PurposeHematology–oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are at risk for oral complications which may cause significant morbidity and a potential risk of mortality. This emphasizes the importance of basic oral care prior to, during and following chemotherapy/HSCT. While scientific evidence is available to support some of the clinical practices used to manage the oral complications, expert opinion is needed to shape the current optimal protocols.MethodsThis position paper was developed by members of the Oral Care Study Group, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in attempt to provide guidance to the health care providers managing these patient populations.ResultsThe protocol on basic oral care outlined in this position paper is presented based on the following principles: prevention of infections, pain control, maintaining oral function, the interplay with managing oral complications of cancer treatment and improving quality of life.ConclusionUsing these fundamental elements, we developed a protocol to assist the health care provider and present a practical approach for basic oral care. Research is warranted to provide robust scientific evidence and to enhance this clinical protocol.

Purpose The purpose of this project was to evaluate research in basic oral care interventions to update evidence-based practice guidelines for preventing and treating oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients undergoing radio-or chemotherapy. Methods A systematic review of available literature was conducted by the Basic Oral Care Section of the Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISOO. Seven interventions-oral care protocols, dental care, normal saline, sodium bicarbonate, mixed medication mouthwash, chlorhexidine, and calcium phosphate-were evaluated using the Hadorn (J Clin Epidemiol 49: [749][750][751][752][753][754] 1996) criteria to determine level of evidence, followed by a guideline determination of one of the following: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible, using Somerfield's (Classic Pap Cur Comments 4:881-886, 2000) schema.Results Fifty-two published papers were examined by treatment population (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant) and by whether the intervention aimed to prevent or treat OM. The resulting practice suggestions included using oral care protocols for preventing OM across all treatment modalities and age groups and not using chlorhexidine mouthwash for preventing OM in adults with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Considering inadequate and/or conflicting evidence, no guidelines for prevention or treatment of OM were possible for the interventions of dental care, normal saline, sodium bicarbonate, mixed medication mouthwash, chlorhexidine in patients receiving chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, or calcium phosphate. Conclusions The evidence for basic oral care interventions supports the use of oral care protocols in patient populations receiving radiation and/or chemotherapy and does not support chlorhexidine for prevention of mucositis in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Additional welldesigned research is needed for other interventions to improve the amount and quality of evidence guiding future clinical care.

We present the results of a prospective, randomised study comparing PBPC and BM focusing on engraftment, acute and chronic GVHD and survival. Forty patients with haematological malignancies received HLA-identical sibling BM (group A) or PBPC (group B). Evaluable patients were 19 (A) and 18 (B). Median age was 35 (17-56) in A and 29.5 (9-51) in B. Conditioning was mainly Bu-Cy2; GVHD prophylaxis was CSA-MTX. PBPC were harvested after 5 days of G-CSF 10 microg/kg/day. Median days for an ANC >0.5 x 10(9)/l was 18 (13-30) in A and 16 (11-25) in B (P = 0.10). Platelets >20 x 10(9)/l occurred at +17 (10-40) in A and +12 (9-36) in B (P = 0.01). The probability of > or =2 grade a-GVHD was 19% (A) and 27% (B) (P = 0.53). The probability of all grade c-GVHD was 70% with BM. In spite of the small number of patients in group B (PBPC), our data suggest the great majority of them will have c-GVHD (P = 0.08); extensive disease was present in 50 and 100%, respectively (P = 0.05). The estimates of overall survival for A and B at 1000 days are 51 and 47%, respectively (P = 0.67); DFS at 1000 days are 52 and 58%, respectively (P = 0.50). PBPC resulted in faster platelet engraftment. The incidence of acute and chronic GVHD was similar in both groups, but the severity of c-GVHD was higher with PBPC. No differences in survival and DFS have been observed to date.

Mucositis research and treatment are a rapidly evolving field providing constant new avenues of research and potential therapies. The MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Study Group regularly assesses available literature relating to pathogenesis, mechanisms, and novel therapeutic approaches and distils this to summary perspectives and recommendations. Reviewers assessed 164 articles published between January 2011 and June 2016 to identify progress made since the last review and highlight new targets for further investigation. Findings were organized into sections including established and emerging mediators of toxicity, potential insights from technological advances in mucositis research, and perspective. Research momentum is accelerating for mucositis pathogenesis, and with this has come utilization of new models and interventions that target specific mechanisms of injury. Technological advances have the potential to revolutionize the field of mucositis research, although focused effort is needed to move rationally targeted interventions to the clinical setting.

Although research remains scanty for components of basic oral care, bland rinses, protocols, and education, the original 2004 guidelines with the help of newer literature from 2000 to 2005 and expert consensus among the Guidelines Panel enabled the development of useful clinical practice guidelines for managing oral mucositis in patients receiving cancer treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy.

Histological features were useful in the diagnosis of oral cGVHD. It is suggested that CD8-T cells and macrophages play important role in the pathogenesis of the disease.

Patients who undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation frequently develop an immunologic disease caused by the reactivation of the graft to the host tissues. This disease is called graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and it is usually a systemic disorder. In a large proportion of cases, oral disorders that are related to a chronic phase of GVHD (cGVHD) occur, and their treatment involves the use of topical immunosuppressive drugs. Several medications have been studied for this purpose, but only a small number of clinical trials have been published. The present study is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial that compares topical clobetasol and dexamethasone for the treatment of symptomatic oral cGVHD. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with clobetasol propionate .05% or dexamethasone .1 mg/mL for 28 days. In both arms, nystatin 100,000 IU/mL was administered with the corticosteroid. Oral lesions were evaluated by the modified oral mucositis rating scale (mOMRS) and symptoms were registered using a visual analogue scale. Thirty-five patients were recruited, and 32 patients were randomized into the study groups: 18 patients (56.3%) to the dexamethasone group and 14 patients (43.8%) to the clobetasol group. The use of clobetasol resulted in a significant reduction in mOMRS total score (P = .04) and in the score for ulcers (P = .03). In both groups, there was significant symptomatic improvement but the response was significantly greater in the clobetasol group (P = .02). In conclusion, clobetasol was significantly more effective than dexamethasone for the amelioration of symptoms and clinical aspects of oral lesions in cGVHD.

Avascular bone necrosis is a serious oral side-effect of cancer chemotherapy, particularly in patients using biphosphonates, and antibiotic therapy and surgical debridation were not able to promote complete response in most cases.