Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Background Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral and gastrointestinal side effects, including oral candidiasis, remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Search strategy Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010, 1 June 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1 June 2010) and LILACS via Virtual Health Library (1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists fromrelevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life. Data collection and analysis Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Trial authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using fixed-effect models. Main results Ten trials involving 940 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Drugs absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were beneficial in eradication of oral candidiasis compared with drugs not absorbed from the GI tract (three trials: RR = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.52), however there was significant heterogeneity. A drug absorbed from the GI tract, ketoconazole, wasmore beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (one trial: RR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.47 to 8.88). Clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50 mg was more effective than a lower 10 mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (one trial: RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.60). Only one of the ten trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to claimor refute a benefit for any antifungal agent in treating candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis are needed. Clinicians need to make a decision on whether to prevent or treat oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.</p

Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Background: Treatment of cancer with chemotherapy is becoming increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of oral (and topical) prophylactic agents for oral mucositis and oral candidiasis in patients with cancer (excluding head and neck cancer), compared with placebo or no treatment. Search Strategy: Computerised MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialist Register search up to July 1999. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Selection Criteria: Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random or quasi-random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy (excluding head and neck cancer); interventions - prophylactic agents prescribed to reduce oral conditions arising from cancer or its treatment; outcomes - mucositis and oral candidiasis. Data Collection and Analysis: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (JC &amp; HW). Specialist advice was sought to categorise interventions. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out using the Jadad criteria (Jadad 1998). The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using random effects models where significant heterogeneity was detected (P &lt; 0.1). Main Results: Thirty-eight reports of trials were initially included. Two were duplicate reports and nine were excluded as there was no useable information. Of the 27 useable studies 14 had data for mucositis comprising 945 randomised patients and 15 included data for oral candidiasis with 1164 randomised patients. Of the eight prophylactic agents used for mucositis only one, ice chips, was effective (Relative risk 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77, chi-square for heterogeneity = 0.26 (df = 1), p = 0.61). The NNT to prevent one extra case of mucositis over the baseline incidence using ice chips was 4 (95%CI: 3 to 7). The NNT for when the baseline incidence of mucositis in the population ranges from 50% to 80% are 5 to 4 respectively. There is evidence that antifungal agents which are partially or fully absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract prevent oral candidiasis and that the partially absorbed agents may be more effective than the fully absorbed agents. The RR for partially absorbed agents was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.27, chi-square for heterogeneity = 5.3 (df = 3), P = 0. 15). The NNT to prevent one extra case of oral candidiasis over the baseline incidence using partially absorbed drugs was 3 (95% CI: 3 to 5). The NNT for when the baseline incidence of oral candidiasis in the population ranges from 30% to 70% are 4 to 2 respectively. The general reporting of RCT's was poor however the median Jadad score was acceptable and improved further when the authors provided additional information. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings for oral candidiasis. Reviewer's Conclusions: There is some evidence that ice chips prevent mucositis. None of the other prophylactic agents included in this review prevented mucositis. There is evidence that prophylactic use of antifungal agents which are absorbed or partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract reduce the clinical signs of oral candidiasis, and the partially absorbed drugs may be more effective. Future trials in this area should address the link between oral and general health including outcomes relevant to the patient. Collaboration between medical and dental teams is indicated.</p

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of MedicinePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Oral splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism : a systematic review and economic evaluation

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Oral splints for temporomandibular disorder or bruxism : a systematic review

Funded by: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project number: 16/146/06). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers:Surgical treatment

Background: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early‐stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. This is an update of a review originally published in 2007 and first updated in 2011. Objectives: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease‐free survival and locoregional control and reduced recurrence. To determine the implication of treatment modalities in terms of morbidity, quality of life, costs, hospital days of treatment, complications and harms. Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 December 2017) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 December 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, or where separate data could be extracted for these participants, and that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities. Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We collected adverse events data from included studies. Main results: We identified five new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 12 (2300 participants; 2148 with cancers of the oral cavity). We assessed four trials at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear. None of the included trials compared different surgical approaches for the excision of the primary tumour. We grouped the trials into seven main comparisons. Future research may change the findings as there is only very low‐certainty evidence available for all results. Five trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic (delayed) ND in participants with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow‐up made meta‐analysis inappropriate in most cases. Four of these trials reported overall and disease‐free survival. The meta‐analyses of two trials found no evidence of either intervention leading to greater overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.72; 571 participants), or disease‐free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.11; 571 participants), but one trial found a benefit for elective supraomohyoid ND compared to therapeutic ND in overall survival (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 67 participants) and disease‐free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; 67 participants). Four individual trials assessed locoregional recurrence, but could not be meta‐analysed; one trial favoured elective ND over therapeutic delayed ND, while the others were inconclusive. Two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND, but we were unable to pool the data for two outcomes. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival or disease‐free survival. A single trial found no evidence of a difference in recurrence. One trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations. One trial comparing positron‐emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (either before or after chemoradiotherapy), showed no evidence of a difference in mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; 564 participants). The trial did not provide usable data for the other outcomes. Three single trials compared: surgery plus adjunctive radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy; supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND; and super selective ND versus selective ND. There were no useable data from these trials. The reporting of adverse events was poor. Four trials measured adverse events. Only one of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Authors' conclusions: Twelve randomised controlled trials evaluated ND surgery in people with oral cavity cancers; however, the evidence available for all comparisons and outcomes is very low certainty, therefore we cannot rely on the findings. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about elective ND of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour compared to therapeutic (delayed) ND. Two trials combined in meta‐analysis suggested there is no difference between these interventions, while one trial (which evaluated elective supraomohyoid ND) found that it may be associated with increased overall and disease‐free survival. One trial found elective ND reduced locoregional recurrence, while three were inconclusive. There is no evidence that radical ND increases overall or disease‐free survival compared to more conservative ND surgery, or that there is a difference in mortality between PET‐CT surveillance following chemoradiotherapy versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy). Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of people undergoing different surgical treatments