Patients undergoing radiation therapy for the head and neck are susceptible to a significant and often abrupt deterioration in their oral health. The oral morbidities of radiation therapy include but are not limited to an increased susceptibility to dental caries and periodontal disease. They also include profound and often permanent functional and sensory changes involving the oral soft tissue. These changes range from oral mucositis experienced during and soon after treatment, mucosal opportunistic infections, neurosensory disorders, and tissue fibrosis. Many of the oral soft tissue changes following radiation therapy are difficult challenges to the patients and their caregivers and require life‐long strategies to alleviate their deleterious effect on basic life functions and on the quality of life. We discuss the presentation, prognosis, and management strategies of the dental structure and oral soft tissue morbidities resulting from the administration of therapeutic radiation in head and neck patient. A case for a collaborative and integrated multidisciplinary approach to the management of these patients is made, with specific recommendation to include knowledgeable and experienced oral health care professionals in the treatment team.

While these results are encouraging, further study is needed to truly establish the efficacy of this mucositis prevention strategy. Future research needs to determine the effects of modification of laser parameters (e.g., wavelength, fluence, repetition rate of energy delivery, etc.) on the effectiveness of LLE laser to prevent OM.

Radiation dermatitis (RD) results from radiotherapy and often occurs within the first 4 weeks of treatment, although late effects also occur. While RD may resolve over time, it can have a profound effect on patients' quality of life and lead to dose modifications. A study group of international, interdisciplinary experts convened to develop RD prevention and treatment guidelines based on evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Evidence-based recommendations were developed after an extensive literature review. Randomized, controlled trials with standardized measurement of outcomes were considered the best evidence, and a majority of the recommendations were formulated from this literature. The adoption of washing with water, with or without a mild soap, and allowing the use of antiperspirants is supported by randomized trials. Use of topical prophylactic corticosteroids (mometasone) is recommended to reduce discomfort and itching. There is some evidence that silver sulfadiazine cream can reduce dermatitis score. There is insufficient evidence to support, and therefore the panel recommends against the use of trolamine, topical sulcrate, hyaluronic acid, ascorbic acid, silver leaf dressing, light-emitting diode lasers, Theta cream, dexpanthenol, calendula, proteolytic enzymes, sulcralfate, oral zinc, and pentoxifylline. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the superiority for any specific intervention in a reactive fashion. For patients with established radiation-induced telangiectasia and fibrosis, the panel suggests the use of pulse dye laser for visual appearance, and the use of pentoxifylline and vitamin E for the reduction of fibrosis.

Purpose There is a large body of evidence supporting the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), more recently termed photobiomodulation (PBM) for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). Recent advances in PBM technology, together with a better understanding of mechanisms involved and dosimetric parameters may lead to the management of a broader range of complications associated with HNC treatment. This could enhance patient adherence to cancer therapy, and improve quality of life and treatment outcomes. The mechanisms of action, dosimetric, and safety considerations for PBM have been reviewed in part 1. Part 2 discusses the head and neck treatment side effects for which PBM may prove to be effective. In addition, PBM parameters for each of these complications are suggested and future research directions are discussed. Methods Narrative review and presentation of PBM parameters are based on current evidence and expert opinion. Results PBM may have potential applications in the management of a broad range of side effects of (chemo)radiation therapy (CRT) in patients being treated for HNC. For OM management, optimal PBM parameters identified were as follows: wavelength, typically between 633 and 685 nm or 780–830 nm; energy density, laser or light-emitting diode (LED) output between 10 and 150 mW; dose, 2–3 J (J/cm2), and no more than 6 J/cm2 on the tissue surface treated; treatment schedule, two to three times a week up to daily; emission type, pulsed (<100 Hz); and route of delivery, intraorally and/or transcutaneously. To facilitate further studies, we propose potentially effective PBM parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for dermatitis, dysphagia, dry mouth, dysgeusia, trismus, necrosis, lymphedema, and voice/speech alterations. Conclusion PBM may have a role in supportive care for a broad range of complications associated with the treatment of HNC with CRT. The suggested PBM irradiation and dosimetric parameters, which are potentially effective for these complications, are intended to provide guidance for well-designed future studies. It is imperative that such studies include elucidating the effects of PBM on oncology treatment outcomes.

No abstract

Wasting is a major complication of advanced head and neck cancer and the aim of this study was to compare nasogastric tube feeding (NG) and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (PFG) in these patients. The goal of these two methods of nutritional support was to improve or maintain the initial nutritional status during treatment. A total of 90 patients, all stage IV oropharynx or hypopharynx tumor, were reviewed from a prospective databank. All these patients were treated by concomitant chemotherapy and twice-daily continuous radiotherapy with no acceleration. Fifty patients were managed by PFG, and the rest by NG. Mechanical failure, duration of feeding, complications, nutritional evaluation and quality of life were analysed. Mechanical failure occurred in 32 of the 40 NG patients and in seven of the gastrostomy group. In the PFG group, 80% of patients conserved their nutritional support after the end of the radiotherapy, none patient in the NG group. In the PFG group, two presented a wound infection and six had aspiration pneumonia while in the NG group, 21 had aspiration pneumonia probably due to the NG tube (gastroesophageal reflux). The feeding methods were found to be equally effective at maintaining body weight and body mass index at time 1 (3 weeks) and at time 2 (6 weeks). Advantages were associated with PFG cosmesis, mobility and quality of life. PFG is a safe and effective method of providing enteral nutrition during treatment to patients with advanced head and neck cancer and offers important advantages over NG.

Diagnosis and management of OPC is required in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation. Local therapy is suggested as first-line treatment for OPC, unless severe clinical infection or high risk immune suppression necessitate systemic therapy. The availability of effective locally delivered (topical) medications may provide potential for prophylaxis for carriers of Candida species in head and cancer patients during radiation therapy.

More than half the number of patients with cancer, who are treated with radiotherapy, will have radiodermatitis at some point during their treatment. Radiodermatitis either occurs early on in the treatment period or appears months or up to several years later. Acute radiodermatitis is a burn injury that varies in severity according to both treatment and inherent patient factors. Most acute radiodermatitis reactions resolve after several weeks but some reactions persist and can cause complications. Late-onset radiodermatitis is characterized by telangiectasia that forms on atrophic and fragile skin. These radiodermatitis reactions can have a significant negative impact on concomitant and subsequent therapeutic protocols and most particularly on the patient’s quality of life. Today, treatment of radiodermatitis reactions is in its infancy. Although there is insufficient evidence available to form recommendations that would prevent or reduce radiodermatitis, some advances have been made using low level light therapy (LLLT) or vascular lasers to control the symptoms. Some recent preclinical and clinical research suggests that LLLT has biostimulating properties which allow the tissues to regenerate and heal faster, reduce inflammation, and prevent fibrosis. Also, in late-onset radiodermatitis pulsed dye laser treatment has been shown to be beneficial in clearing radiation-induced telangiectasia. In the absence of evidence-based recommendations, the objective of this paper is to review how to prevent or manage the symptoms of radiodermatitis reactions.