Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 313–326 | Cite as

Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients

  • Rachel J. Gibson
  • Dorothy M. K. Keefe
  • Rajesh V. Lalla
  • Emma Bateman
  • Nicole Blijlevens
  • Margot Fijlstra
  • Emily E. King
  • Andrea M. Stringer
  • Walter J. F. M. van der Velden
  • Roger Yazbeck
  • Sharon Elad
  • Joanne M. Bowen
  • For The Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO)
Special Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible.

Results

A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.

Conclusions

This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.

Keywords

Mucositis Guidelines Clinical management Gastrointestinal 

Introduction

Gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis is an extremely common toxicity occurring after chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer [1,2]. Mucositis occurs in approximately 40 % of patients after standard doses of chemotherapy and in up to 100 % of patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or radiation for head and neck cancer [3,4], affecting over two million people worldwide each year. GI mucositis is associated with many symptoms of which significant pain, ulceration, abdominal bloating, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation are a few [5]. The potentially severe nature of GI mucositis can have some further devastating effects for patients including a reduction or cessation of treatment (which may decrease the chance for remission or cure), and increased stays in hospitals, leading to increased costs of treatment and use of opioids for pain management [5,6]. In addition to the economic costs associated with GI mucositis, there is also a significant impact on the quality of life of cancer patients with increased morbidity and mortality [7]. There is currently a huge unmet market for management interventions for GI symptoms of GI mucositis. There are a number of new agents which have been trialed in the clinical setting. This paper reports the findings of the most recent updated review, against the background of the previous literature, as related to the use of GI agents for GI mucositis.

In May 2004, the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care and Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology published results of an evidence-based review of the clinical literature on mucositis [8]. These results were then updated in 2007 [9]. Both of these critical reviews examined in detail the literature from January 1996 to May 2002 (original guidelines) and January 2002 to May 2005 (updated guidelines). Where made possible by the literature, evidence-based guidelines were determined both for the prevention and treatment of GI mucositis. It is well recognized that the underlying pathobiology of mucostis is the same throughout the alimentary tract [10] meaning that regardless of where mucositis occurs in the gut, it will still pose significant problems. What makes the alimentary tract beyond the oral cavity different, however, are the differences in morphology, which are largely related to the specialized function that each performs [10]. While we have made significant progress in our understanding of mucositis “beyond” the oral cavity, progress is difficult due to the relative inaccessibility of the small and large intestine and the obvious difficulty in obtaining biopsies at multiple time points after cytotoxic therapy. Nevertheless, evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of GI mucositis were able to be formed using symptoms and signs as clinical endpoints. As part of a comprehensive update of the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for mucositis, the aim of this project was to systematically review the available literature and define evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of GI mucositis.

Methods

The methods, including detailed search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and rubric for assigning levels of evidence to form guidelines, are described elsewhere in this issue. Briefly, a literature search for relevant papers indexed in MEDLINE on or before 31st December 2010 was conducted using Ovid/MEDLINE, with papers selected for review based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers, and data were extracted using a standard electronic form. Studies were scored for their level of evidence based on Somerfield criteria [11], and flaws were listed according to Hadorn criteria [12]. A well-designed study was defined as a study with no major flaws per the Hadorn criteria. Findings from the reviewed studies were integrated into guidelines based on the overall level of evidence for each intervention. Guidelines were classified into three types: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible. Guidelines were separated based on (1) the aim of the intervention (prevention or treatment of mucositis); (2) the treatment modality (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, or high-dose conditioning therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplant); and (3) the route of administration of the intervention.

The list of intervention keywords used for the literature search of this section was as follows; 5-aminosalycilates, all-trans-retinoic acid, amifostine, aminoguanidine, atropine, balsalazide, basic water, belly-board, bellyboard, benzydiamine, budesonide, butyrate, cefixime, celecoxib, charcoal, chlorhexidine, cholestyramine, circadian variation, endorectal balloon, exercise, glutamine, hyperbaric oxygen, indomethacin, intestinal alkalization intraabdominal tissue expanders, Kampo medicine, keratinocyte growth factor, kremazin, levofloxacin, loperamide, magnesium oxide, mesalamine, mesalazine, mesh, misoprostol, neomycin, nifuroxazide, octreotide, olsalazine, palifermin, pelvic displacement prosthesis, probiotics, prostaglandin, psychoeducation, racecadotril, relaxation, sodium bicarbonate, sucralfate, sulphasalazine, superoxide dismutase, tantum rosa, thalidomide, ursodeoxycholic acid, and WR-2721.

Results

A total of 1,336 papers were originally identified of which 1,040 papers were excluded after evaluating the title/abstract. For detailed analysis, 296 papers were then retrieved with a further 45 papers excluded prior to being sent out to review for not meeting inclusion criteria. Finally, 251 papers were sent out for assessment, with 146 included in the final review. Papers were excluded due to not meeting study inclusion criteria (for more details, refer to Bowen et al. and Elad et al. earlier in this issue). The following interventions were included in the final review: 5-aminosalycyclic acid (5-ASA), acetorphan, activated charcoal, amifostine, antidiarrheal programs, balsalazide, busedinide, cefixime, celecoxib, cholestyramine/leucofloxacin, chrysin, circadian rhythms, formalin instillation, glutamine, hyperbaric oxygen, heater probes, leucovorin, loperamide, mesalazine, metronidazole, misoprostol, neomycin, octreotide, olsalazine, palifermin, physical activity, probiotics, salicylazosulfapyridine, sodium butyrate sucralfate, and sulfasalazine (Table 1). Of these interventions reviewed, one had sufficient evidence to produce a new evidence-based recommendation, two had sufficient evidence to produce new evidence-based suggestions, and one had sufficient evidence to warrant changing a guideline. All remaining interventions had insufficient evidence to form a guideline.
Table 1

All agents reviewed for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis

Name of agent

Route of administration

Cancer type and treatment modality

Indication

Author, year (citation number from reference list) of papers reviewed

Overall level of evidence

Guideline determination

Comments

5-Aminosalycycllic acid (and related compounds mesalazine and olsalazine)

PO

External radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

P

Baughan, 1993 [20];

I

5-ASA administered orally is not recommended for the prevention of acute radiation-induced diarrhea in patients receiving external radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

In most cases, 5-ASA made diarrhea worse

Maternson, 1996 [21]

Resbeut, 1997 [22]

Activated charcoal

PO

Chemotherapy (irinotecan) only for solid tumors

P

Michael, 2004 [35]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Sergio, 2008 [36]

