A comparison of the affective state and quality of life of chemotherapy patients who do and do not develop chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to compare the quality of life and affective state of patients receiving chemotherapy who developed oral mucositis to patients who did not. Outpatients had their mouths assessed at the beginning of their chemotherapy, completed the Multidimensional Quality of Life scale, Cancer version (MQOLS-CA) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Patients again completed the MQOLS-CA and POMS if they developed mucositis during their three cycles (monthly), or if they did not and were exiting the study. Seventy-seven outpatients completed the study; 28 patients developed mucositis and 49 did not. The MQOLS-CA total scores for the entire sample decreased significantly over time (F(1,75) = 25.44, P < 0.001), but there was no group by time interaction, i.e., the change in MQOLS-CA total scores did not depend on mucositis status. While the POMS Total Mood Disturbance scores for the entire sample increased significantly over time (F(1,75) = 19.55, P < 0.001), there was a significant group by time interaction (F(1,75)= 4.85, P = 0.03). Patients who developed mucositis had a significant increase in mood disturbance compared to patients who did not. Further, the POMS subscales of depression and anger showed the same pattern of significant increases. In conclusion, the development of mucositis adversely affected the outpatients' affective states, but not their QOL.

Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 3 commonly used mouthwashes to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of 3 mouthwashes used to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis. The mouthwashes were as follows: salt and soda, chlorhexidine, and "magic" mouthwash (lidocaine, Benadryl, and Maalox). STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was implemented in 23 outpatient and office settings. Participants were monitored from the time they developed mucositis until cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis, or until they finished their 12-day supply of mouthwash. All participants followed a prescribed oral hygiene program and were randomly assigned a mouthwash. Nurses used the Oral Assessment Guide for initial assessment and taught patients how to assess their own mouths, then phoned the patients every other day to gather status reports. RESULTS: In 142 of 200 patients, there was a cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis within 12 days. No significant differences in time for the cessation of the signs and symptoms were observed among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given the comparable effectiveness of the mouthwashes, the least costly was salt and soda mouthwash.

Factors influencing oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Oral mucositis is a painful complication of chemotherapy and can greatly affect patients' morbidity and mortality. Findings from two previous studies suggested a decrease in the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced mucositis in patients with solid tumors. The purposes of this study were to follow a large cohort of outpatients to determine the prevalence of mucositis and to identify whether certain clinical factors were significant in the development of mucositis. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: In this prospective study, a convenience sample of 199 outpatients was followed for three cycles or until mucositis developed. The clinical factors monitored included the following: pretreatment dental examination/repair; initial standard chemotherapy dosage; prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factors; and use of preventive mouthwashes or other prophylactic measures. RESULTS: Oral mucositis developed in 50 patients (25.1%). Prechemotherapy dental examination/repair and initial standard chemotherapy dosage were equivalent among both groups. Of the 48 patients in whom mucositis developed, 10 (20.8%) received prophylactic colony-stimulating factors. Of 134 patients in whom mucositis did not develop, 46 (34.3%) received prophylactic colony-stimulating factors. This difference was statistically nonsignificant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Differences in the clinical factors investigated could not explain the lower prevalence of oral mucositis among the current patient cohort. The reason for the diminishing prevalence of this side effect remains unclear, and additional parameters, particularly detailed oral hygiene practices, should be evaluated. In the meantime, oncology clinicians should consider the teaching of patients and urging them to use good oral hygiene practices as necessary and potentially preventive measures against chemotherapy-induced mucositis.

Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: dental appliances, oral hygiene, previous oral lesions, and history of smoking.

