Mark M. Schubert

Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between oral mucositis and selected clinical and economic outcomes in blood and marrow transplant patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects consisted of 92 transplant patients from eight centers who participated in a multinational pilot study of a new oral mucositis scoring system (Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale [OMAS]). In the pilot study, patients were evaluated for erythema and ulceration/pseudomembrane formation beginning on the first day of conditioning and continuing for 28 days. We examined the relationship between patients' peak OMAS scores and days with fever (body temperature > 38.0 degrees C), the occurrence of significant infection, days of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and days of injectable narcotic therapy (all over 28 days), days in hospital (over 60 days), total hospital charges for the index admission, and vital status at 100 days. RESULTS: Patients' peak OMAS scores spanned the full range of possible values (0 to 5) and were significantly (P <.05) correlated with all of the outcomes of interest except days with fever (P =.21). In analyses controlling for type of graft (autologous v allogeneic) and study center, a 1-point increase in peak OMAS score was associated with (1) 1.0 additional day with fever (P <.01), (2) a 2.1-fold increase in risk of significant infection (P <.01), (3) 2.7 additional days of TPN (P <.0001), (4) 2.6 additional days of injectable narcotic therapy (P <.0001), (5) 2.6 additional days in hospital (P <.01), (6) $25,405 in additional hospital charges (P <.0001), and (7) a 3.9-fold increase in 100-day mortality risk (P <.01). Mean hospital charges were $42,749 higher among patients with evidence of ulceration compared with those without (P =.06). CONCLUSION: Oral mucositis is associated with significantly worse clinical and economic outcomes in blood and marrow transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The current report presented 17 patients with cancer with bone metastases and 1 patient with osteopenia who received treatment with bisphosphonates and who subsequently developed osteonecrosis of the mandible and/or maxilla. METHODS: The authors reviewed information on 18 patients who were referred to oral medicine or oral surgery specialists for evaluation and treatment of mandibular and/or maxillary bone necrosis from June 2002 to September 2004. To be included in the current review, patients must have been treated with either pamidronate or zoledronic acid to control or prevent metastatic disease, or with alendronate for osteoporosis. All patients with cancer had received chemotherapy while receiving bisphosphonate management. RESULTS: The 17 patients with cancer were receiving active medical care for a malignancy. Cancer treatment included a variety of chemotherapeutic agents. They presented with metastatic disease to bone and were treated intravenously with the bisphosphonates pamidronate or zoledronic acid for a mean time of 25 months (range, 4-41 mos). There were 14 females and 4 males with a mean age of 62 years (range, 37-74 yrs). Malignancies included breast carcinoma (n = 10), multiple myeloma (n = 3), prostate carcinoma (n = 1), ovarian carcinoma (n = 1), prostate carcinoma/lymphoma (n = 1), and breast/ovarian carcinoma (n = 1). One female patient with osteopenia received alendronate. The most common clinical osteonecrosis presentations included infection and necrotic bone in the mandible. Associated events included dental extractions, infection, and trauma. Two patients appeared to develop disease spontaneously, without any clinical or radiographic evidence of local pathology. Despite surgical intervention, antibiotic therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and topical use of chemotherapeutic mouth rinses, most of the lesions did not respond well to therapy. Discontinuation of bisphosphonate therapy did not assure healing. However, 1 patient with cancer healed after discontinuation of bisphosphonate therapy for 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in the patient population combined with recent literature reports suggested that bisphosphonates may contribute to the pathogenesis of the oral lesions. The risk factors and precise mechanism involved in the formation of the osteonecrosis are not known. This condition represents a new oral complication in patients with cancer and can be termed bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis. Lesions in patients with osteoporosis are worrisome and need to be further evaluated.

BACKGROUND: An impediment to mucositis research has been the lack of an accepted, validated scoring system. The objective of this study was to design, test, and validate a new scoring system for mucositis that can be used easily, is reproducible, and provides an accurate system for research applications. METHODS: A panel of experts, convened to design an objective, simple, and reproducible assessment tool to evaluate mucositis with specific application to multicenter clinical trials, developed a scale that measured objective and subjective indicators of mucositis. Nine centers participated in the study's validation. Paired investigators at each center evaluated patients receiving chemotherapy or head and neck radiation. Objective measures of mucositis evaluated ulceration/pseudomembrane formation and erythema. Subjective outcomes of mouth pain, ability to swallow, and function were measured. Analgesia use for mouth sensitivity was recorded. RESULTS: One hundred eight chemotherapy and 56 radiation therapy patients were evaluated. Seventy-eight percent of chemotherapy patients and 64% of radiation therapy patients had clinically significant mucositis. Cumulative daily mucositis scores demonstrated a high correlation among observers. Using area under the curve analysis, it was found that for chemotherapy patients, the highest correlations (correlation coefficient > 0.92) occurred for the scores that selected the three highest daily values over the course of mucositis assessment. High interobserver correlations were noted for patients receiving radiation therapy. Objective mucositis scores demonstrated strong correlation with symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system evaluated was easily used, showed high interobserver reproducibility, was responsive over time, and measured those elements deemed to be associated with mucositis. The use of concomitant symptomatic measurements appeared to be unnecessary.

PURPOSE: This article discusses osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and offers health care professionals practical guidelines and recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ONJ in cancer patients receiving bisphosphonate treatment. METHODS: A panel of experts representing oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, endocrinology, and medical oncology was convened to review the literature and clinical evidence, identify risk factors for ONJ, and develop clinical guidelines for the prevention, early diagnosis, and multidisciplinary treatment of ONJ in patients with cancer. The guidelines are based on experience and have not been evaluated within the context of controlled clinical trials. RESULTS: ONJ is a clinical entity with many possible etiologies; historically identified risk factors include corticosteroids, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, trauma, infection, and cancer. With emerging concern for potential development of ONJ in patients receiving bisphosphonates, the panel recommends a dental examination before patients begin therapy with intravenous bisphosphonates. Dental treatments and procedures that require bone healing should be completed before initiating intravenous bisphosphonate therapy. Patients should be instructed on the importance of maintaining good oral hygiene and having regular dental assessments. For patients currently receiving bisphosphonates who require dental procedures, there is no evidence to suggest that interrupting bisphosphonate therapy will prevent or lower the risk of ONJ. Frequent clinical assessments and conservative dental management are suggested for these patients. For treatment of patients who develop ONJ, a conservative, nonsurgical approach is strongly recommended. CONCLUSION: An increased awareness of the potential risk of ONJ in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy is needed. Close coordination between the treating physician and oral surgeon and/or a dental specialist is strongly recommended in making treatment decisions.