Amifostine

SC

Concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy for various solid tumors

P

Gridelli, 2000 [37]

III

No guideline possible

Despite numerous studies, conflicting results, and different settings exist

Koukourakis, 2007 [16]

Han, 2008 [17]

Garces, 2007 [38]

Koukourakis, 2002 [39]

Antonadou, 2001 [40]

Marina, 2005 [41]

Amifostine

IV

Either chemotherapy only or concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy for various solid tumors

P

Delioukina, 2002 [42]

II

The panel suggests the use of amifostine to reduce oesophagitis induced by concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

 

Movsas, 2005 [18]

Komaki, 2005 [19]

Garcia-Manero, 2002 [43]

Arquette, 2002 [44]

Leong, 2003 [45]

Antonadou, 2003 [46]

The panel recommends that amifostine should be administered intravenously at a dose of ≥340 mg/m2 prior to radiotherapy to prevent radiation proctitis

Capelli, 2000 [47]

Dunst, 2000 [48]

Awasthy, 2001 [49]

Werner-Wasik, 2001 [50]

Tsavaris, 2005 [51]

Amifostine

Enema

Standard radiotherapy for prostate cancer

P

Singh, 2006 [52]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Simone, 2008 [53]

Ben-Josef, 2002 [54]

Antidiarrheal program

PO

Standard chemotherapy for NSCLC

P

Takeda, 2005 [55]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Ando, 2004 [56]

Balsalazide

PO

Standard radiotherapy for prostate cancer

P

Jahraus, 2005 [57]

II

No guideline possible

 

Budesonide

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer

P

Karthaus, 2005 [58]

III

No guideline possible

 

Lenfers, 2004 [59]

Cefixime

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy for various solid tumors

T

Furman, 2006 [60]

V

No guideline possible

 

Celecoxib

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy for various solid tumors

P

Wirth, 2005 [61]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Villalona-Calero, 2007 [62]

Dy, 2005 [63]

Argiris, 2006 [64]

Javle, 2007 [65]

Cholestyramine/levofloxacin

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy or standard-dose radiotherapy for various solid tumors

P

Flieger, 2007 [66]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Heuskinkveld, 1978 [67]

Chary, 1984 [68]

Chrysin

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy for colorectal cancer

P

Tobin, 2006 [69]

III

No guideline possible

 

Circadian rhythm

n/a

Standard-dose chemotherapy for various solid tumors

P

Hrushesky, 1990 [70]

III

No guideline possible

 

Adler, 1994 [71]

Depres-Brummer, 1995 [72]

Price, 2004 [73]

Rajagopalan, 1999 [74]

Berheault-Cvitkovic 1999 [75]

Conroy, 1993 [76]

Coudert, 2008 [77]

Circadian rhythm

n/a

Standard-dose radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

P

Shukla, 2010 [23]

II

No guideline possible.

 

Formalin instillation

intralesional

Standard-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer

T

Tsujinaka 2005 [78]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Glutamine

PO

Concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy for lung carcinomas

P

Algara, 2007 [79]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Jazieh, 2007 [80]

 

Glutamine

PO

High- or standard-dose chemotherapy for hematological and solid malignancies

P

Muscaritoli, 1997 [81]

III

No guideline possible

 

Jebb, 1995 [82]

Daniele, 2001 [83]

Canovas, 2002 [84]

Bozzetti, 1997 [85]

Dickson, 2000 [86]

Glutamine

IV

High- and standard-dose chemotherapy for hematological malignancies

P

Blijlevens 2005 [26]

II

No guideline possible

New evidence from RCTs suggests that glutamine administered intravenously may reduce GI side effects for patients receiving high- or standard-dose chemotherapy without toxicity

Somsuvit 2008 [27]

Li, 2009 [28]

Pytlik, 2002 [87]

Hyperbaric oxygen

n/a

Standard-dose radiotherapy for various solid tumors

T

Kernstine, 2005 [88]

IV

The panel suggests that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is an effective way to treat radiation-induced proctitis

 

Jones, 2006 [89]

Fink, 2006 [90]

Huddy, 2006 [91]

Dall’Era, 2006 [92]

Ginius, 2006 [93]

Safra, 2007 [94]

Sidik, 2007 [95]

Woo, 1997 [96]

Mayer, 2001 [97]

Bui, 2004 [98]

Bem, 2000 [99]

Charneau, 1991 [100]

Kitta, 2000 [101]

Bates, 1969 [102]

Heater probes

Rectal

Standard-dose radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

T

Jensen, 1997 [103]

V

No guideline possible

 

Leucovorin

IV

Standard-dose radiotherapy for osteosarcoma

T

Flombaum, 1999 [104]

V

No guideline possible

 

Metronidazole

Rectal enema

Standard-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer

T

Cavcic, 2000 [105]

III

No guideline possible

 

Misoprostol

Rectal enema

Standard-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer

P

Hille, 2005 [24]

I

The panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis in men treated with standard radiotherapy for prostate cancer

 

Kertesz, 2009 [25]

Khan, 2000 [106]

Neomycin

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy for various solid tumors

P

DeJong, 2006 [107]

III

No guideline possible

 

Schmittel, 2004 [108]

Alimonti, 2003 [109]

Kehrer, 2001 [110]

Octreotide

SC

High-dose chemotherapy for various solid tumors

T

Topkan, 2006 [111]

II

When loperamide fails to control diarrhea induced by standard- or high-dose chemotherapy associated with HSCT, the panel recommends octreotide at a dose of ≥100 μg subcutaneously twice daily

 

Barbounis, 2001 [112]

Gebbia, 1993 [113]

Cascinu, 1993 [114]

Zidan, 2001 [115]

Cascinu, 1992 [116]

Octreotide

IV

High-dose chemotherapy for various malignancies

T

Geller, 1995 [117]

IV

No guideline possible

 

Octreotide

SC or IM

Concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy for various solid tumors

T

Rosenoff, 2004 [118]

III

No guideline possible

 

Pro, 2001 [119]

 

Palifermin

IV

High- and standard-dose chemotherapy for various solid and hematological malignancies

P

Rosen, 2006 [120]

III

No guideline possible

 

Johansson, 2009 [121]

Physical activity

 

All types of cytotoxic treatment including standard-dose chemotherapy and radiotherapy; high-dose chemotherapy for various solid tumors

P

Anderson, 2006 [122]

III

No guideline possible

 

Jarden, 2009 [123]

Dimeo, 1997 [124]

DeNysschen, 2011 [125]

Probiotics

PO

Standard-dose chemotherapy, standard-dose radiotherapy, or concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

P

Delia, 2007 [13]

III

The panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancy.

