The Pain of Oral Mucositis

The Pain of Oral Mucositis

Annette Quinn, Susan D Bruce
US Oncological Disease 2007 - Issue I
Published: October 2008
download article

| More
dots

The Scope of the Problem
Over the past two decades, advances in the supportive care of oncology patients have permitted more aggressive treatment strategies that would otherwise not have been possible. However, the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis (OM) remains a dilemma. The American Cancer Society in 1999 estimated that approximately 400,000 patients annually will experience some type of oral complication as a result of their cancer treatment.1 The tissue trauma and associated pain of OM were identified as major clinical problems as far back as the 1970s, yet they remain a significant concern for the majority of patients undergoing cancer treatments.2 The National Cancer Institute estimated in 2005 that almost 100% of patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck cancers experience OM, as do 80% of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and 40% of patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy.3

Most patients who have experienced OM report that it is the most bothersome side effect of their cancer treatment. OM is a multifaceted problem that can lead to a number of clinical complications. It can manifest itself in various ways, but pain is the hallmark symptom and may be the first indication that OM is developing. The inability to eat and drink can lead to problems with maintaining nutrition and subsequent weight loss. It may be necessary for patients to have a feeding tube placed to ensure adequate nutrition. Pain can significantly impact a patient’s quality of life and trigger a cluster of symptoms including fatigue and depression. OM is a doselimiting side effect that may result in treatment delays, dose reductions, or the stopping of treatment altogether. It is essential to have strategies in place to manage the pain associated with OM.

Mucositis Survey
Recently, a survey enquiring about several aspects of OM was conducted at the 32nd Annual Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Congress, which was held April 24–27, 2007 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Respondents were asked to rank the significance of OM in their clinical setting and against other supportive care issues; indicate if they had specific guidelines for the management of OM; and list first- and second-line OM pain management interventions and rate their effectiveness. A five-point Lickert scale was used, with responses from ‘not important’ to ‘very important.’ Not surprisingly, 89% of the 558 respondents identified OM as a significant problem. Pain was the primary issue identified by 93% of the respondents as ‘most important’ to their patients, followed by pain on swallowing (87%) and difficulty speaking (73%). Nurses ranked OM very high (92%) relative to other supportive care issues faced by cancer patients. Nurses were overwhelmingly identified (81%) as the healthcare professionals responsible for the initial evaluation and management of OM in their practice setting. Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that they did not have specific institutional guidelines in place for the management of OM. The survey revealed myriad products used as first- and second-line agents in the management of OM pain (see Table 1). The multi-agent rinse ‘magic mouthwash’ (pharmacy compounded), oral pain medications, and sucralfate were the primary management strategies used in an attempt to alleviate the pain caused by OM. The effectiveness of these first-line agents in relieving the pain of OM was dismal, with 67% of the respondents rating them as only minimally effective. These survey results are not surprising. They reinforce the fact that OM remains a significant clinical problem that is currently being treated with ineffective agents. Many nurses still do not have specific clinical guidelines to assist them in the management of OM.

