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., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Oral mucositis (OM) is among the most common, damaging side effects of head and neck radiation therapy and may interfere with patients' ability to comply with optimal treatment., Areas Covered: The increasing unmet clinical need, recent clinical trial successes, and the commercial potential have catalyzed interest in the development of effective intervention for OM. A range of small molecules are under development - some still in the preclinical stage, but others close to NDA submission. This review will focus on those drugs which have recently been assessed in a clinical trial and those which are still under clinical study as a prevention or treatment for radiation-associated OM., Expert Opinion: In response to the unmet clinical need, both the biotechnology and pharmacological industries have been actively pursuing an agent to prevent/treat radiation-associated OM. This effort has been catalyzed by the identification of multiple drug targets which contribute to OM's pathogenesis. The lessons learned from the many trials which have previously stumbled have led to standardization of clinical trial design, endpoint efficacy definitions, rater assessment, and data interpretation over the past decade. Consequently, results of recently completed clinical trials provide optimism that effective treatment options should be available in the not-too-distant future.

Purpose: Avasopasem manganese (GC4419), an investigational selective dismutase mimetic radioprotector, reduced duration, incidence, and severity of severe oral mucositis (World Health Organization grade 3-4) in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial of patients receiving concurrent cisplatin (cis) and radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. We report the secondary endpoints of final 1- and 2-year tumor outcomes and exploratory data on trismus and xerostomia., Methods and Materials: Patients with locally advanced oral cavity or oropharynx cancer to be treated with definitive or postop cis and RT were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: 30 mg avasopasem, 90 mg avasopasem, or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of Kaplan-Meier estimates (each active arm separately vs placebo) were made for overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival. Xerostomia and trismus data were collected at each follow-up visit and analyzed for trends by post-RT timepoint and treatment group., Results: At a median follow-up for the entire cohort of 25.5 months (25th-75th percentile, 24.6-26.2 months; range, 0.2-31.9 months), Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1- and 2-year overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival were not statistically different. No trends were apparent in xerostomia or trismus data., Conclusions: Avasopasem does not lead to statistically different tumor control outcomes when used concurrently with cis and RT for head and neck cancer. There was no detectable effect on trismus or xerostomia., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Oral mucositis (OM) remains a significant unmet need for patients being treated with standard concomitant chemoradiation (CRT) regimens for head and neck cancers (HNC). OM's pathogenesis is complex and includes both direct and indirect damage pathways. In this paper, the field is reviewed with emphasis on the initiating and sustaining role of oxidative stress on OM's pathobiology. A hypothesis is presented which suggests that based on OM's clinical and biological trajectory, mucosal damage is largely the consequence of cumulative CRT-induced biological changes overwhelming physiologic self-protective mechanisms. Furthermore, an individual's ability to mount and maintain a protective response is dependent on interacting pathways which are primarily determined by a multiplex consisting of genomics, epigenomics, and microbiomics. Effective biologic or pharmacologic OM interventions are likely to supplement or stimulate existing physiologic damage-control mechanisms., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Toxicities associated with radiation therapy are common, symptomatically devastating, and costly. The best chance to effectively mitigate radiation-associated normal tissue side effects are interventions aimed at disrupting the biological cascade, which is the basis for toxicity development, while simultaneously not reducing the beneficial impact of radiation on tumor. Oxidative stress is a key initiator of radiation-associated normal tissue injury as physiologic antioxidant mechanisms are overwhelmed by the accumulation of effects produced by fractionated treatment regimens. And fundamental to this is the generation of superoxide, which is normally removed by superoxide dismutases (SODs). Attempts to supplement the activity of endogenous SOD to prevent radiation-induced normal tissue injury have included the administration of bovine-derived SOD and increasing SOD production using gene transfer, neither of which has resulted in a clinically acceptable therapy. A third approach has been to develop synthetic small molecule dismutase mimetics. This approach has led to the creation and development of avasopasem manganese, a unique and specific dismutase mimetic that, in clinical trials, has shown promising potential to reduce the incidence, severity and duration of severe oral mucositis amongst patients being treated with concomitant chemoradiation for cancers of the head and neck. Further, avasopasem and related analogues have demonstrated mechanism-related antitumor synergy in combination with high dose per fraction radiotherapy, an observation that is also being tested in clinical trials. An ongoing Phase 3 trial seeks to confirm avasopasem manganese as an effective intervention for severe oral mucositis associated with chemoradiation in head and neck cancer patients., Competing Interests: Dr Stephen T Sonis reports personal fees from Biomodels, LLC, personal fees from Primary Endpoint Solutions, during the conduct of the study. In addition, Dr. Sonis has the following issued patents: 6,458,777; 6,663,850; 6,713,463; 6,841,578B2; 7,297,123; and 10,475,53922; he is an employee of Biomodels LLC and Primary Endpoint Solutions LLC. Both companies assist government, academic and industry clients with the planning, implementation, execution and analysis of pre-clinical and clinical studies to assist and enable the development of new drugs, biologicals and devices for a wide range of indications, including side effects of cancer treatment. He does not receive direct payment for any client and he does not have equity in any of the companies which work with us. The author reports no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Sonis.)