 

Osterlund, 2007 [14]

Giralt, 2008 [30]

Abd El-Atti, 2009 [126]

Chitapanarux, 2010 [127]

Benchimol, 2004 [128]

Urbancsek, 2001 [15]

Delia, 2002 [29]

Delia, 2002 [129]

Sodium Butyrate

Enema

Standard-dose radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

T

Hille, 2008 [130]

III

No guideline possible

 

Vernia, 2000 [131]

Sucralfate

PO

Standard-dose radiotherapy or concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy for various solid tumors

T

Martenson, 2000 [132]

I

The panel recommends that oral sucralfate not be used to reduce the side effects induced by radiotherapy.

Compared with placebo, sucralfate was found to be associated with increased GI side effects

Henriksson, 1997 [133]

Duffour, 2002 [134]

Franzen, 1988 [135]

Henriksson, 1991, 1991 [133]

Castagna, 2001 [136]

Kneebone, 2001 [137]

Stellamans, 2002 [138]

Sucralfate

Enema

Standard-dose radiotherapy for various solid tumors

T

Kochhar, 1990 [139]

III

The panel suggests that using sucralfate enemas may help manage chronic radiation-induced proctitis in patients with rectal bleeding

 

O’Brien, 1997 [140]

Kochhar, 1999 [141]

Melko, 1999 [142]

O’Brien, 2002 [143]

Gul, 2002 [144]

Sanguineti, 2003 [145]

Chun, 2004 [146]

Sulfasalazine

PO

Standard-dose radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies

P

Kilic, 2000 [147]

II

The panel suggests the use of sulfsalazine orally twice daily to reduce the incidence and severity of radiation-induced enteropathy in patients receiving external-beam radiotherapy to the pelvis

 

Kilic, 2001 [148]

Kochhar, 1991 [139]

NSCLC Non-small cell lung carcinoma, PO per oral, IV intravenous, SC subcutaneous, P prevention, T treatment

Standard-dose chemotherapy, standard-dose radiotherapy, or concomitant chemotherapy/radiotherapy: prevention

Probiotics: new guideline

Guideline

The panel suggests that probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp. may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancies. At this stage, the panel cannot recommend doses/regimen as the studies to date have investigated a wide variety of products. Nonetheless, Lactobacillus-containing probiotics as a class of intervention are to date overwhelmingly positive. In three separate randomized controlled studies [13, 14, 15], patients who received probiotics had significantly reduced diarrhea when compared with control patients. Delia et al. randomized 490 patients to receive probiotics (VSL#3) or placebo following adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy and found that patients receiving placebo had significantly more diarrhea than probiotics patients (p < 0.001). Furthermore, placebo patients had significantly more grade 3 or 4 diarrhea compared with probiotics patients (p < 0.001) [13]. Osterlund and colleagues randomized 150 patients receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy for colorectal cancer to probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) or placebo. Patients receiving probiotics had significantly less diarrhea than placebo controls (p < 0.027) [14]. Urbancsek and colleagues found in a randomized study of 200 patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy that probiotics (L. rhamnosus) significantly improved stool consistency (p < 0.05) compared with controls. Other studies were similarly positive.

Amifostine: no change

Guideline

The panel suggests the use of amifostine to reduce oesophagitis induced by concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Updates in the literature since the publication of the 2006 guidelines has seen small studies with conflicting results that do not help to delineate the role of amifostine further [16, 17, 18, 19] and therefore the panel continues to suggest the use of amifostine in this setting.

Radiotherapy: prevention

5-ASA, mesalazine, and olsalazine: no change

Guideline

The panel recommends that 5-ASA and the related compounds mesalazine and olsalazine not be used for the prevention of GI Mucositis. There has been no updated literature since the publication of the original guidelines in 2004 [9]. Briefly, three independent randomized controlled trials [20, 21, 22] reported that 5-ASA, mesalazine, and olsalazine offered no protection for patients receiving external radiotherapy. Of concern was that these compounds caused significantly more diarrhea than the placebo counterpart, leading to the early closure of one study [21]. Therefore, the panel continues to recommend against the use of these compounds.

Amifostine: no change

Guideline

The panel recommends that amifostine should be administered intravenously at a dose of ≥340 mg/m2 prior to radiotherapy to prevent radiation proctitis. There have been no updates in the literature since the publication of the original guidelines and therefore the panel continues to recommend the use of intravenous amifostine.

Circadian rhythm

Guideline

No guideline possible. However, in light of emerging research, administering standard radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies may be delivered using circadian rhythm to minimize toxicity in the future. A single well-designed randomized controlled trial [23], reported findings of 229 patients who were randomized to receive radiotherapy in the morning (8:00–10:00 a.m.) or the evening (6:00 pm–8:00 pm). Patients randomized to the morning arm had significantly worse mucositis overall (p < 0.01) and grades 3 and 4 diarrhea was significantly increased (p < 0.05) compared with patients randomized to the evening arm. Importantly, there was no difference in patient response to treatment between the two arms (p > 0.05) [23]. This study provides novel and exciting evidence of the effect of circadian rhythm on intestinal mucosa. The panel was encouraged by these findings and look forward to more evidence in future years.

Misoprostol: new guideline

Guideline

The panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. In two separate randomized controlled trials [24,25], men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer received either misoprostol suppositories or placebo control. There was no significant difference in radiation-induced proctitis between the two groups; however, patients receiving misoprostol suppositories experienced significantly more rectal bleeding (p < 0.03) [24]. Kertesz et al. however found that although misoprostol did not influence acute radiation-induced toxicity, it had no negative impact on the patients [25].

Sucralfate: no change

Guideline

The panel recommends that oral sucralfate not be used to reduce the side effects induced by radiotherapy. It does not prevent acute diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancies undergoing external beam radiotherapy, and, compared with placebo, it is associated with increased GI side effects, including rectal bleeding. There have been no updates in the literature since the publication of the original guidelines and therefore the panel continues to recommend against the use of oral sucralfate.

Sulfasalazine: no change

Guideline

The panel suggests the use of 500 mg of sulfasalazine administered orally twice daily to help reduce the incidence and severity or radiation-induced enteropathy in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy to the pelvis. Again, there have been no updates in the literature since the publication of the original guidelines and therefore the panel continues to suggest the use of sulfasalazine.

