Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047).

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ('Adjuvant-RT') or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ('Salvage-RT') defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. RESULTS: Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047.

Validation of metastasis-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in localized prostate cancer in the era of docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior work from the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) consortium (ICECaP-1) demonstrated that metastasis-free survival (MFS) is a valid surrogate for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer (PCa). This was based on data from patients treated predominantly before 2004, prior to docetaxel being available for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to validate surrogacy in a more contemporary era (ICECaP-2) with greater availability of docetaxel and other systemic therapies for mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible trials for ICECaP-2 were those providing individual patient data (IPD) after publication of ICECaP-1 and evaluating adjuvant/salvage therapy for localized PCa, and which collected MFS and OS data. MFS was defined as distant metastases or death from any cause, and OS was defined as death from any cause. Surrogacy was evaluated using a meta-analytic two-stage validation model, with an R2 ≥ 0.7 defined a priori as clinically relevant. RESULTS: A total of 15 164 IPD from 14 trials were included in ICECaP-2, with 70% of patients treated after 2004. The median follow-up was 8.3 years and the median postmetastasis survival was 3.1 years in ICECaP-2, compared with 1.9 years in ICECaP-1. For surrogacy condition 1, Kendall's tau was 0.92 for MFS with OS at the patient level, and R2 from weighted linear regression (WLR) of 8-year OS on 5-year MFS was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.82) at the trial level. For condition 2, R2 was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.89) from WLR of log[hazard ratio (HR)]-OS on log(HR)-MFS. The surrogate threshold effect on OS was an HR(MFS) of 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: MFS remained a valid surrogate for OS in a more contemporary era, where patients had greater access to docetaxel and other systemic therapies for mCRPC. This supports the use of MFS as the primary outcome measure for ongoing adjuvant trials in localized PCa.

Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with early-stage breast cancer: the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) MA.21 experience.

PURPOSE: Anthracyclines are frequently used in adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiotoxic effects in the first five years after treatment with different anthracycline-based regimens. METHODS: CCTG MA.21 (NCT000142) was a phase III trial in ESBC that compared cyclophosphamide (75 mg/m2) orally for 14 days, epirubicin (60 mg/m2) and fluorouracil, IV days one and eight (CEF) for six cycles; dose-dense epirubicin (120 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide, IV every 2 weeks for six cycles with concurrent G-CSF then paclitaxel every 2 weeks for four cycles (ddEC/T); doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for four cycles then four cycles q3 weekly paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) (AC/T). ENDPOINTS: LVEF decline; LV function changes (heart failure), or Grade 3-4 cardiac ischemia/infarction. A competing risk analysis was performed with endpoints of cardiotoxicity or recurrence in first 5 years after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: 2104 women were randomized. Compliance with cardiac LVEF assessments was 70% at 5 years in all arms. The 5-year cumulative risks of any cardiac event for CEF, ddECT, and AC/T were 22.3% (95%CI 18.9 to 25.7), 14.2% (95%CI 11.0 to 17.3), and 8.1% (95%CI 5.8 to 10.4), respectively, p < 0.0001. At 5 years, women in the ddEC/T and AC/T group had significantly lower risk of cardiotoxicity than those given CEF (HR 0.599 and 0.371, respectively). Most events were asymptomatic drop in LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic changes in LVEF accounted for most of the cardiotoxicity. The majority of cardiac events occurred in year one although occurrence of cardiotoxicity over time highlights the need for improved risk stratification to guide cardiac surveillance strategies.

Randomised Phase II Feasibility Trial of Image-guided External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without High Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost in Men with Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer (CCTG PR15/ NCT01982786).

AIMS: We conducted a multicentre feasibility study to assess the ability to randomise patients between image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and IGRT + high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost and to adhere to appropriate radiation quality assurance standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary end point was to determine the ability to randomise 60 patients over an 18 month period. Arm 1 (IGRT) patients received 78 Gy in 39 fractions or 60 Gy in 20 fractions (physician's preference), whereas arm 2 (IGRT + HDR) received 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions with HDR boost of 15 Gy. The secondary end points included >grade 3 acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 at 3 months, validation of a prospectively defined radiation oncology quality assurance to assess treatment compliance. All analyses were descriptive; no formal comparisons between treatment arms were carried out. RESULTS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 57 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-defined intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were randomised between IGRT alone (arm 1; n = 29) and IGRT plus HDR brachytherapy boost (arm 2; n = 28). Overall, 93% received the treatment as randomised. There were four patients (one on IGRT arm 1 and three patients on the IGRT + HDR arm 2) who were treated differently from randomisation assignment. For the 29 patients receiving IGRT (arm 1), there were 14 cases reported with minor deviations and three with major deviations. For patients on IGRT + HDR (arm 2), there were 18 cases reported with minor deviations and two with major deviations. At 3 months in the IGRT group (arm 1), one patient reported grade 3 diarrhoea, whereas in the IGRT + HDR group (arm 2), two patients reported grade 3 haematuria. No other gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed the feasibility of randomisation between treatment with IGRT alone versus IGRT + HDR boost. Treatment compliance was good, including adherence to quality assurance standards.

