4.7 Article

Prospective Oral Mucositis Audit: Oral mucositis in patients receiving high-dose melphalan or BEAM conditioning chemotherapy - European blood and marrow transplantation mucositis advisory group

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 9, Pages 1519-1525

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.6028

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The Prospective Oral Mucositis Audit assessed the incidence, duration, and determinants of severe oral mucositis (OM; WHO oral toxicity scale grades 3 to 4) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving high-dose conditioning chemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients and Methods Patients with MM (n = 109; mean age, 57 +/- 8 years) or NHL (n = 88; mean age, 50 +/- 13 years) were treated with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) or carmustine 300 mg/m(2), etoposide 800 mg/m(2), cytarabine 800 to 1,600 mg/m(2), and melphalan 140 mg/m(2) chemotherapy, respectively, in 25 European centers. OM assessments were made daily until 30 days after transplantation or hospital discharge. High quality of OM assessment was ensured by an intensive training program. Results Severe OM occurred in 46% (95% CI, 36% to 56%) of patients with MM and 42% (95% CI, 32% to 53%) of patients with NHL, with a mean duration of 5.3 days (95% CI, 4.4 to 6.1 days) and 5.5 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7 days), respectively. Time from start of conditioning to peak OM score was 12.1 +/- 2.6 and 14.6 +/- 2.4 days. Severe OM risk and/or duration was significantly associated with higher chemotherapy dose per kilogram of body weight and poor performance status, but in contrast with some previous reports, this was not related to age. Conclusion Severe OM is more common in the transplantation setting than previously reported, justifying effective preventative and therapeutic measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available