Radiotherapy: treatment

Hyperbaric oxygen: new guideline

Guideline

The panel suggests that use of hyperbaric oxygen may be an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Fifteen studies were reviewed [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,94,95] and were all positive, with many patients experiencing complete resolution of their radiation-induced proctitis. Cost may well be prohibitive, but all studies show similar results.

Sucralfate: no change

Guideline

The panel suggests the use of sucralfate enemas as an effective way of managing chronic radiation-induced proctitis in patients with rectal bleeding. There have been no updates in the literature since the publication of the original guidelines and therefore the panel continues to suggest the use of sucralfate enemas.

Standard- and high-dose chemotherapy: prevention

Glutamine: changed guideline

Guideline

No guideline possible. The previous guideline was not to use systemic glutamine because of severe toxicity. However, three new double-blinded randomized controlled trials published since the last update, have shown effect without severe toxicity. These studies had small numbers of patients and therefore the panel is unable to make a clinical guideline based on conflicting data. Blijlevens and colleagues found that in patients receiving stem cell transplants who received glutamine via parenteral nutrition had significantly improved gut scores (p < 0.001) [26]. Sornsuvit and colleagues also reported that patients who received glutamine maintained their nutritional status [27], whereas Li et al. reported that glutamine prevented intestinal permeability and clinical manifestations of chemotherapy-induced gut toxicity [28].

Standard- and high-dose chemotherapy: treatment

Octreotide: no change

Guideline

When loperamide fails to control diarrhea induced by standard- or high-dose chemotherapy associated with HSCT, the panel recommends octreotide at a dose of ≥100 μg subcutaneously, twice daily.

No guideline was possible for the remaining agents due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2

Guidelines with no changes

Agent

Guideline

Amifostine

The panel suggests the use of amifostine to reduce oesophagitis induced by concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

The panel recommends that amifostine should be administered intravenously at a dose of ≥340 mg/m2 prior to radiotherapy to prevent radiation proctitis

5-ASA, mesalazine, and olsalazine

The panel recommends that 5-ASA and the related compounds mesalazine and olsalazine not be used for the prevention of GI mucositis

Octreotide

When loperamide fails to control diarrhea induced by standard- or high-dose chemotherapy associated with HSCT the panel recommends octreotide at a dose of ≥100 μg subcutaneously twice daily

Sucralfate

The panel recommends that oral sucralfate not be used to reduce the side effects induced by radiotherapy

The panel suggests the use of sucralfate enemas as an effective way of managing chronic radiation-induced proctitis in patients with rectal bleeding

Sulfasalazine

The panel suggests the use of 500 mg of sulfasalazine administered orally 2 times a day to help reduce the incidence and severity of radiation-induced enteropathy in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy to the pelvis

Table. 3

New guidelines

Agent

Guideline

Glutamine

No guideline possible

Hyperbaric oxygen

The panel suggests that use of hyperbaric oxygen may be an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis

Misoprostol

The panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis

Probiotics

The panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp. may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with pelvic malignancy

Discussion

Following a thorough review of the recent clinical literature on interventions for the management of GI mucositis, the panel has found sufficient evidence to form just four new guidelines. These include one new recommendation against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of radiotherapy-induced procititis. Two new suggestions were also made: one in favor of the use of a Lactobacillus spp.-containing probiotic for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea. Secondly, we were able to suggest the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means of treatment for radiotherapy-induced proctitis. The panel members also reviewed a number of new clinical studies surrounding the use of glutamine, and in light of conflicting evidence, were unable to reach consensus on the formation of a guideline. This is a significant change from previous guidelines where the use of systemic glutamine was not recommended due to excessive toxicity. However, overall it is disappointing that so little has changed in the last 5 years. Although preclinical science is evolving, there is very little in the way of new clinical studies.

Probiotics

It is well known that radiotherapy is capable of disrupting the commensal gut bacteria leading to potentially life-threatening side effects [29]. Generally, probiotics are “preparations” that contain sufficient numbers of specific viable bacteria that are able to exert beneficial effects [29]. Over the past 4 years there have been three randomized clinical trials which have shown that probiotics have a significant effect on reducing diarrhea caused by cytotoxic therapies. Delia and colleagues enrolled 490 pelvic radiotherapy patients in a double-blind randomized fashion. Patients who received probiotics containing Lactobacillus spp. had significantly better outcomes than the placebo patients; 31.6 % of probiotic patients had diarrhea compared with 51.8 % of placebo patients (p < 0.001); 1.4 % of probiotic patients had grade 3 or 4 diarrhea compared with 55.4 % of placebo patients (p < 0.001); and average daily bowel motions were 5.1 in probiotic patients compared with 14.7 in placebo patients (p < 0.05) [29]. In a 5-FU-based chemotherapy study, patients who received a Lactobacillus spp. probiotic also had significantly less grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (p < 0.027) and had less chemotherapy-dose reductions as a result of their toxicity [14]. Finally, a randomized controlled study conducted by Giralt and colleagues reported that patients undergoing radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies, who received a Lactobacillus spp. drink had a significant improvement in stool consistency as measured by the Bristol scale [30]. These findings strongly support the clinical usage of probiotics. Advantages of probiotics are that they are cheap, well tolerated by patients, and easy to administer. No studies to date, have reported any adverse reactions to the probiotics in patients treated with cytotoxic therapies for cancer. However, a theoretical concern of increased risk of infection in patients with mucosal barrier dysfunction, particularly if neutropenic, is worth noting. This level of risk is not yet clear, although rare cases of Lactobacillus bacteremia have been documented [31].

Circadian rhythm

Administering cytotoxic drugs according to the body’s natural circadian rhythm is not a new idea. Unfortunately, there is conflicting evidence around administering chemotherapy, and no guideline is possible. However, a single institutional study was conducted by Shukla and colleagues in 2010. They conducted a large randomized controlled trial involving in excess of 200 patients, with cervical cancer. Patients were randomized to receive their radiotherapy in the morning or in the evening, and those who received their radiotherapy in the morning, had significantly increased diarrhea (p < 0.01). Importantly, there was no difference in response to treatment (p > 0.05) [23]. This is in accordance with the animal studies of Ijiri and Potten [32,33]. These studies clearly demonstrated that mice irradiated at varying times of the day displayed different levels of apoptosis. However, as there is only one study in this field, the panel is unable to make a guideline around optimal delivery of radiotherapy. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are now warranted.

