Search

Oral mucositis (OM) remains a significant toxicity among patients being treated with radiotherapy (RT) alone or with concomitant chemotherapy (CRT) for cancers of the head and neck (HNC). Given its clinical significance as an unmet need and its potential commercial viability, the pharmaceutical industry has been actively pursuing an effective intervention. Despite this interest and activity, only a few agents have been studied in Phase III trials (n = 6). The objective of this study was to identify common features that differentiate successful and failed Phase III OM trials. We used the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Public Search database to search patents with "oral mucositis" in the claims. We then searched ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to determine if Phase III or Phase II trial data for identified biologics/drugs had been published. We assessed each Phase III and Phase II trial for characteristics that may be associated with trial success or failure. We considered a study as a "success" if the primary endpoint reached statistical significance, and we considered a study as "failure" if the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance. Of the three successful Phase III trials, one investigated avasopasem manganese (Galera Therapeutics) and two examined palifermin (Amgen). The three failed trials included those evaluating dusquetide (Soligenix), iseganan hydrochloride (IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals), and clonidine (Monopar Therapeutics). We found that differences in the level of sponsor funding, patient inclusion criteria including radiation source and concomitant chemotherapy regimen, and concordance of primary efficacy outcomes between Phase II and Phase III trials influenced outcomes. To properly design clinical trials for OM in HNC patients, it is important that researchers and sponsors take note of specific study characteristics associated with success or failure, particularly with Phase III trials where the risks and costs are the highest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the safety of the superoxide dismutase mimetic GC4419 in combination with radiation and concurrent cisplatin for patients with oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer (OCC) and to assess the potential of GC4419 to reduce severe oral mucositis (OM).Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced OCC treated with definitive or postoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plus cisplatin received GC4419 by 60-minute intravenous infusion, ending <60 minutes before IMRT, Monday through Friday for 3 to 7 weeks, in a dose and duration escalation study. Oral mucositis was assessed twice weekly during and weekly after IMRT.Results: A total of 46 patients received GC4419 in 11 separate dosing and duration cohorts: dose escalation occurred in 5 cohorts receiving 15 to 112 mg/d over 3 weeks (n=20), duration escalation in 3 cohorts receiving 112 mg/d over 4 to 6 weeks (n=12), and then 3 additional cohorts receiving 30 or 90 mg/d over 6 to 7 weeks (n=14). A maximum tolerated dose was not reached. One dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 gastroenteritis and vomiting with hyponatremia) occurred in each of 2 separate cohorts at 112 mg. Nausea/vomiting and facial paresthesia during infusion seemed to be GC4419 dose-related. Severe OM occurred through 60 Gy in 4 of 14 patients (29%) dosed for 6 to 7 weeks, with median duration of only 2.5 days.Conclusions: The safety of GC4419 concurrently with chemoradiation for OCC was acceptable. Toxicities included nausea/vomiting and paresthesia. Doses of 30 and 90 mg/d administered for 7 weeks were selected for further study. In an exploratory analysis, severe OM seemed less frequent and briefer than expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low level laser therapy (LLLT) has been noted to be effective in mitigating the development of oral mucositis among patients being treated with chemoradiation for cancers of the head and neck. To explain the biological basis for this observation we performed a comprehensive literature search. Our investigation identified a substantial number of LLLT-activated pathways that have been strongly associated with negative tumor outcomes including proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis, metastases and cancer-treatment resistance. In light of these findings, we suggest an investigational strategy to assure that LLLT's anti-mucositis efficacy is independent of its possible potential to enhance threatening tumor behaviors. Included are appropriate pre-clinical modeling, short- and long-term follow-up of LLLT-treated patients, and the requirement for consistency of LLLT parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The history of mucositis is as old as radiation- and chemotherapy. Despite being regularly reported and documented as one of the worst side effects of cancer therapy, relatively little was appreciated about the complexities of mucositis’ pathogenesis until relatively recently. More frustrating for patients and clinicians, no effective treatment existed. Fortunately, the situation is changing; ongoing research is leading to a comprehensive understanding of the biology of mucositis, which has resulted in the development of novel interventions. While the FDA’s approval of palifermin in 2004 was limited to only a small percentage of the at-risk population, the fact that the first registered anti-OM agent derived its efficacy from its pleotropic activities was conceptually demonstrative of the therapeutic potential of drugs that selectively interfere with mucositis’ pathogenesis. A number of eclectic molecules, all designed to interfere with pathways that lead to injury are in pre-clinical and clinical development. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Treatment-related toxicities are common among patients with head and neck cancer, leading to poor clinical outcomes, reduced quality of life, and increased use of healthcare resources. Over the last decade, much has been learned about the pathogenesis of cancer regimen-related toxicities. Historically, toxicities were separated into those associated with tissue injury and those with behavioural or systemic changes. However, it is now clear that tissue-specific damage such asmucositis, dermatitis, or fibrosis is no longer the sole consequence of direct clonogenic cell death, and a relationship between toxicities that results in their presentation as symptom clusters has been documented and attributed to a common underlying pathobiology. In addition, the finding that patients commonly develop toxicities representing tissue injury outside radiation fields and side effects such as fatigue or cognitive dysfunction suggests the generation of systemic as well as local mediators. As a consequence, it might be appropriate to consider toxicity syndromes, rather than the traditional approach, in which each side effect was considered as an autonomous entity. In this paper, we propose a biologically based explanation which forms the basis for the diverse constellation of toxicities seen in response to current regimens used to treat cancers of the head and neck. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The objective of this trial was to determine how a mucoadhesive hydrogel (MuGard), a marketed medical device, would fare when tested with the strictness of a conventional multi-institutional, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study format. METHODS A total of 120 subjects planned to receive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for treatment of head and neck cancers were randomized to receive either MuGard or sham control rinse (SC) during CRT. Subjects completed the validated Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire. Weight, opiate use, and World Health Organization (WHO) oral mucositis (OM) scores were recorded. Subjects who dosed at least once daily during the first 2.5 weeks of CRT were included in the efficacy analysis. RESULTS Of 120 subjects enrolled, 78 (SC, N = 41; MuGard, N = 37) were eligible for efficacy analysis. Both cohorts were similar in demographics, baseline characteristics, primary tumor type, and planned CRT regimen. MuGard effectively mitigated OM symptoms as reflected by area under the curve of daily patient-reported oral soreness ( P = .034) and WHO scores on the last day of radiation therapy ( P = .038). MuGard was also associated with nonsignificant trends related to therapeutic benefit including opioid use duration, and OM scores (WHO criteria) at CRT week 4. Rinse compliance was identical between cohorts. No significant adverse events were reported, and the adverse event incidence was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Testing MuGard, a rinse marketed as a device, in a standard clinical trial format demonstrated its superiority to SC in mitigating OM symptoms, delaying OM progression, and its safety and tolerability. Cancer 2014;120:1433-1440. © 2014 Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals. Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). The safety and tolerability of AG013, an oral rinse containing recombinant Lactococcus lactis secreting mucosal protectant human trefoil factor 1 (hTFF1), was evaluated in a phase 1b study in LAHNC subjects who received induction with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, with or without docetaxel. Preliminary efficacy data were also obtained. METHODS A total of 25 of 52 LAHNC subjects who were followed during induction cycle 1 developed ulcerative oral mucositis (UOM; World Health Organization grade > 2) and were randomized to AG013:placebo (5:2 ratio) for cycle 2. Dosing schedules of 1, 3, or 6 times daily were evaluated (2 × 1011, 6 × 1011, and 1.2 × 1012 colony forming units per day, respectively). OM was evaluated daily from cycle 2, day 1 through 14, using World Health Organization criteria. Pharmacokinetic assessment was also conducted. RESULTS AG013 bacteria were not detected in blood. Oral live AG013 bacterial and hTFF1 levels in saliva and oral mucosa were equivalent among treatment groups. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea, oral pain, fatigue, diarrhea, and mucosal inflammation. Only 12% (3 of 25 adverse events), mainly nausea, were attributed to the investigational medicinal product: AG013 or placebo. Efficacy analysis showed a 35% reduction in percentage of days with UOM in AG013-subjects versus placebo. All placebo subjects experienced ≥ 2 days of UOM, whereas 29% of AG013 subjects had UOM for 0 or 1 day. AG013 use resulted in fewer unscheduled office and emergency room visits. No differences were noted in mouth and throat soreness, opioid use, or gastrostomy tube placement. CONCLUSIONS AG013 was safe and well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy data support further study. Cancer 2013;119:4268-4276. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]