123456789next ›last »
References:
  1. American Cancer Society, Mouth sores painful for patients: new scoring system to aid in treating mouth sores, American Cancer Society, 1999. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from: http://www.cancer.org/doc-root/NWS/content/ NWS_1_1x_Mouth_Sores_Painful_for_Patients.asp
  2. Bruce S, Pain Management Issues and Strategies in Oral Mucositis, Oncology Supportive Care Quarterly, 2004;3(2):18–27.
  3. National Cancer Institute, Oral complications of chemotherapy and head/neck radiation (PDQ®), 2005. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from: http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/oralcompli cations/healthprofessional
  4. Sonis ST, Pathobiology of mucositis, Semin Oncol Nurs, 2004;20: 11–15.
  5. Sonis ST, Elting LS, Keefe D, et al., Perspectives on cancer therapyinduced mucosal injury: pathogenesis, measurement, epidemiology and consequences for patients, Cancer, 2004;100–9(Suppl.): 1995–2025.
  6. Denham JW, Hauer-Jensen M, The radiotherapeutic injury—a complex “wound”, Radiother Oncol, 2002;63(2):129–45.
  7. Janjan NA,Weissman DE, Pahule A, Improved pain management with daily nursing intervention during radiation therapy for head and neck carcinoma, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1992;23(3):647–52.
  8. World Health Organization, WHO handbook for reporting the results of cancer treatment, Geneva:World Health Organization, 1979.
  9. National Cancer Institute, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0, Bethesda, Maryland, 1998.
  10. Sonis ST, Eilers JP, Epstein JB, et al., Validation of a new scoring system for the assessment of clinical trial research for oral mucositis induced by radiation or chemotherapy. Mucositis Study Group, Cancer, 1999;85:2103–13.
  11. Eilers J, Epstein JB, Assessment and measurement of oral mucositis, Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 2004;20:22–9.
  12. Silverman S, Diagnosis and management of oral mucositis, J Support Oncol, 2007;5(Suppl. 2):13–21.
  13. Spielberger R, Stiff P, Bensinger W, et al., Palifermin for oral mucositis after intensive therapy for hematologic cancers, N Engl J Med, 2004;351:2590–98.
  14. Stiff PJ, Emmanouilides C, Bensinger WI, et al., Palifermin reduces patient-reported mouth and throat soreness and improves patient functioning in the hematopoietic stem-cell transplant setting, J Clin Oncol, 2006;24:5186–93.
  15. Siddiqui MA,Wellingron K, Palifermin: in myelotoxic therapyinduced oral mucositis, Drugs, 2005;65:2139–46.
  16. Kostler W, Hejna M,Wenzel C, et al., Oral mucositis complicating chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy: options for prevention and treatment, CA Cancer J Clin, 2001;51(5):290–315.
  17. Dodd M, Miaskowski C, Greenspan D, et al., Radiation induced mucositis: a randomized clinical trial of micronized sucralfate versus salt and soda mouthwashes, Cancer Invest, 2003;21(1):21–33.
  18. Innocenti M, Moscatelli G, Lopez S, Efficacy of Gelclair in reducing pain in palliative care patients with oral lesions: Preliminary findings from an open pilot study, J Pain Symptom Manage, 2002;24:456–7.
  19. Keefe DM, Schubert MM, Elting LS, et al., Updated clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of mucositis, Cancer, 2007;109(5):820–31.
  20. Trotti A, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, et al., Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: A systemic literature review, Radiother Oncol, 2003;66:253–62. 21. Cawley MM, Benson LM, Current trends in managing oral mucositis, Clin J Oncol Nurs, 2005;9:584–92.
  21. Sonis ST, A biological approach to OM, The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 2004;2:21–32.
  22. Blijlevens N, Sonis S, Palifermin (recombinant keratinocyte growth factor-1): a pleiotrophic growth factor with multiple biological activities in preventing chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced mucositis, Ann Oncol, advance access published October 9, 2006; doi: 10,1093/annonc/mdl332.
  23. US Pharmacopoeia Dispensing Information Volume 1, Montvale, New Jersey: Thomson Micromedex, 2006:89–92.
  24. Bourhis J, Rosine D, Radioprotective effect of amifostine in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, Semin Oncol, 2002;29(6 Suppl. 19):61–2.
  25. Rogers B, OM in the oncology patient, Nurs Clin North Am, 2001;36:745–57.
  26. Hita-Iglesias P, Torres-Lagares D, Gutlerrez-Perez JL, Evaluation of the clinical behaviour of a polyvinylpyrrolidone and sodium hyalonurate gel (Gelclair®) in patients subjected to surgical treatment with CO2 laser, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2006;35:514–17.
  27. About Caphosol. Accessed May 21, 2007 from: http://www.caphosol.com/news/facts_01.asp
  28. Papas AS, Clark RE, Martuscelli G, et al., A prospective, randomized trial for the prevention of mucositis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, Bone Marrow Transplant, 2003;31(8):705–12.
  29. Ripamonti C, Dickerson ED, Strategies for the treatment of cancer pain in the new millennium, Drugs, 2001;61:955–77.
  30. Elting LS, Cooksley C, Chambers M, et al., The burdens of cancer therapy: clinical and economic outcomes of chemotherapy-induced OM, Cancer, 2003;98:1532–9.

Copyright® 2004 - 2010 Business Briefings, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Touch Oncology is for informational purposes and should not be considered medical advice, diagnosis or treatement recommendations.