Hyperbaric oxygen

This updated critical literature review has also found enough evidence to warrant a suggestion for the treatment of chronic radiation-induced proctitis. Hyperbaric oxygen has been reported to cause neovascularization, reversing the effects of radiotherapy [34]. This review examined in detail 15 studies, and all of them were positive. However, studies reviewed suggested that patients may need up to 50 “dives” to achieve effective treatment. With each “dive” costing many thousands of dollars, it is highly likely that costs will be prohibitive in many cases. Furthermore, as many of the studies reviewed were case studies, with different patient populations, radiation schedules, duration of GI mucositis symptoms, and number of “dives”, drawing any more firm conclusions is difficult.

Misoprostol

The panel also identified one agent which they recommended against using in the prevention of GI toxicities. Misoprostol suppositories were found to be ineffective in two large double-blind randomized controlled trials [24,25], and in one instance were reported to actually increase the incidence of acute rectal bleeding [24].

Glutamine

Perhaps one of the most important findings from this critical literature review was the change of guideline for the use of systemic glutamine. Previously, literature suggested that this agent caused severe toxicity. However, new literature, albeit small studies, demonstrated that glutamine may be effective without severe toxicities. The panel now is unable to form a clinical guideline for the use of glutamine. It will be critically important to continue to watch for new publications of this agent to see if changes in recommendations are possible in the future.

Conclusion

As highlighted by these guidelines, it is important to continue to update the clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of GI mucositis. There were several new well-designed studies in the published arena since the last update, allowing panel members to make evidence-based informed guidelines which will hopefully improve clinical practice.

Notes

Disclosures

The Mucositis Guidelines Update was sponsored by Helsinn Healthcare S.A., Switzerland and BioAlliance Pharma, France. Per MASCC policy, no industry representatives had any role in the development of the guidelines.