Outcomes in women with invasive ductal or invasive lobular early stage breast cancer treated with anastrozole or exemestane in CCTG (NCIC CTG) MA.27.

BACKGROUND: Histological subtype, (invasive ductal breast cancer (IDBC)/invasive lobular breast cancer (ILBC)), might be a marker for differential response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. METHODS: Clinical trial MA.27 compared 5 years of adjuvant anastrozole or exemestane in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive early breast cancer. We evaluated IDBC versus ILBC (based on original pathology reports) as predictor for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 5709 patients (5021 with IDBC and 688 with ILBC) were included (1876 were excluded because of missing or other histological subtype). Median follow-up was 4.1 years. Overall, histological subtype did not influence OS or EFS (HR (hazard ratio) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.79-1.63], P = 0.49 and HR 1.04, 95% CI [0.77-1.41], P = 0.81, respectively). There was no significant difference in OS between treatment with exemestane versus treatment with anastrozole in the IDBC group (HR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.73-1.16], P = 0.46). In the ILBC group, a marginally significant difference in favour of treatment with anastrozole was seen (HR = 1.79, 95% CI [0.98-3.27], P = 0.055). In multivariable analysis a prognostic effect of the interaction between treatment and histological subtype on OS (but not on EFS) was noted, suggesting a better outcome for patients with ILBC on anastrozole (HR 2.1, 95% CI [0.99-4.29], P = 0.05). After stepwise selection in the multivariable model, a marginally significant prognostic effect for the interaction variable (treatment with histological subtype) on OS (but not on EFS) was noted (Ratio of HR 2.1, 95% CI [1.00-4.31], P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest an interaction effect between treatment and histology (P = 0.05) on OS. Here, patients with ILBC cancers had a better OS when treated with anastrozole versus exemestane, whereas no difference was noted for patients with IDBC. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT00066573.

OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Background: The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients and methods: We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone. Conclusion: In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial number: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

Impact of baseline BMI and weight change in CCTG adjuvant breast cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that increased baseline BMI and BMI change would negatively impact clinical outcomes with adjuvant breast cancer systemic therapy. METHODS: Data from chemotherapy trials MA.5 and MA.21; endocrine therapy MA.12, MA.14 and MA.27; and trastuzumab HERA/MA.24 were analyzed. The primary objective was to examine the effect of BMI change on breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) landmarked at 5 years; secondary objectives included BMI changes at 1 and 3 years; BMI changes on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS); and effects of baseline BMI. Stratified analyses included trial therapy and composite trial stratification factors. RESULTS: In pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal chemotherapy trials (N = 2793), baseline BMI did not impact any endpoint and increased BMI from baseline did not significantly affect BCFI (P = 0.85) after 5 years although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.03) and DSS (P = 0.07) after 1 year. BMI increase by 3 and 5 years was associated with better DSS (P = 0.01; 0.01) and OS (P = 0.003; 0.05). In pre-menopausal endocrine therapy trial MA.12 (N = 672), patients with higher baseline BMI had worse BCFI (P = 0.02) after 1 year, worse DSS (P = 0.05; 0.004) after 1 and 5 years and worse OS (P = 0.01) after 5 years. Increased BMI did not impact BCFI (P = 0.90) after 5 years, although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.01) after 1 year. In post-menopausal endocrine therapy trials MA.14 and MA.27 (N = 8236), baseline BMI did not significantly impact outcome for any endpoint. BMI change did not impact BCFI or DSS after 1 or 3 years, although a mean increased BMI of 0.3 was associated with better OS (P = 0.02) after 1 year. With the administration of trastuzumab (N = 1395) baseline BMI and BMI change did not significantly impact outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline BMI and BMI increases negatively affected outcomes only in pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal trial patients. Otherwise, BMI increases similar to those expected in healthy women either did not impact outcome or were associated with better outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBERS: CAN-NCIC-MA5; National Cancer Institute (NCI)-V90-0027; MA.12-NCT00002542; MA.14-NCT00002864; MA.21-NCT00014222; HERA, NCT00045032;CAN-NCIC-MA24; MA-27-NCT00066573.