Oral mucositis is a common side-effect associated with conventional cancer therapy and has also recently been reported in association with newly emerging cancer therapies. It is characterized as an inflammation of the oral mucous membranes accompanied by many complex mucosal and submucosal changes. Ulcerative oral mucositis can cause significant oral pain, impair nutritional intake, lead to local or systemic infection, and cause significant economic cost. In addition, it may necessitate interruptions in cancer therapy, thus adversely affecting patient prognosis. This review presents the current understanding of the pathogenesis of mucositis and discusses evidence-based clinical management strategies for oral mucositis. In addition, key research questions for future investigation are identified, followed by a discussion of strategies to promote development and funding of the needed research., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients with Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance show poor outcomes in comparison with privately insured patients. It was hypothesized that nonprivate insurance coverage biases the selection of the treatment site to favor hospitals that are not associated with optimum treatment outcomes. This study assessed the relation between the insurance type of HNC patients and the hospital type for inpatient care., Methods: Adult HNC patients were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2012 and 2013). The primary exposure was the insurance provider type. The outcome was the hospital type, which was classified by the hospital's ownership and its location and teaching status. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to control for the patient's age, sex, race, income, mortality risk, and geographic location. The analysis was weighted and was adjusted for multiple comparisons., Results: In all, 37,466 HNC patients representing 187,330 patients nationally were identified. After adjustments for age, sex, race, income, and mortality risk, in comparison with privately insured patients, Medicaid, Medicare, and uninsured patients demonstrated 1.14 to 2.29 increased odds of undergoing treatment at rural, urban nonteaching, private investor-owned, or government (nonfederal) hospitals (P < .05). This trend remained apparent even after adjustments for the geographic location., Conclusions: Uninsured patients or patients insured by government programs predominantly underwent care for HNC at hospital types most often associated with inferior survival outcomes. This finding could explain some proportion of insurance-related disparities in HNC outcomes. Further studies are warranted to determine whether interventions to promote equitable access to optimal hospital settings for patients, regardless of their insurance type, might improve outcomes among nonprivate insurance holders. Cancer 2018;124:760-8. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Osteoradionecrosis of the jaw (ORN) is an infrequent yet potentially devastating complication of radiation therapy to the head and neck region. Treatment options include antimicrobial therapy, local sequestrectomy, resection, and the use of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO). Published data on ORN are difficult to compare because of the lack of a universally accepted classification and staging system, and the literature on the use of HBO to either prevent or successfully manage ORN is controversial and inconclusive. Therefore, we aimed to establish a standard approach for using HBO at our institution., Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted of articles published in the English language between January 1980 and January 2016. Retrieved articles were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Isolated case reports, abstracts, case series, review articles, and cohort studies without a control group were excluded; summary data were extracted from the remaining studies. A panel of experts from Head and Neck Oncology and Oral Medicine from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital reviewed the summary data and established multidisciplinary guidelines on the use of HBO for the prevention and management of ORN., Results: Seven studies were evaluated and reviewed by the multidisciplinary panel. There was no consistent evidence in support of HBO for either the prevention or management of ORN., Conclusion: Based on the available evidence and expert opinion, routine use of HBO for the prevention or management of ORN is not recommended and is rarely used at our institution. The Oncologist 2017;22:343-350 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Division of Head and Neck Oncology of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center does not recommend the routine use of HBO for the prevention or management of ORN. Adjunctive HBO may be considered for use on a case-by-case basis in patients considered to be at exceptionally high risk who have failed conservative therapy and subsequent surgical resection., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