References

  1. 1.
    Sonis ST et al (2004) Perspectives on cancer therapy-induced mucosal injury: pathogenesis, measurement, epidemiology, and consequences for patients. Cancer 100(9):1995–2025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krishna SG et al (2011) Incidence and risk factors for lower alimentary tract mucositis after 1529 courses of chemotherapy in a homogenous population of oncology patients: clinical and research implications. Cancer 117(3):648–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elting LS et al (2003) The burdens of cancer therapy. Clinical and economic outcomes of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Cancer 98(7):1531–1539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elting LS et al (2007) Risk, outcomes, and costs of radiation-induced oral mucositis among patients with head-and-neck malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68(4):1110–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson RJ, Keefe DM (2006) Cancer chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea and constipation: mechanisms of damage and prevention strategies. Support Care Cancer 14(9):890–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sonis ST (1998) Mucositis as a biological process: a new hypothesis for the development of chemotherapy-induced stomatotoxicity. Oral Oncol 34(1):39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubenstein EB et al (2004) Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis. Cancer 100(9):2026–2046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sonis ST (2004) Perspectives on cancer therapy-induced mucosal injury: pathogenesis, measurement, epidemiology, and consequences for patients. Cancer 100(9):1995–2025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keefe DM (2007) Updated clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of mucositis. Cancer 109(5):820–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keefe DM (2004) Gastrointestinal mucositis: a new biological model. Support Care Cancer 12(1):6–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Somerfield M et al (2000) ASCO clinical practice guidelines: process, progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Class Pap Curr Comm 4(4):881–886Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadorn DC, Baker D, Hodges JS, Hicks N (1996) Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 49(7):749–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delia P et al (2002) Prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea with the use of VSL#3, a new high-potency probiotic preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 97(8):2150–2512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osterlund P et al (2007) Lactobacillus supplementation for diarrhoea related to chemotherapy of colorectal cancer: a randomised study. Br J Cancer 97(8):1028–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urbancsek H et al (2001) Results of a double-blind, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Antibiophilus in patients with radiation-induced diarrhoea. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(4):391–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koukourakis MI et al (2007) Hypofractionated accelerated radiochemotherapy with cytoprotection (Chemo-HypoARC) for inoperable non-small cell lung carcinoma. Anticancer Res 27(5B):3625–3631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han HS et al (2008) Randomized phase 2 study of subcutaneous amifostine versus epoetin-alpha given 3 times weekly during concurrent chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiotherapy for limited-disease small cell lung cancer. Cancer 113(7):1623–1631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Movsas B et al (2005) Randomized trial of amifostine in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiation: radiation therapy oncology group trial 98-01. J Clin Oncol 23(10):2145–2154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Komaki R et al (2002) Randomized phase III study of chemoradiation with or without amifostine for patients with favorable performance status inoperable stage II–III non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary results. Sem Rad Onc 12(1 Suppl 1):46–49Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baughan CA et al (1993) A randomized trial to assess the efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acid for the prevention of radiation enteritis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 5(1):19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martenson JA Jr et al (1996) Olsalazine is contraindicated during pelvic radiation therapy: results of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35(2):299–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Resbeut M et al (1997) A randomized double blind placebo controlled multicenter study of mesalazine for the prevention of acute radiation enteritis. Radiother Oncol 44(1):59–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shukla P et al (2010) Circadian variation in radiation-induced intestinal mucositis in patients with cervical carcinoma. Cancer 116(8):2031–2035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hille A et al (2005) A phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of misoprostol rectal suppositories to prevent acute radiation proctitis in patients with prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63(5):1488–1493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kertesz T et al (2009) Effect of a prostaglandin—given rectally for prevention of radiation-induced acute proctitis—on late rectal toxicity. Results of a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Strah Onkol 185(9):596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blijlevens NM et al (2005) A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, pilot study of parenteral glutamine for allogeneic stem cell transplant patients. Support Care Cancer 13(10):790–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sornsuvit C et al (2008) Pilot Study: effects of parenteral glutamine dipeptide supplementation on neutrophil functions and prevention of chemotherapy-induced side-effects in acute myeloid leukaemia patients. J Int Med Res 36(6):1383–1391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li Y et al (2006) Oral glutamine ameliorates chemotherapy-induced changes of intestinal permeability and does not interfere with the antitumor effect of chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Tumori 92(5):396–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Delia P et al (2007) Use of probiotics for prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea. World J Gastroenterol 13(6):912–915PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giralt J et al (2008) Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001 in prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea: results from multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled nutritional trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71(4):1213–1219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Syndman DR (2008) The safety of probiotics. Clin Infect Dis 46(2):104–111. doi: 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ijiri K, Potten CS (1988) Circadian rhythms in the incidence of apoptotic cells and number of clonogenic cells in intestinal crypts after radiation using normal and reversed light conditions. Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med 53(5):717–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tomita M et al (1990) Effect of ethanol on fatal carbon monoxide poisoning in awake mice [correction of rats]. Toxicol Lett 50(2–3):151–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richter J et al (1996) Reversibility of lower reproductive tract abnormalities in women with Schistosoma haematobium infection after treatment with praziquantel—an interim report. Acta Trop 62(4):289–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Michael M et al (2004) Phase II study of activated charcoal to prevent irinotecan-induced diarrhea. J Clin Oncol 22(21):4410–4417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sergio GC, Felix GM, Luis JV (2008) Activated charcoal to prevent irinotecan-induced diarrhea in children. Ped Blood Cancer 51(1):49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gridelli C et al (2000) Thoracic radiotherapy and daily vinorelbine as radiosensitizer in locally advanced non small cell lung cancer: a phase I study. Lung Cancer 29(2):131–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garces YI et al (2007) Phase I North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial-N9923 of escalating doses of twice-daily thoracic radiation therapy with amifostine and with alternating chemotherapy in limited stage small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67(4):995–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Koukourakis MI et al (2002) Concurrent administration of Docetaxel and stealth liposomal doxorubicin with radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: excellent tolerance using subcutaneous amifostine for cytoprotection. Review 38 refs. Br J Cancer 87(4):385–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Antonadou D et al (2001) Randomized phase III trial of radiation treatment +/− amifostine in patients with advanced-stage lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(4):915–922, Erratum appears in Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002 Apr 1;52(5):1458. Erratum appears in Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002 Sep 1;54(1):308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marina N et al (2005) Amifostine does not protect against the ototoxicity of high-dose cisplatin combined with etoposide and bleomycin in pediatric germ-cell tumors: a children’s oncology group study. Cancer 104(4):841–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Delioukina ML et al (2002) Phase II trial of irinotecan in combination with amifostine in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 94(8):2174–2179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Garcia-Manero G et al (2002) A phase I study of idarubicin dose escalation with amisfostine and high-dose cytarabine in patients with relapsed acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Haematologica 87(8):804–807PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arquette M et al (2002) Phase II evaluation of amifostine as an esophageal mucosal protectant in the treatment of limited-stage small cell lung cancer with chemotherapy and twice-daily radiation. Sem Radiat Oncol 12(1 Suppl 1):59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leong SS et al (2003) Randomized double-blind trial of combined modality treatment with or without amifostine in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 21(9):1767–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Antonadou D et al (2003) Effect of amifostine on toxicities associated with radiochemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57(2):402–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Capelli D et al (2000) Amifostine can reduce mucosal damage after high-dose melphalan conditioning for peripheral blood progenitor cellautotransplant: a retrospective study. Br J Haematol 110(2):300–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dunst J et al (2001) Intermittent use of amifostine during postoperative radiochemotherapy and acute toxicity in rectal cancer patients. Strahlenther Onkol 176(9):416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Awasthy BS et al (2001) Effect of amifostine on toxicities associated with salvage combination chemotherapy. J Assoc Physic India 49:236–239Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Werner-Wasik M et al (2001) Preliminary report on reduction of esophagitis by amifostine in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Clin Lung Can 2(4):284–289, discussion 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tsavaris N et al (2003) Amifostine, in a reduced dose, protects against severe diarrhea associated with weekly fluorouracil and folinic acid chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a pilot study. J Pain Symptom Manage 26(3):849–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Singh AK et al (2006) Intrarectal amifostine suspension may protect against acute proctitis during radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(4):1008–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simone NL et al (2008) Intrarectal amifostine during external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer produces significant improvements in Quality of Life measured by EPIC score. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70(1):90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ben-Josef E et al (2002) A pilot study of topical intrarectal application of amifostine for prevention of late radiation rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53(5):1160–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Takeda Y et al (2005) A phase I/II trial of irinotecan-cisplatin combined with an anti-late-diarrhoeal programme to evaluate the safety and antitumour response of this combination therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 93(12):1341–1349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ando M et al (2004) Weekly administration of irinotecan (CPT-11) plus cisplatin for refractory or relapsed small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 44(1):121–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jahraus CD et al (2005) Prevention of acute radiation-induced proctosigmoiditis by balsalazide: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial in prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63(5):1483–1487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Karthaus M et al (2005) Prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized phase III study with orally administered budesonide for prevention of irinotecan (CPT-11)-induced diarrhea in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Oncology 68(4–6):326–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lenfers BH et al (1999) Substantial activity of budesonide in patients with irinotecan (CPT-11) and 5-fluorouracil induced diarrhea and failure of loperamide treatment. Ann Oncol 10(10):1251–1253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Furman WL et al (2006) Cefixime allows greater dose escalation of oral irinotecan: a phase I study in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 24(4):563–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wirth LJ et al (2005) Phase I study of gefitinib plus celecoxib in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 23(28):6976–6981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Villalona-Calero M et al (2007) Thalidomide and celecoxib as potential modulators of irinotecan’s activity in cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 59(1):23–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dy GK et al (2005) A phase I trial of celecoxib in combination with docetaxel and irinotecan in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 56(6):623–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Argiris A et al (2006) Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of docetaxel, irinotecan, and celecoxib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Invest New Drugs 24(3):203–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Javle MM et al (2007) Celecoxib and mucosal protection: translation from an animal model to a phase I clinical trial of celecoxib, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil. Clin Cancer Res 13(3):965–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Flieger D et al (2007) Phase II clinical trial for prevention of delayed diarrhea with cholestyramine/levofloxacin in the second-line treatment with irinotecan biweekly in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Oncology 72(1–2):10–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Heusinkveld RS, Manning MR, Aristizabal SA (1978) Control of radiation-induced diarrhea with cholestyramine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 4(7–8):687–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chary S, Thomson DH (1984) A clinical trial evaluating cholestyramine to prevent diarrhea in patients maintained on low-fat diets during pelvic radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 10(10):1885–1890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tobin PJ et al (2006) A pilot study on the safety of combining chrysin, a non-absorbable inducer of UGT1A1, and irinotecan (CPT-11) to treat metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 57(3):309–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hrushesky WJ et al (1990) Circadian-shaped infusions of floxuridine for progressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 8(9):1504–1513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Adler S et al (1994) Chronotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in advanced colorectal carcinoma. Results of a chronopharmacologic phase I trial. Cancer 73(12):2905–2912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Depres-Brummer P et al (1995) Circadian rhythm-modulated (CRM) chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer with mitoxantrone, 5-fluorouracil, and folinic acid: preliminary results of a phase I trial. J Infusl Chemother 5(3 Suppl 1):144–147Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Price TJ et al (2004) Phase III study of mitomycin-C with protracted venous infusion or circadian-timed infusion of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal carcinoma. Clinical Colo Cancer 3(4):235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rajagopalan K, et al (1998–1999) Phase II trial of circadian infusion floxuridine (FUDR) in hormone refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Invest New Drugs. 16(3):255–258Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bertheault-Cvitkovic F et al (1993) Circadian rhythm-modulated chemotherapy with high-dose 5-fluorouracil: a pilot study in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer 29A(13):1851–1854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Conroy T et al (1993) Simplified chronomodulated continuous infusion of floxuridine in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 72(7):2190–2197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Coudert B et al (2008) A randomized multicenter study of optimal circadian time of vinorelbine combined with chronomodulated 5-fluorouracil in pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients: EORTC trial 05971. Chronobiol Int 25(5):680–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tsujinaka S et al (2005) Formalin instillation for hemorrhagic radiation proctitis. Surg Innov 12(2):123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Algara M et al (2007) Prevention of radiochemotherapy-induced esophagitis with glutamine: results of a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(2):342–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jazieh AR et al (2007) Phase I clinical trial of concurrent paclitaxel, carboplatin, and external beam chest irradiation with glutamine in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Invest 25(5):294–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Muscaritoli M et al (1997) Oral glutamine in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity. Eur J Cancer 33(2):319–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jebb SA, Marcus R, Elia M (1995) A pilot study of oral glutamine supplementation in patients receiving bone marrow transplants. Clin Nutr 14(3):162–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Daniele B et al (2001) Oral glutamine in the prevention of fluorouracil induced intestinal toxicity: a double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial. Gut 48(1):28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Canovas G et al (2000) Oral glutamine supplements in autologous hematopoietic transplant: impact on gastrointestinal toxicity and plasma protein levels. Haematologica 85(11):1229–1230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bozzetti F et al (1997) Glutamine supplementation in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a double-blind randomized study. Nutrition 13(7–8):748–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Coghlin Dickson TM et al (2000) Effect of oral glutamine supplementation during bone marrow transplantation. Jpen: J Parenter Enter Nutr 24(2):61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pytlik R et al (2002) Standardized parenteral alanyl-glutamine dipeptide supplementation is not beneficial in autologous transplant patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Bone Marrow Transplant 30(12):953–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kernstine KH et al (2005) Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of hemorrhagic radiation-induced gastritis after esophagectomy. Ann Thor Surg 80(3):1115–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Jones K et al (2006) Treatment of radiation proctitis with hyperbaric oxygen. Radiother Oncol 78(1):91–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fink D et al (2006) Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for delayed radiation injuries in gynecological cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(2):638–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Huddy JE et al (2006) Hyperbaric oxygen as a treatment for malabsorption in a radiation-damaged short bowel. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 18(6):685–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Dall’Era MA et al (2006) Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for radiation induced proctopathy in men treated for prostate cancer. J Urol 176(1):87–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Girnius S et al (2006) Treatment of refractory radiation-induced hemorrhagic proctitis with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Am J Clin Oncol 29(6):588–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Safra T et al (2008) Improved quality of life with hyperbaric oxygen therapy in patients with persistent pelvic radiation-induced toxicity. Clinical Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 20(4):284–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sidik S et al (2007) Does hyperbaric oxygen administration decrease side effect and improve quality of life after pelvic radiation? Acta Med Indones 39(4):169–173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Woo TC, Joseph D, Oxer H (1997) Hyperbaric oxygen treatment for radiation proctitis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38(3):619–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mayer R et al (2001) Hyperbaric oxygen—an effective tool to treat radiation morbidity in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 61(2):151–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Bui QC et al (2004) The efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of radiation-induced late side effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60(3):871–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Bem J, Bem S, Singh A (2000) Use of hyperbaric oxygen chamber in the management of radiation-related complications of the anorectal region: report of two cases and review of the literature. Review 17 refs. Dis Col Rect 43(10):1435–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Charneau J et al (1991) Severe hemorrhagic radiation proctitis advancing to gradual cessation with hyperbaric oxygen. Dig Dis Sci 36(3):373–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kitta T et al (2000) The treatment of chronic radiation proctitis with hyperbaric oxygen in patients with prostate cancer. BJU Inter 