Patient perceptions about chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: implications for primary/secondary prophylaxis strategies
- 19 May 2004
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Supportive Care in Cancer
- Vol. 12 (7) , 526-530
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0640-3
Abstract
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 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. 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- The burdens of cancer therapyCancer, 2003
- Prevention of Oral Mucositis and Oral Candidiasis for Patients with Cancer Treated with Chemotherapy: Cochrane Systematic ReviewJournal of Dental Education, 2002
- Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatmentPublished by Wiley ,2001
- A Comparison of the Affective State and Quality of Life of Chemotherapy Patients Who Do and Do Not Develop Chemotherapy-Induced Oral MucositisJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2001
- Mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation: current status and innovative approaches to managementBone Marrow Transplantation, 2001
- Oral Mucositis and the Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Hematopoietic Stem-Cell TransplantationJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2001
- Patient reports of complications of bone marrow transplantationSupportive Care in Cancer, 2000
- Oral mucositis in myelosuppressive cancer therapyOral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology, 1999
- Analysis of Factors That Correlate With Mucositis in Recipients of Autologous and Allogeneic Stem-Cell TransplantsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 1999
- The oral cavity as a port of entry for early infections in patients treated with bone marrow transplantationOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, 1989