71 research outputs found
Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO: an international Delphi study
No full textBackground: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022–July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022–May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023–May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received
Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO: an international Delphi study.
No full textBACKGROUND: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. METHODS: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022-July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022-May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023-May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. FINDINGS: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). INTERPRETATION: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. FUNDING: No funding was received
Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment
No full textBackground Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers). Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. Search strategy Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. Data collection and analysis Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. Main results A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste. Authors' conclusions Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 12. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.</p
Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO:an international Delphi study
No full textBackground: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022–July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022–May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023–May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received.</p
Methodology for the MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Clinical Practice Guidelines Update
No full textFor the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO)Members of the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) recently completed the process of updating the MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of mucositis. These guidelines, originally published in 2004, and last updated in 2007, provide clinicians with objective, evidence-based recommendations for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. This brief paper describes the methodology used to conduct the most recent systematic review in 2011, and develop new guidelines, providing the basis for the update. The overriding aims of the process were to assess evidence of effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of mucositis and to produce clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis using best available evidence.J.M. Bowen, S. Elad, R.D. Hutchins and R.V. Lall
Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO:an international Delphi study
No full textBackground: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022–July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022–May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023–May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received.</p
Development of the MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Mucositis: considerations underlying the process
No full textOn behalf of the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO)The Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) recently conducted a systematic review to update the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for oral and gastrointestinal mucositis. Here, we discuss the details of some considerations underlying the process used.Sharon Elad & Joanne Bowen & Yehuda Zadik & Rajesh V. Lall
Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO: an international Delphi studyResearch in context
No full textSummary: Background: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022–July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022–May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023–May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received
Development of the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for mucositis: an overview of the methods
No full textNew studies and literature continue to emerge on the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. The evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for mucositis were first published in 2004 and updated in 2007 and 2014 by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The existing 2014 guidelines for mucositis are being updated in line with new literature to inform clinical practice. This paper describes the materials and methods employed for the comprehensive updates to the guidelines for managing mucositis
Prediction of mucositis risk secondary to cancer therapy: a systematic review of current evidence and call to action
No full textPURPOSE: Despite advances in personalizing the efficacy of cancer therapy, our ability to identify patients at risk of severe treatment side effects and provide individualized supportive care is limited. This is particularly the case for mucositis (oral and gastrointestinal), with no comprehensive risk evaluation strategies to identify high-risk patients. We, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Mucositis Study Group, therefore aimed to systematically review current evidence on that factors that influence mucositis risk to provide a foundation upon which future risk prediction studies can be based. METHODS: We identified 11,018 papers from PubMed and Web of Science, with 197 records extracted for full review and 113 meeting final eligibility criteria. Data were then synthesized into tables to highlight the level of evidence for each risk predictor. RESULTS: The strongest level of evidence supported dosimetric parameters as key predictors of mucositis risk. Genetic variants in drug-metabolizing pathways, immune signaling, and cell injury/repair mechanisms were also identified to impact mucositis risk. Factors relating to the individual were variably linked to mucositis outcomes, although female sex and smoking status showed some association with mucositis risk. CONCLUSION: Mucositis risk reflects the complex interplay between the host, tumor microenvironment, and treatment specifications, yet the large majority of studies rely on hypothesis-driven, single-candidate approaches. For significant advances in the provision of personalized supportive care, coordinated research efforts with robust multiplexed approaches are strongly advised.H. R. Wardill, S. T. Sonis, N. M. A. Blijlevens, Y. Z. A. Van Sebille, M. A. Ciorba, E. A. H. Loeffen, K. K. F. Cheng, P. Bossi, L. Porcello, D. A. Castillo, S. Elad, J. M. Bowen, On behalf of The Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO
- …