Oral mucositis is one of the dose-limiting toxicities of several chemotherapy (CTX) agents. There are suggested risk factors that could influence the development of mucositis. The presence of dental appliances, history of oral lesions, or smoking have the potential to irritate the oral mucosa and produce breaks in the integrity of the mucosa. The purposes of this study were to determine if there were differences in the incidence, severity, and time to onset of CTX-induced mucositis in oncology outpatients who wore dental appliances, had a history of oral lesions, had varying oral hygiene/care practices, and had a history of smoking and those who did not. Patients who were initiated a course of CTX that included stomatotoxic agents were followed for three complete cycles of CTX. They were instructed on how to examine their mouths for mucositis, to contact, and then visit their outpatient settings if it occurred. Clinicians corroborated the presence of mucositis, and the Eiler's Oral Assessment Guide was used by clinicians to determine the severity. Of 332 outpatients, almost half (46%) wore some type of dental appliance, 32% had a history of oral lesions, 10% were currently smoking, and 63% had a history of smoking. Oral hygiene/care practices varied: 81% brushed their teeth two or more times a day, 29% flossed at least daily, 11% had visited their dentist within 2 months of beginning CTX, and 10% had their teeth professionally cleaned within two months of beginning CTX. There was a 31% (n = 104) incidence of CTX-induced mucositis. No significant differences were found in the incidence between patients who wore dental appliances, had a history of oral lesions, had a history of smoking, and practiced different hygiene/care and patients who did not. Of 104 patients who developed mucositis, the average severity rating was 13.05 +/- 2.88 (+/-SD) (a normal mouth is rated at 8) and the average time to onset was 22.3 +/- 21.46 days. There were no significant differences found in severity or time to onset of mucositis between patients who wore dental appliances, had a history of oral lesions, had a history of smoking, and practiced different dental hygiene/care and patients who did not. Although not significant, there were interesting differences in the time to onset across the suggested risk factors (e.g., patients who had visited a dentist or who had their teeth professionally cleaned within 2 months before beginning before CTX developed mucositis 7.4 and 10.6 days sooner, respectively, than patients who did not). These findings suggest that risk factors for the development of CTX-induced mucositis are not as simple and direct as clinicians may believe.

Randomized clinical trial of chlorhexidine versus placebo for prevention of oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of a nurse-initiated systematic oral hygiene teaching program-PRO-SELF: Mouth Aware (PSMA)-in conjunction with two mouthwashes (0.12% chlorhexidine or sterile water) in preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. SETTINGS: 23 outpatient clinics and office practices in California. SAMPLE: 222 patients who were starting a cycle of mucositis-inducing chemotherapy. METHOD: Participants were followed over three chemotherapy cycles. All patients were provided the PSMA program. Random assignment to a mouthwash occurred prior to the development of oral mucositis. Researchers used the Oral Assessment Guide to assess the patients oral cavities monthly (with the patients cycles of chemotherapy) and when patients reported any oral changes between cycles. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Type of mouthwash, incidence, days to onset, and severity of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. FINDINGS: No significant differences existed between the two mouthwashes in regard to incidence, days to onset, and severity of mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: Because chlorhexidine (S20 per pint) was no more effective than water, a substantial cost savings can be realized by rinsing with water. Interestingly, the PSMA program appeared to reduce the incidence of mucositis from on a prior estimate of 44% to less than 26%. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: A nursing prescription of a systematic oral hygiene program using water as a mouth rinse is cost efficient and may be effective in preventing oral mucositis.

MacDibbs Mouth Assessment. A new tool to evaluate mucositis in the radiation therapy patient.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this descriptive, longitudinal study were to evaluate the MacDibbs Mouth Assessment instrument for the assessment of mucositis in the radiation therapy patient being treated for head and neck cancer and to describe the course of radiation-induced mucositis in these patients. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: This pilot study used self-report and provider assessment, as well as medical record review, to obtain data about ambulatory radiation therapy outpatients (n = 10). The participants were primarily male, white, middle-aged, married or partnered, unemployed, edentulous, currently smoking, and using alcohol. RESULTS: One or more mucositis ulcers were observed in all patients and occurred at an average of 2858.2 cGy. The corresponding Mouth Symptom Score was 5.9 (instrument range 0-21). Interrater reliability for 13 of the 14 items was 100%. The one difficulty encountered with the MacDibbs was in the measurement of ulcers longer than the periodontal probe used to measure them. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The MacDibbs should prove useful for clinicians and researchers because it is efficient, easy to use, emphasizes accurate diagnosis of oral changes, has an easily discernible endpoint, and assesses signs and symptoms.