Walshe; Leena-Maija Aaltonen; Christoph Arens; Reinie Cordier; Patrick Cras; Lise Crevier-Buchman; Chris Curtis; Wojciech Golusinski; Roganie Govender; Jesper Grau Eriksen; Kevin Hansen; Kate Heathcote; Markus M Hess; Sefik Hosal; Jens Peter Klussmann; C René Leemans; Denise MacCarthy; Beatrice Manduchi; Jean-Paul Marie; Reza Nouraei; Claire Parkes; Christina Pflug; Walmari Pilz; Julie Regan; Nathalie Rommel; Antonio Schindler; Annemie M W J Schols; Renee Speyer; Giovanni Succo; Irene Wessel; Anna C H Willemsen; Taner Yilmaz; Pere Clavé Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Sara C Parke; David Michael Langelier; Jessica Tse Cheng; Cristina Kline-Quiroz; Michael Dean Stubblefield Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Aljaž Golež; Igor Frangež; Ksenija Cankar; Helena Ban Frangež; Maja Ovsenik; Lidija Nemeth Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Akram A Almansoori; Namuun Khentii; Wei-Hong Hei; Nari Seo; Sung-Ho Lee; Soung Min Kim; Jong Ho Lee Journal: J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2017-10-26
Authors: Claudia D'Agostino; Osama A Elkashty; Clara Chivasso; Jason Perret; Simon D Tran; Christine Delporte Journal: Cells Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 6.600