Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15150704›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2004

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

Stuart L Goldberg, Laura Chiang, Natalya Selina, Stephanie Hamarman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Epidemiology of treatment-associated mucosal injury after treatment with newer regimens for lymphoma, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2006
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A novel formulation for radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis: Triamcinolone acetonide mucoadhesive film.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Prevalence of clinically relevant oral mucositis in outpatients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2012
    Article
  9. Sex-specific aspects of tumor therapy.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2009
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stuart L GoldbergThe Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, 20 Prospect Avenue, Suite 400, Hackensack, NJ 07601, USA. sgoldberg@humed.com
Laura Chiang
Natalya Selina
Stephanie Hamarman
Hackensack University Medical Center · USPrinceton University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

goalsOral 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. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsOM 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth MucosaNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexStomatitisStress, PsychologicalAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID15150704
OpenAlexW1972123838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.