Significance of baseline and change in quality of life scores in predicting clinical outcomes in an international phase III trial of advanced pancreatic cancer: NCIC CTG PA.3.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient information regarding the prognostic significance of baseline and change in quality of life (QoL) scores on overall survival (OS) in advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: QoL was assessed prospectively using the EORTC QLQ-C30 as part of the PA.3 trial of gemcitabine + erlotinib (G + E) vs. gemcitabine + placebo (G + P). Relevant variables and QoL scores at baseline and change at 8 weeks were analyzed by Cox stepwise regression to determine predictors of OS. RESULTS: 222 of 285 patients (pts) treated with G + E and 220 of 284 pts treated with G + P completed baseline QoL assessments. In a multivariable Cox analysis combining all pts, better QoL physical functioning (PF) score independently predicted longer OS (HR 0.86; CI: 0.80-0.93), as did non-white race (HR 0.64; CI: 0.44-0.95), PS 0-1 (HR 0.65; CI: 0.50-0.85), locally advanced disease (HR 0.55; CI: 0.43-0.71) and G + E (HR 0.78; CI: 0.64-0.96). Improvement in physical function at week 8 also predicted for improved survival (HR 0.89; CI: 0.81-0.97 for 10 point increase in score, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In addition to clinical variables, patient reported QoL scores at baseline and change from baseline to week 8 added incremental predictive information regarding survival for advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Assessing the benefit-risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety are the two considerations when characterising the effects of a new therapy. We sought to apply an innovative method of assessing the benefit-risk balance using data from a completed randomised controlled trial that compared erlotinib vs placebo added to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (NCIC CTG PA.3). METHODS: We applied generalised pairwise comparisons with several prioritised outcome measures (e.g., one or more benefit outcomes and one or more risk outcomes). Here, the first priority outcome was overall survival (OS) time. Differences in OS that exceeded 2 months were considered clinically meaningful. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the proportion in favour of erlotinib, which can be interpreted as the net proportion of patients who have a better overall outcome with erlotinib as compared with placebo. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In this trial 569 patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive gemcitabine plus either erlotinib or a matched placebo. Overall, the method indicated no statistically significant overall treatment effect in favour of erlotinib; if anything, the point estimate of the net proportion leaned in favour of the placebo group (overall proportion in favour of erlotinib=-3.6%, 95% CI, -14.2- 7.1%; P=0.51). The net proportion was never in favour of the erlotinib group throughout all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Generalised pairwise comparisons make it possible to assess the benefit-risk balance of new treatments using a single statistical test for any number of prioritised outcomes. The benefit-risk assessment was not in favour of adding erlotinib to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Comorbidity, age and overall survival in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer - results from NCIC CTG PA.3: a phase III trial of gemcitabine plus erlotinib or placebo.

BACKGROUND: The effect of comorbidity, age and performance status (PS) on treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer is poorly understood. We examined these factors as predictors of outcome in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine +/- erlotinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comorbidity was evaluated by two physicians using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and correlated with clinical outcome data from the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) PA.3 clinical trial. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-nine patients were included; 47% were aged ≥ 65 years old, 36% had comorbidity (CCI>0). In multivariate analysis, neither age (p=0.22) nor comorbidity (p=0.21) was associated with overall survival. The baseline presence of better PS and lower pain intensity scores was associated with better overall survival (p < 0.0001 and p=0.01, respectively). An improvement in survival with the addition of erlotinib therapy was seen in patients age < 65 (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, p=0.01) or in the presence of comorbidity (adjusted HR 0.72, p=0.03). However, neither age nor CCI score was predictive of erlotinib benefit after test for interaction. Patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib who were ≥ 65 years of age or those with comorbidity had a higher rate of infections ≥ grade 3. CONCLUSION: Low baseline pain intensity and better PS were associated with improved overall survival, while age and comorbidity were not independent prognostic factors for patients treated with gemcitabine-based therapy.