85(3):372–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bates TD (1969) The treatment of stage 3 carcinoma of the cervix by external radiotherapy and high-pressure oxygen. Br J Radiol 42(496):266–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Jensen DM et al (1997) A randomized prospective study of endoscopic bipolar electrocoagulation and heater probe treatment of chronic rectal bleeding from radiation telangiectasia. Gastrointest Endo 45(1):20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Flombaum CD, Meyers PA (1999) High-dose leucovorin as sole therapy for methotrexate toxicity. J Clin Oncol 17(5):1589–1594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Cavcic J et al (2000) Metronidazole in the treatment of chronic radiation proctitis: clinical trial. Croat Med J 41(3):314–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Khan AM et al (2000) A prospective randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded pilot study of misoprostol rectal suppositories in the prevention of acute and chronic radiation proctitis symptoms in prostate cancer patients. Am J Gastroenterol 95(8):1961–1966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    de Jong FA et al (2006) Prophylaxis of irinotecan-induced diarrhea with neomycin and potential role for UGT1A1*28 genotype screening: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Oncologist 11(8):944–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Schmittel A et al (2004) Neomycin as secondary prophylaxis for irinotecan-induced diarrhea. Ann Oncol 15(8):1296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Alimonti A et al (2003) Prevention of irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin-induced diarrhoea by oral administration of neomycin plus bacitracin in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 14(5):805–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kehrer DF et al (2001) Modulation of irinotecan-induced diarrhea by cotreatment with neomycin in cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 7(5):1136–1141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Topkan E, Karaoglu A (2006) Octreotide in the management of chemoradiotherapy-induced diarrhea refractory to loperamide in patients with rectal carcinoma. Oncology 71(5–6):354–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Barbounis V et al (2001) Control of irinotecan-induced diarrhea by octreotide after loperamide failure. Support Care Cancer 9(4):258–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Gebbia V et al (1993) Subcutaneous octreotide versus oral loperamide in the treatment of diarrhea following chemotherapy. Anti-Can Drugs 4(4):443–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Cascinu S et al (1992) Control of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea with octreotide in patients receiving 5-fluorouracil. Eur J Cancer 28(2–3):482–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Zidan J et al (2001) Octreotide in the treatment of severe chemotherapy-induced diarrhea. Ann Oncol 12(2):227–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Cascinu S et al (1993) Octreotide versus loperamide in the treatment of fluorouracil-induced diarrhea: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 11(1):148–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Geller RB et al (1995) Randomized trial of loperamide versus dose escalation of octreotide acetate for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea in bone marrow transplant and leukemia patients. Am J Hematol 50(3):167–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Rosenoff S (2004) Resolution of refractory chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (CID) with octreotide long-acting formulation in cancer patients: 11 case studies. Support Care Cancer 12(8):561–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Pro B, Lozano R, Ajani JA (2001) Therapeutic response to octreotide in patients with refractory CPT-11 induced diarrhea. Invest New Drugs 19(4):341–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Rosen LS et al (2006) Palifermin reduces the incidence of oral mucositis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 24(33):5194–5200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Johansson JE et al (2009) Gut protection by palifermin during autologous haematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 43(10):807–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Andersen C et al (2006) The effect of a multidimensional exercise programme on symptoms and side-effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy—the use of semi-structured diaries. Eur J Oncol Nurs 10(4):247–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Jarden M et al (2009) A randomized trial on the effect of a multimodal intervention on physical capacity, functional performance and quality of life in adult patients undergoing allogeneic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 43(9):725–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Dimeo F et al (1997) Effects of aerobic exercise on the physical performance and incidence of treatment-related complications after high-dose chemotherapy. Blood 90(9):3390–3394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    DeNysschen CA et al (2011) Nutritional symptom and body composition outcomes of aerobic exercise in women with breast cancer. Clin Nurs Res 20(1):29–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Abd El-Atti S et al (2009) Use of probiotics in the management of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea: a case study. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 33(5):569–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Chitapanarux I et al (2010) Randomized controlled trial of live Lactobacillus acidophilus plus Bifidobacterium bifidum in prophylaxis of diarrhea during radiotherapy in cervical cancer patients. Radiat Oncol 5:31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Benchimol EI, Mack DR (2004) Probiotics in relapsing and chronic diarrhea. J Ped Hematol Oncol 26(8):515–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Delia P et al (2002) Prophylaxis of diarrhoea in patients submitted to radiotherapeutic treatment on pelvic district: personal experience. Dig Liver Dis 34(Suppl 2):S84–S86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Hille A et al (2008) Sodium butyrate enemas in the treatment of acute radiation-induced proctitis in patients with prostate cancer and the impact on late proctitis. A prospective evaluation. Strahlenther und Onkol 184(12):686–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Vernia P et al (2000) Topical butyrate for acute radiation proctitis: randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 356(9237):1232–1235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Martenson JA et al (2000) Sucralfate in the prevention of treatment-induced diarrhea in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy: a north central cancer treatment group phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 18(6):1239–1245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Henriksson R, Franzen L, Littbrand B (1991) Prevention of irradiation-induced bowel discomfort by sucralfate: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study when treating localized pelvic cancer. Am J Med 91(2A):151S–157SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Duffour J et al (2002) Efficacy of prophylactic anti-diarrhoeal treatment in patients receiving Campto for advanced colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 22(6B):3727–3731, Erratum appears in Anticancer Res. 2003 Mar–Apr;23(2B): following 1648. Erratum appears in Anticancer Res. 2003;23:5369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Franzen L et al (1988) Managing side-effects in radiotherapy with regard to the gastrointestinal tract. Rec Res Cancer Res 108:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Castagna L et al (2001) Prevention of mucositis in bone marrow transplantation: a double blind randomised controlled trial of sucralfate. Ann Oncol 12(7):953–9551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kneebone A et al (2001) The effect of oral sucralfate on the acute proctitis associated with prostate radiotherapy: a double-blind, randomized trial. Intl J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(3):628–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Stellamans K et al (2002) Does sucralfate reduce early side effects of pelvic radiation? A double-blind randomized trial. Radiother Oncol 65(2):105–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kochhar R et al (1991) Radiation-induced proctosigmoiditis. Prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial of oral sulfasalazine plus rectal steroids versus rectal sucralfate. Dig Dis Sci 36(1):103–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    O’Brien PC et al (1997) A phase III double-blind randomised study of rectal sucralfate suspension in the prevention of acute radiation proctitis. Radiother Oncol 45(2):117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Kochhar R et al (1999) Natural history of late radiation proctosigmoiditis treated with topical sucralfate suspension. Dig Dis Sci 44(5):973–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Melko GP et al (1999) Treatment of radiation-induced proctitis with sucralfate enemas. Ann Pharmacother 33(12):1274–1276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    O’Brien PC et al (2002) Acute symptoms, not rectally administered sucralfate, predict for late radiation proctitis: longer term follow-up of a phase III trial—Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54(2):442–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Gul YA et al (2002) Pharmacotherapy for chronic hemorrhagic radiation proctitis. World J Surg 26(12):1499–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Sanguineti G et al (2003) Sucralfate versus mesalazine versus hydrocortisone in the prevention of acute radiation proctitis during conformal radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma. A randomized study. Strahlenther Onkol 179(7):464–4704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Chun M et al (2004) Rectal bleeding and its management after irradiation for uterine cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(1):98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Kilic D et al (2000) Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of sulphasalazine in preventing acute gastrointestinal complications due to radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 57(2):125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Kilic D et al (2001) Sulfasalazine decreases acute gastrointestinal complications due to pelvic radiotherapy. Ann Pharmacother 35(7–8):806–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel J. Gibson
    • 1
  • Dorothy M. K. Keefe
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rajesh V. Lalla
    • 4
  • Emma Bateman
    • 2
  • Nicole Blijlevens
    • 5
  • Margot Fijlstra
    • 6
  • Emily E. King
    • 4
  • Andrea M. Stringer
    • 7
  • Walter J. F. M. van der Velden
    • 5
  • Roger Yazbeck
    • 7
  • Sharon Elad
    • 8
  • Joanne M. Bowen
    • 1
  • For The Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO)
  1. 1.School of Medical SciencesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.School of MedicineUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Royal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Section of Oral MedicineUniversity of Connecticut Health CentreFarmingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of HematologyRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Pediatric OncologyBeatrix Children’s Hospital/Groningen University Medical CentreGroningenThe Netherlands
  7. 7.School of Pharmacy and Medical SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  8. 8.Division of Oral Medicine Eastman Institute for Oral HealthUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations