Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to investigate the efficacy of lower dose pilocarpine in alleviating late dry mouth symptoms in head and neck cancer patients received radiotherapy.
Methods
Eighteen head and neck cancer patients experiencing persistent dry mouth were enrolled in this study. All participants started pilocarpine treatment a median of 6 months post-radiotherapy. Initially, patients received pilocarpine at 5 mg/day, with a gradual increase to the recommended dose of 15 mg/day. A Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement (PROMs) questionnaire assessed symptoms’ severity related to hyposalivation.
Results
All patients reported symptomatic dry mouth above grade 2 before starting the medication. Pilocarpine treatment continued based on patients’ self-assessment, with a median duration of 12 months (range, 3–36 months). The median daily maintenance dose was 10 mg (range, 5 to 20 mg). Total PROMs scores significantly decreased following medication, from 13 points (range 7–18 points) to 7 points (range 4–13 points) (p = 0.001). Significant improvements were observed in questions related to dry mouth (p < 0.001), water intake during eating (p = 0.01), carrying water (p = 0.01), taste (p < 0.001), and water intake during speech (p < 0.001). Initial and maintenance doses of pilocarpine were lower, and the duration of pilocarpine usage was shorter in patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy compared to conformal radiotherapy (12 months vs. 25 months, p = 0.04).
Conclusion
Pilocarpine may be considered at doses lower for late-term dry mouth. With modern radiotherapy techniques effectively preserving the parotid gland, short-term use may be recommended in these patients. Future studies may enhance the development of a more robust patient selection criteria model.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Head and neck cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide and radiotherapy (RT) plays an important role in treatment as a part of multidisciplinary modalities [1]. The main aim of RT is to deliver the maximum dose to the tumor with minimal toxicity on neighboring healthy tissues [2]. Despite that, radiation-induced dry mouth is one of the common side effects in head and neck cancer patients both for early and late periods [3,4,5]. Salivation quantity and quality frequently get worse, and this effect can lead to progressed dental problems, recurrent oral infectious, compromised mucosal integrity, impaired speech, chewing, swallowing, sense of taste and difficulty in maintenance of nutrition. Patients often complain of chronic oral pain and mouth burning [5, 6]. All these symptoms and complaints decrease the quality of life in head and neck cancer patients [6].
Modern radiotherapy as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) tries to reduce the side effects [7, 8]. However, radiation-induced toxicity is still challenging to patients’ quality of life [9]. Comparing to conventional radiotherapy, IMRT technique helps to decrease early and late side effects [10]. Especially, dry mouth incidence and patients’ compliance significantly decrease with IMRT technique by parotid gland sparing irradiation [11].
Meanwhile, radioprotectants are also used for xerostomia both for prevention and treatment [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Phase III trials showed that amifostine showed a significant radioprotection effect for salivary gland in head and cancer patients [14, 15]. However, there are some critics for this protectant in clinical usage in terms of toxicity and economic analysis [13, 15, 17, 18]. There are different options to reduce radiotherapy-induced dry mouth and symptomatic relief in post-radiotherapy patients such as sialagogue medications, saliva substitutes, acupuncture, hyperbaric oxygen, and salivary gland transfer [3, 4, 19, 20]. Pilocarpine is a cholinergic parasympathomimetic agent known before three-dimensional radiotherapy. The drug increases salivary secretion by stimulating cholinergic muscarinic receptors on the surfaces of exocrine glands. Oral pilocarpine therapy during and after radiotherapy is approved in many countries for the treatment of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia in the head and neck region [21,22,23,24]. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that pilocarpine was used for the systematic treatment of xerostomia after radiotherapy with best results lasting 8–12 weeks [23]. However, pilocarpine has serious side effects such as nausea, headache, frequency, vasodilatation, dizziness, dyspepsia, and sweating. The severity and incidence of these side effects is dependent on the recommended dose of pilocarpine medication (15 mg/day) [20, 21]. In some studies, successful results have been obtained in reducing dry mouth with cevimeline like pilocarpine [25].
This study aimed to investigate the symptomatic relief of dry mouth treated by lower dose pilocarpine in long-term usage after conformal or intensity-modulated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients.
Materials and methods
This study was done with ethical committee permission of our faculty (Number: 09.2011.0147). There were 18 head and neck cancer patients (nasopharynx, n = 8; oral cavity, n = 7; tonsil, n = 3) agreed to participate in the study voluntarily. Patients received three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) (n = 11) or intensity-modulated (n = 7) radiotherapy (IMRT). The mean planning target volume dose of primary tumor were 60 Gy (range 36 to 68 Gy) for 3DCRT and 62 Gy (range, 36 to 70 Gy) (p > 0.05). Both side of submandibular and other minor salivary glands were involved in the radiotherapy planning target volumes due to lymphatic irradiation. Meanwhile, the salivary glands (parotid and submandibular) were countered to calculate the radiotherapy doses in treatment planning system. The first dose of pilocarpine was started as single dose of 5 mg/day and was increased to recommended dose (15 mg/day) within couple of days. First dose of pilocarpine was especially recommended to take before sleeping. Depending on the patients’ symptomatic relief and requirement, the maximum pilocarpine dose was increased to 20 mg/day. If any toxicity more than grade 2 occurred, the pilocarpine dose was decreased or quitted by physician. Otherwise, dose increments or discontinuation of the treatment were carried out based on the patients’ decisions. Toxicity assessment was done according to CTC v3.0 [26]. Table 1 shows the semi-quantitative patient-reported outcome measurement (PROMs) questionnaire for dry mouth evaluation that was also used as in our previous study [27]. The minimum score was 0 and the maximum score was 18. Higher scores revealed the severity of dry mouth. Patients completed this form at the beginning and during maintenance therapy or at the end of pilocarpine usage. At the time of starting the medication, quality of life (QoL) questionnaires of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-C30 and EORTC-HN35 Turkish were performed for each volunteer [28,29,30]. Data of before and after medications were compared based on the individual volunteers. Group means were used for statistical analysis and t-test was used for the difference between the beginning and the end of therapy. Differences according to treatment planning techniques was also evaluated with t-test. Significance level was set to p < 0.05.
Results
The median time between radiotherapy completion and initiation of pilocarpine was 6 months (range 3 to 24 months). All patients had symptomatic dry mouth more than grade 2 at the beginning of pilocarpine medication. The treatment continued due to patients’ self-requirement with the median duration of 12 months (range, 3 to 36 months). Pilocarpine-related grade 2 and more toxicities were observed in 12 (66%) patients. Three (16.6%) patients discontinued the drug due to side effects of asthenia, tremor, relaxation, polyuria, headache, and flushing in 3 to 6 months. Dose reduction was made in eight (44.4%) patients, whereas three patients requested to receive pilocarpine to increase the dose 20 mg/day. The median maintenance daily dose was 10 mg (range, 5 to 20 mg). There were only 22.2% patients who received the recommended dose of 15 mg/day in maintenance.
In the QoL questionnaire, at the beginning, the results showed that mean dry mouth score was 49.9 points, sticky saliva was 51.8 points, difficulty in swallowing was 23.5 points, and lack of taste was 18.5 points. The median total PROMs scores were declined significantly following the medication from 13 points (range 7–18 points) to 7 points (range 4–13 points) (p = 0.001). For questions of having dry mouth (p < 0.001), requirement of drinking water during eating (p = 0.01), carrying water (p = 0.01), taste (p < 0.001) and drinking water during speech (p < 0.001) were significantly better following medication. Xerostomia intensity was also significantly declined after medication (grade 2, range grade 2 to 3 vs. grade, range 1 to 2) (p < 0.001). Individualized details and results of 18 patients are summarized in Table 2.
Analysis due to radiotherapy techniques are summarized in Table 3. Radiotherapy doses for target volumes (primary tumor and lymphatics) were not different in 3DCRT and IMRT groups. Both parotid glands received significantly lower doses (median 28.5 Gy, p = 0.023 and 28.3 Gy, p = 0.023). However, submandibular glands received almost the same doses of radiotherapy targets (median 52.3 Gy and 50.2 Gy) regardless of treatment techniques. Initial and maintenance doses of pilocarpine medication were lower in IMRT patients. Moreover, the duration of pilocarpine usage was less in IMRT group (12 months vs. 25 months, p = 0.04).
Discussion
Radiotherapy-induced dry mouth is frequently observed as early and late side effects of radiotherapy. Advances in modern technology allow for the reduction of doses received by the parotid gland; however, submandibular and other minor glands are generally involved in the treatment target volumes [2, 7, 8, 10]. Amifostine is the only proven radioprotectant, and its higher cost and side effects have limited the widespread adoption [14,15,16,17,18]. Thus, non-technological solutions such as radioprotectants and symptomatic medications like pilocarpine may continue to be considered in the IMRT era. On the other hand, the medications have been particularly applied in follow-up period rather than concurrent usage to achieve symptomatic improvement [31]. However, concerns persist, particularly with pilocarpine, where frequent and severe side effects at recommended doses may necessitate patient discontinuation. Consequently, alternative practical forms such as spray, topical, or lozenge formulations have been developed [32,33,34].
In our study, as pilocarpine is only available in oral form in our country, we prospectively observed patients receiving systemic pilocarpine through self-reported symptom monitoring. Pilocarpine was prescribed in low doses (5 mg/day) and titrated based on patient necessity and toxicity. Despite experiencing dry mouth and sticky saliva in grade 2 or more as late toxicity, the advantage of a lower medication dose was evident, with only 16.6% of patients discontinuing due to toxicity-related discomfort. Thus, consideration of its use in patients who can tolerate lower doses may be practical.
Dosage has been discussed in various studies. In a phase III study, 15 mg/day was found tolerable [31]. Another study by Rieke et al. [35] demonstrated the safety of pilocarpine, even in doses up to 15 mg three times a day. Considering our previous clinical experience and the challenges faced by patients in adhering to high doses, we opted to initiate treatment with lower doses to balance patient needs and side effects. Notably, those discontinuing pilocarpine mostly used the drug in low doses.
Moreover, in patients undergoing IMRT, complete saliva protection may not be achievable due to submandibular gland doses. Thus, we recommend pilocarpine for patients where minor salivary glands are encompassed in high-dose volumes, advocating for medical symptomatic treatment despite the IMRT technique. Johnson et al. [21] reported the improvement in symptoms with post-RT 5 mg/day pilocarpine in their study that the patients were irradiated with 3DCRT technique. For IMRT patients, lower daily dose of pilocarpine may be considered if the high-risk doses will be ordered to nasopharynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx.
General quality of life questionnaires is not asked in depth about specific symptoms in the head and neck. For this reason, a disease-specific questionnaire specific to dry mouth is recommended as PROMs for evaluation of symptoms [36]. In this study, we prefer to use the questionnaire that we used before [27]. Meanwhile, in a systemic review that argues the PROMs quality, validity, and adequacy, none of the PROMs was found to adequately meet salivary gland dysfunction in terms of symptom severity or quality of life [37]. This is one of the weak points of our study.
It may be difficult to explore deeply into specific symptoms in the head and neck region with general quality of life questionnaires. Therefore, it is advisable to utilize a disease-specific questionnaire focused on dry mouth as Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for a thorough evaluation of symptoms [36]. In our study, we chose to employ the same questionnaire utilized in our previous research [27].
A systematic review assessing the quality, validity, and adequacy of various PROMs for salivary gland dysfunction found that none sufficiently addressed symptom severity or quality of life [37]. This represents a limitation in our study, as the selected questionnaire may not comprehensively capture the impact of dry mouth on patients. We acknowledge this as a weakness in our methodology and recommend that future research explores and develops more precise and comprehensive PROMs specifically tailored to assess salivary gland dysfunction.
While not statistically significant, the literature has reported taste improvement in patients following pilocarpine [38]. In our study, we observed improved taste quality during and after the medication in some of our patients. In addition, we noted enhanced sleep quality with patients reporting nighttime comfort without waking up for water or carrying a water bottle during the day, consistent with findings in the previous studies [39]. In addition, considering that head and neck cancer patients are generally older adults with prevalent smoking-related comorbidities, lower dose administration may aid in managing pilocarpine’s side effects.
Conclusion
In systemic reviews and evidence-based guidelines, pilocarpine usage for radiotherapy-induced dry mouth in head and neck cancer patients has been identified. However, the sources contributing to these data exhibit a high risk of bias and limited quality. Consequently, the recommendation of pilocarpine remains controversial in terms of the benefit-to-side effect ratio for radiotherapy patients experiencing xerostomia.
Our observations suggest that pilocarpine could be employed for an extended duration at doses lower than those recommended in prospectuses for late-term dry mouth in these patients. This approach proves particularly beneficial in cases where submandibular glands receive high radiation doses. With modern radiotherapy techniques effectively preserving the parotid gland, short-term use may be recommended in these patients.
Future studies should aim to enhance the development of a more robust patient selection criteria model. This would contribute to refining the understanding of pilocarpine’s efficacy and tolerability in specific subsets of head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660. (Epub 2021 Feb 4)
Kouloulias V, Thalassinou S, Platoni K, Zygogianni A, Kouvaris J, Antypas C, Efstathopoulos E, Nikolaos K (2013) The treatment outcome and radiation-induced toxicity for patients with head and neck carcinoma in the IMRT era: a systematic review with dosimetric and clinical parameters. Biomed Res Int 2013:401261. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/401261. (Epub 2013 Oct 22)
Mercadante V, Al Hamad A, Lodi G, Porter S, Fedele S (2017) Interventions for the management of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia and hyposalivation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol 66:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.12.031. (Epub 2017 Jan 19)
Ma SJ, Rivers CI, Serra LM, Singh AK (2019) Long-term outcomes of interventions for radiation-induced xerostomia: a review. World J Clin Oncol 10(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v10.i1.1
Jensen SB, Pedersen AM, Vissink A, Andersen E, Brown CG, Davies AN, Dutilh J, Fulton JS, Jankovic L, Lopes NN, Mello AL, Muniz LV, Murdoch-Kinch CA, Nair RG, Napeñas JJ, Nogueira-Rodrigues A, Saunders D, Stirling B, von Bültzingslöwen I, Weikel DS, Elting LS, Spijkervet FK, Brennan MT, Salivary Gland Hypofunction/Xerostomia Section, Oral Care Study Group, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO) (2010) A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: management strategies and economic impact. Support Care Cancer 18:1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0837-6
Fisher J, Scott C, Scarantino CW, Leveque FG, White RL, Rotman M, Hodson DI, Meredith RF, Foote R, Bachman DG, Lee N (2003) Phase III quality-of-life study results: impact on patients’ quality of life to reducing xerostomia after radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer–RTOG 97-09. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56(3):832–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00121-4
Toledano I, Graff P, Serre A, Boisselier P, Bensadoun RJ, Ortholan C, Pommier P, Racadot S, Calais G, Alfonsi M, Favrel V, Giraud P, Lapeyre M (2012) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: results of the prospective study GORTEC 2004-03. Radiother Oncol 103(1):57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.010. (Epub 2012 Jan 31)
Kawamoto T, Nihei K, Nakajima Y, Kito S, Sasai K, Karasawa K (2018) Comparison of xerostomia incidence after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and contralateral superficial lobe parotid-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer. Auris Nasus Larynx 45(5):1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2018.01.010. (Epub 2018 Feb 1)
Barazzuol L, Coppes RP, van Luijk P (2020) Prevention and treatment of radiotherapy-induced side effects. Mol Oncol 14(7):1538–1554. https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12750. (Epub 2020 Jun 24)
Tribius S, Bergelt C (2011) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional and 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer: is there a worthwhile quality of life gain? Cancer Treat Rev 37(7):511–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.01.004. (Epub 2011 Feb 15)
Sharma A, Bahl A (2020) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head-and-neck carcinomas: potential beyond sparing the parotid glands. J Cancer Res Ther 16(3):425–433. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_880_18
Riley P, Glenny AM, Hua F, Worthington HV (2017) Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD012744
Anné PR (2002) Phase II trial of subcutaneous amifostine in patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol 29(6 Suppl 19):80–83. https://doi.org/10.1053/sonc.2002.37350b. (Erratum in: Semin Oncol. 2003 Jun;30(3):417)
Brizel DM, Wasserman TH, Henke M, Strnad V, Rudat V, Monnier A, Eschwege F, Zhang J, Russell L, Oster W, Sauer R (2000) Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radioprotector in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 18(19):3339–3345. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.19.3339. (Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2000 Dec 15;18(24):4110–1)
Bennett CL, Lane D, Stinson T, Glatzel M, Buntzel J (2001) Economic analysis of amifostine as adjunctive support for patients with advanced head and neck cancer: preliminary results from a randomized phase II clinical trial from Germany. Cancer Invest 19(2):107–113. https://doi.org/10.1081/cnv-100000145
Vacha P, Fehlauer F, Mahlmann B, Marx M, Hinke A, Sommer K, Richter E, Feyerabend T (2003) Randomized phase III trial of postoperative radiochemotherapy +/− amifostine in head and neck cancer. Is there evidence for radioprotection? Strahlenther Onkol 179(6):385–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-003-1016-1
Buentzel J, Micke O, Adamietz IA, Monnier A, Glatzel M, de Vries A (2006) Intravenous amifostine during chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled phase III study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64(3):684–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.08.005. (Epub 2005 Oct 21)
Bardet E, Martin L, Calais G, Alfonsi M, Feham NE, Tuchais C, Boisselier P, Dessard-Diana B, Seng SH, Garaud P, Aupérin A, Bourhis J (2011) Subcutaneous compared with intravenous administration of amifostine in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy: final results of the GORTEC2000-02 phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 29(2):127–133. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5638. (Epub 2010 Nov 29)
Wong RK, Deshmukh S, Wyatt G, Sagar S, Singh AK, Sultanem K, Nguyen-Tân PF, Yom SS, Cardinale J, Yao M, Hodson I, Matthiesen CL, Suh J, Thakrar H, Pugh SL, Berk L (2015) Acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation versus pilocarpine in treating radiation-induced xerostomia: results of RTOG 0537 phase 3 study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92(2):220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.050. (Epub 2015 Apr 1)
Chen HHW, Kuo MT (2017) Improving radiotherapy in cancer treatment: promises and challenges. Oncotarget 8(37):62742–62758. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.18409
Johnson JT, Ferretti GA, Nethery WJ, Valdez IH, Fox PC, Ng D, Muscoplat CC, Gallagher SC (1993) Oral pilocarpine for post-irradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 329(6):390–395
Cheng CQ, Xu H, Liu L, Wang RN, Liu YT, Li J, Zhou XK (2016) Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine for radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 147(4):236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.09.014. (Epub 2015 Nov 10)
LeVeque FG, Montgomery M, Potter D, Zimmer MB, Rieke JW, Steiger BW, Gallagher SC, Muscoplat CC (1993) A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-titration study of oral pilocarpine for treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 11(6):1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.6.1124
Scarantino C, LeVeque F, Swann RS, White R, Schulsinger A, Hodson DI, Meredith R, Foote R, Brachman D, Lee N (2006) Effect of pilocarpine during radiation therapy: results of RTOG 97-09, a phase III randomized study in head and neck cancer patients. J Support Oncol 4:252–258
Chambers MS, Jones CU, Biel MA, Weber RS, Hodge KM, Chen Y, Holland JM, Ship JA, Vitti R, Armstrong I (2007) Open-label, long-term safety study of cevimeline in the treatment of post irradiation xerostomia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:1369–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.024
Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Rusch V, Jaques D, Budach V, Langer C, Murphy B, Cumberlin R, Coleman CN, Rubin P (2003) CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol 13(3):176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4296(03)00031-6
Atasoy BM (2002) Assessment of whether amifostine does minimize acute and late xerostomia on head and neck cancer patients received radiotherapy. Dissertation, Marmara University. Available at Council of Higher Education, Thesis Center, search by author name Beste Melek Atasoy. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
Fayers P, Bottomley A, EORTC Quality of Life Group, Quality of Life Unit (2002) Quality of life research within the EORTC-the EORTC QLQ-C30. European organisation for research and treatment of cancer. Eur J Cancer 38(Suppl 4):S125–S133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00448-8
Guzelant A, Goksel T, Ozkok S, Tasbakan S, Aysan T, Bottomley A (2004) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: an examination into the cultural validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer Care 13(2):135–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2003.00435.x
Cengiz M, Ozyar E, Esassolak M, Altun M, Akmansu M, Sen M, Uzel O, Yavuz A, Dalmaz G, Uzal C, Hiçsönmez A, Sarihan S, Kaplan B, Atasoy BM, Ulutin C, Abacioğlu U, Demiral AN, Hayran M (2005) Assessment of quality of life of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients with EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N-35 modules. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63(5):1347–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.057. (Epub 2005 Sep 19)
Nyárády Z, Németh A, Bán A, Mukics A, Nyárády J, Ember I, Olasz L (2006) A randomized study to assess the effectiveness of orally administered pilocarpine during and after radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. Anticancer Res 26(2B):1557–1562
Zur E (2020) Low-dose pilocarpine spray to treat xerostomia. Int J Pharm Compd 24(2):104–108
Pereira RMS, Bastos MDR, Ferreira MP, de Freitas O, de Macedo LD, de Oliveira HF, Ricz HMA, Motta ACF, Macedo AP, Tirapelli C, Pedrazzi V (2020) Topical pilocarpine for xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. Oral Dis 26(6):1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.13343. (Epub 2020 Apr 20)
Taweechaisupapong S, Pesee M, Aromdee C, Laopaiboon M, Khunkitti W (2006) Efficacy of pilocarpine lozenge for post-radiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. Aust Dent J 51(4):333–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00453.x
Rieke JW, Hafermann MD, Johnson JT, LeVeque FG, Iwamoto R, Steiger BW, Muscoplat C, Gallagher SC (1995) Oral pilocarpine for radiation-induced xerostomia: integrated efficacy and safety results from two prospective randomized clinical trials. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 31:661–669
Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M (2012) Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 21(8):1305–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x. (Epub 2011 Nov 3)
Gulati A, Kidane J, Chang JL (2023) Patient reported outcome measures for salivary function: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 133(8):1796–1805. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.30550. (Epub 2023 Jan 6)
Schuller DE, Stevens P, Clausen KP, Olsen J, Gahbauer R, Martin M (1989) Treatment of radiation side effects with oral pilocarpine. J Surg Oncol 42:272–276
Dijkema T, Raaijmakers CP, Braam PM, Roesink JM, Monninkhof EM, Terhaard CH (2012) Xerostomia: a day and night difference. Radiother Oncol 104(2):219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2012.06.004. (Epub 2012 Jul 17)
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors participated in designing the study (BMA), in generating the data for the study (BMA, DG), in gathering the data for the study (BMA, DG, EE, and ZB), in the analysis of the data (DG, BMA, EE, ZB, and KBK) and approved the final version of this paper (DG, BMA, EE, ZB, and KBK).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study was done with ethical committee permission of Marmara University School of Medicine Ethical Committee (Number: 09.2011.0147)
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gül, D., Atasoy, B.M., Ercan, E. et al. Does lower dose pilocarpine have a role in radiation-induced xerostomia in the modern radiotherapy era? A single-center experience based on patient-reported outcome measures. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281, 3727–3733 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08616-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08616-x