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, may expand the applications for PBM in the management of other complications associated with HNC treatment. This article (part 1) describes PBM mechanisms of action, dosimetry, and safety aspects and, in doing so, provides a basis for a companion paper (part 2) which describes the potential breadth of potential applications of PBM in the management of side-effects of (chemo)radiation therapy in patients being treated for HNC and proposes PBM parameters., Methods: This study is a narrative non-systematic review., Results: We review PBM mechanisms of action and dosimetric considerations. Virtually, all conditions modulated by PBM (e.g., ulceration, inflammation, lymphedema, pain, fibrosis, neurological and muscular injury) are thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of (chemo)radiation therapy-induced complications in patients treated for HNC. The impact of PBM on tumor behavior and tumor response to treatment has been insufficiently studied. In vitro studies assessing the effect of PBM on tumor cells report conflicting results, perhaps attributable to inconsistencies of PBM power and dose. Nonetheless, the biological bases for the broad clinical activities ascribed to PBM have also been noted to be similar to those activities and pathways associated with negative tumor behaviors and impeded response to treatment. While there are no anecdotal descriptions of poor tumor outcomes in patients treated with PBM, confirming its neutrality with respect to cancer responsiveness is a critical priority., Conclusion: Based on its therapeutic effects, PBM may have utility in a broad range of oral, oropharyngeal, facial, and neck complications of HNC treatment. Although evidence suggests that PBM using LLLT is safe in HNC patients, more research is imperative and vigilance remains warranted to detect any potential adverse effects of PBM on cancer treatment outcomes and survival.

We have characterized a novel 21 amino acid-peptide derived from Antrum Mucosal Protein (AMP)-18 that mediates growth promotion of cultured normal epithelial cells and mitigates radiation-induced oral mucositis in animal models, while suppressing in vitro function of cancer cells. The objective of this study was to evaluate these dual potential therapeutic effects of AMP peptide in a clinically relevant animal model of head and neck cancer (HNC) by simultaneously assessing its effect on tumor growth and radiation-induced oral mucositis in an orthotopic model of HNC. Bioluminescent SCC-25 HNC cells were injected into the anterior tongue and tumors that formed were then subjected to focal radiation treatment. Tumor size was assessed using an in vivo imaging system, and the extent of oral mucositis was compared between animals treated with AMP peptide or vehicle (controls). Synergism between AMP peptide and radiation therapy was suggested by the finding that tumors in the AMP peptide/radiation therapy cohort demonstrated inhibited growth vs. radiation therapy-only treated tumors, while AMP peptide-treatment delayed the onset and reduced the severity of radiation therapy-induced oral mucositis. A differential effect on apoptosis appears to be one mechanism by which AMP-18 can stimulate growth and repair of injured mucosal epithelial cells while inhibiting proliferation of HNC cells. RNA microarray analysis identified pathways that are differentially targeted by AMP-18 in HNC vs. nontransformed cells. These observations confirm the notion that normal cells and tumor cells may respond differently to common biological stimuli, and that leveraging this finding in the case of AMP-18 may provide a clinically relevant opportunity.

Objectives: Oral mucositis (OM) is a painful complication of radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (H&NC). OM can compromise nutrition, require opioid analgesics and hospitalization for pain control, and lead to treatment interruptions. Based on the role of inflammatory pathways in OM pathogenesis, we investigated effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibition on severity and morbidity of OM., Methods: In this double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 40 H&NC patients were randomized to daily use of 200 mg celecoxib or placebo, for the duration of RT. Clinical OM, normalcy of diet, pain scores, and analgesic use were assessed 2-3 times/week by blinded investigators during the 6-7 week RT period, using validated scales., Results: Twenty subjects were randomized to each arm, which were similar with respect to tumor location, radiation dose, and concomitant chemotherapy. In both arms, mucositis and pain scores increased over course of RT. Intention-to-treat analyses demonstrated no significant difference in mean Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS) scores at 5000 cGy (primary endpoint). There was also no difference between the two arms in mean OMAS scores over the period of RT, mean worst pain scores, mean normalcy of diet scores, or mean daily opioid medication use in IV morphine equivalents. There were no adverse events attributed to celecoxib use., Conclusions: Daily use of a selective COX-2 inhibitor, during period of RT for H&NC, did not reduce the severity of clinical OM, pain, dietary compromise or use of opioid analgesics. These findings also have implications for celecoxib use in H&NC treatment regimens (NCT00698204)., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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 as mucositis, 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.

