4.6 Review

Epidemiology of treatment-associated mucosal injury after treatment with newer regimens for lymphoma, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 505-515

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-006-0055-4

Keywords

oral and gastrointestinal mucositis; chemotherapy; risk estimate; meta-analysis; case reports

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Goals of work: Oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis are frequent complications of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer, contributing to not only the morbidity of treatment but its cost as well. The risk associated with specific chemotherapeutic agents, alone and in combination, has been characterized previously. In the current study, we sought to estimate the risk associated with newer regimens for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and common solid tumors. Methods: We reviewed published studies reporting phase II and III clinical trials of dose-dense regimens for breast cancer and NHL, TAC (docetaxel, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer, and infusional 5-fluorouracil-based regimens for colorectal cancer. Platinum-, gemcitabine-, and taxane-based regimens for lung cancer, either alone or in combination with radiotherapy, were also considered. Using modified meta-analysis methods, we calculated quality-adjusted estimates of the risk for oral and GI mucositis by tumor type and regimen. Case reports are used to emphasize the relevance of the findings for patient care. Main results: Our findings demonstrate that mucosal toxicity remains an important complication of cancer treatment. Moreover, innovations in drug combinations, scheduling, or mode of administration significantly modulate the risk for both oral and GI mucositis. Conclusions: Ongoing review of the clinical trial experience will remain important as newer, targeted agents enter standard clinical practice.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available