Deutsch
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Supportive Care in Cancer 2004-Jul

Patient perceptions about chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: implications for primary/secondary prophylaxis strategies.

Nur registrierte Benutzer können Artikel übersetzen
Einloggen Anmelden
Der Link wird in der Zwischenablage gespeichert
Stuart L Goldberg
Laura Chiang
Natalya Selina
Stephanie Hamarman

Schlüsselwörter

Abstrakt

OBJECTIVE

Oral mucositis (OM), the painful inflammation of oropharyngeal tissues, is an economically costly chemotherapy toxicity. Several agents to prevent chemotherapy-induced OM are in development, with most studies conducted among transplantation subjects with a brief well-defined risk period. The potential value of these preventative agents among hematology-oncology populations receiving cyclic standard-dose therapy is unknown.

METHODS

Patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy at an outpatient oncology center over a 2-week time-frame were invited to participate in an anonymous unprompted survey. The survey instrument consisted of six demographic questions and six questions regarding toxicities of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of 514 patients providing completed surveys from among approximately 1625 patients (32% response rate), 167 (32%) reported experiencing OM. Factors associated with developing OM included number of chemotherapy cycles ( P=0.001), hematologic malignancy ( P=0.02), female gender ( P=0.03), age ( P=0.05), and treatment with anthracyclines ( P=0.001), vinca alkaloids ( P=0.001), cyclophosphamide ( P=0.001), fludarabine ( P=0.01), cis/carboplatin ( P=0.05) and radiotherapy ( P=0.005). Among patients experiencing OM, 69% considered OM to be an important toxicity with 7% rating their OM very severe, 18% severe, 36% moderate and 29% mild. Recurrent OM was reported by 87 patients (53%) and was judged similar in severity by 67%, milder by 27% and more severe by 6%. OM was considered the sixth most distressing complication behind (in descending order) fatigue, hair loss, nausea, numbness and diarrhea, and more important than anxiety and heartburn.

CONCLUSIONS

OM represents a common toxicity of standard-dose chemotherapy occurring in approximately one-third of patients. High-risk populations can be identified, permitting targeting of primary prophylaxis strategies whereby all patients possessing high-risk factors are treated to prevent OM. However, since OM was self-reported by only one-third of patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy, but over half of those experiencing OM developed recurrent episodes, secondary prophylaxis strategies targeting recurrent OM episodes may be more appropriate.

Treten Sie unserer
Facebook-Seite bei

Die vollständigste Datenbank für Heilkräuter, die von der Wissenschaft unterstützt wird

  • Arbeitet in 55 Sprachen
  • Von der Wissenschaft unterstützte Kräuterkuren
  • Kräutererkennung durch Bild
  • Interaktive GPS-Karte - Kräuter vor Ort markieren (in Kürze)
  • Lesen Sie wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen zu Ihrer Suche
  • Suchen Sie nach Heilkräutern nach ihrer Wirkung
  • Organisieren Sie Ihre Interessen und bleiben Sie über Neuigkeiten, klinische Studien und Patente auf dem Laufenden

Geben Sie ein Symptom oder eine Krankheit ein und lesen Sie über Kräuter, die helfen könnten, geben Sie ein Kraut ein und sehen Sie Krankheiten und Symptome, gegen die es angewendet wird.
* Alle Informationen basieren auf veröffentlichten wissenschaftlichen Forschungsergebnissen

Google Play badgeApp Store badge