Defining the optimal treatment strategy for localized prostate cancer patients: a survey of ongoing studies at the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

The designation "clinically localized prostate cancer" comprises a group of biologically heterogeneous tumours with different growth rates and risks of relapse. Because prostate cancer is primarily a disease of older men, treatment selection must take into account the prognosis of the tumour, patient age, comorbidities, side effects of treatment, and patient preferences. Clinical trials must identify the various prognostic groups and test the appropriate treatment strategies within these subgroups.

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of mitoxantrone/prednisone and clodronate versus mitoxantrone/prednisone and placebo in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and pain.

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of palliative response in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP) plus clodronate with that of patients treated with MP plus placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with HRPC, bone metastases, and bone pain were randomly assigned to receive clodronate 1,500 mg administered intravenously (IV) or placebo every 3 weeks, in combination with mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 IV every 3 weeks and prednisone 5 mg orally bid. Patients completed the present pain intensity (PPI) index and Prostate Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument at each treatment visit and used a diary to record analgesic use on a daily basis. The primary end point was a reduction to zero or of two points in the PPI or a decrease of 50% in analgesic intake, without increase in either. RESULTS: The study accrued 209 eligible patients over 44 months. One hundred sixty patients (77%) had mild PPI scores (1 or 2), and 49 (24%) had moderate PPI scores (3 or 4). The primary end point of palliative response was achieved in 46 (46%) of 104 patients on the clodronate arm and in 41 (39%) of 105 patients on the placebo arm (P =.54). The median duration of response, symptomatic disease progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall quality of life were similar between the arms. Subgroup analysis suggested possible benefit in patients with more severe pain. CONCLUSION: MP provides useful palliation in symptomatic men with HRPC. Clodronate does not increase the rate of palliative response or overall quality of life. Clodronate may be beneficial to patients who have moderate pain, but this requires further confirmation.

Use of small-bore vs large-bore chest tubes for treatment of malignant pleural effusions.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of small-bore (12 French vanSonnenberg) catheters compared with standard large-bore chest tubes in the drainage and sclerotherapy of malignant pleural effusions. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: An academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients with documented neoplasms and malignant pleural effusions, treated between 1986 and 1995. INTERVENTION: All patients included in the study underwent drainage of malignant pleural effusions either by large-bore chest tube or by ultrasound-guided small-bore catheter. After drainage, pleurodesis was performed. RESULTS: Outcome as defined by recurrence of effusion was determined by blinded examination of all postpleurodesis chest radiographs. We identified 58 cases of malignant pleural effusion in which small-bore catheters were used and 44 in which large-bore chest tubes were used. The majority of patients had breast (n = 56, 55%) or lung cancer (n = 29, 28%). The median age was 65 years. Fifty-nine patients were actively being treated with chemotherapy at the time of pleurodesis. The following sclerosing agents were used: talc, 27 (26%); tetracycline, 72 (70%); bleomycin, 2 (2%); and interferon, 1 (1%). Actuarial probabilities of recurrence at 6 weeks and 4 months were 45% and 53% for the small tubes vs 45% and 51% for the large tubes. Univariate and multivariate analyses failed to demonstrate that tube size had any influence on the rate of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to detect any major differences in outcomes with the use of either size of chest tube. Our study suggests that small-bore catheters may be effective in the treatment of malignant pleural effusions and deserve further evaluation in prospectively designed trials.

Scoring oral mucositis.

Oral mucositis is a common, dose limiting and potentially serious complication of both radiation and chemotherapy. Both these therapies are non-specific, interfering with the cellular homeostasis of both malignant and normal host cells. An important effect is the loss of the rapidly proliferating epithelial cells in the oral cavity, gut and in the bone marrow. Within the mouth, the loss of these cells leads to mucosal atrophy, necrosis and ulceration. Although post-treatment healing is generally uneventful, severe mucositis can be life threatening, especially if complicated by dehydration or secondary infection. Accurate and reproducible evaluation of oral mucositis is important in order to monitor patient toxicity during therapy, to document the toxicity of conventional therapy and to critically assess the effects of alternative therapies. A number of oral toxicity scoring systems have been described, but direct comparisons have rarely been undertaken and little data exist regarding inter- and intra-user reliability. This paper reviews a number of oral mucositis scoring systems that are commonly used and will also discuss, briefly, the biological basis of its development and management.