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 × 10(11) , 6 × 10(11) , and 1.2 × 10(12) 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., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the biological basis for cancer therapy-induced mucosal barrier injury (mucositis). The last formal review of the subject by MASCC/ISOO was published in 2007; consequently, an update is timely., Methods: Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis pathobiology published between January 2005 and December 2011., Results: Recent research has provided data on the contribution of tissue structure changes, inflammation and microbiome changes to the development of mucositis. Additional research has focused on targeted therapy-induced toxicity, toxicity clustering and the investigation of genetic polymorphisms in toxicity prediction. This review paper summarizes the recent evidence on these aspects of mucositis pathobiology., Conclusion: The ultimate goal of mucositis researchers is to identify the most appropriate targets for therapeutic interventions and to be able to predict toxicity risk and personalize interventions to genetically suitable patients. Continuing research efforts are needed to further our understanding of mucositis pathobiology and the pharmacogenomics of toxicity.

Of the toxicities associated with conventional forms of treatment for head and neck cancers, probably none has such a consistent legacy as oral mucositis.1 Despite the fact that mucosal injury was noted as far back as Marie Curie's first forays into therapeutic radiation, an effective intervention has yet to be developed. In addition to its historic link to radiation, new therapeutic strategies including induction chemotherapy often produce mucositis, and targeted therapies appear to alter mucositis risk and its severity and course.2 The symptomatic effect of oral mucositis is profound. Disabling oral and oropharyngeal pain prevents patients from eating normally, requires opiate analgesics, and in some cases results in alteration or discontinuation of anticancer therapy.3 Furthermore, the health and economic consequences of oral mucositis are far from trivial. The incremental cost of oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer exceeds $17,000 (USD).4.

Background: The risk, severity, and patient-reported outcomes of radiation-induced mucositis among head and neck cancer patients were prospectively estimated., Methods: A validated, patient-reported questionnaire (OMDQ), the FACT quality of life (QOL), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) fatigue scales were used to measure mucositis (reported as mouth and throat soreness), daily functioning, and use of analgesics. Patients were studied before radiotherapy (RT), daily during RT, and for 4 weeks after RT., Results: Contrary to previous reports, the risk of mucositis was virtually identical in the 126 patients with oral cavity or oropharynx tumors (99% overall; 85% grade 3-4) compared with 65 patients with tumors of the larynx or hypopharynx (98% overall; 77% grade 3-4). The mean QOL score decreased significantly during RT, from 85.1 at baseline to 69.0 at Week 6, corresponding with the peak of mucositis severity. The mean functional status score decreased by 33% from 18.3 at baseline to 12.3 at Week 6. The impact of mucositis on QOL was proportional to its severity, although even a score of 1 or 2 (mild or moderate) was associated with a significant reduction in QOL (from 93.6 at baseline to 74.7 at Week 6). Despite increases in analgesic use from 34% at baseline to 80% at Week 6, mean mucositis scores exceeded 2.5 at Week 6., Conclusions: Mucositis occurs among virtually all patients who are undergoing radiation treatment of head and neck cancers. The detrimental effects on QOL and functional status are significant, and opioid analgesia provides inadequate relief. Preventive rather than symptom palliation measures are needed.

Oral mucositis is a clinically important and sometimes dose-limiting complication of cancer therapy. Mucositis lesions can be painful, affect nutrition and quality of life, and have a significant economic impact. The pathogenesis of oral mucositis is multifactorial and complex. This review discusses the morbidity, economic impact, pathogenesis and clinical course of mucositis. Current clinical management of oral mucositis is largely focused on palliative measures such as pain management, nutritional support and maintenance of good oral hygiene. However, several promising therapeutic agents are in various stages of clinical development for the management of oral mucositis. These agents are discussed in the context of recently updated evidence-based clinical management guidelines.