A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: management strategies and economic impact - PDF Document

Presentation Transcript

  1. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 DOI 10.1007/s00520-010-0837-6 REVIEW ARTICLE A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: management strategies and economic impact S. B. Jensen & A. M. L. Pedersen & A. Vissink & E. Andersen & C. G. Brown & A. N. Davies & J. Dutilh & J. S. Fulton & L. Jankovic & N. N. F. Lopes & A. L. S. Mello & L. V. Muniz & C. A. Murdoch-Kinch & R. G. Nair & J. J. Napeñas & A. Nogueira-Rodrigues & D. Saunders & B. Stirling & I. von Bültzingslöwen & D. S. Weikel & L. S. Elting & F. K. L. Spijkervet & M. T. Brennan & Salivary Gland Hypofunction/Xerostomia Section & Oral Care Study Group & Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO) Received: 1 November 2009 /Accepted: 8 February 2010 /Published online: 25 March 2010 # Springer-Verlag 2010 Methods The electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published in English since the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Conference on the Oral Complications of Cancer Therapies until 2008 inclusive. For each article, two independent reviewers extracted information regarding study design, Abstract Purpose This systematic review aimed to assess the literature for management strategies and economic impact of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies and to determine the quality of evidence-based management recommendations. S. B. Jensen (*):A. M. L. Pedersen Department of Oral Medicine, Clinical Oral Physiology, Oral Pathology & Anatomy, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Nørre Allé 20, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark e-mail: sbe@odont.ku.dk A. N. Davies Department of Palliative Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton SM2 5P5, UK e-mail: andrew.davies@rmh.nhs.uk J. Dutilh Dutilh Instituto de Reabilitação Facial e Oral, R. Paula Bueno 307, Taquaral, Brazil e-mail: jandutilh@uol.com.br A. M. L. Pedersen e-mail: amp@odont.ku.dk A. Vissink:F. K. L. Spijkervet Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands J. S. Fulton Department of Adult Health, Indiana University School of Nursing, 1111 Middle Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA e-mail: jasfulto@iupui.edu A. Vissink e-mail: a.vissink@kchir.umcg.nl F. K. L. Spijkervet e-mail: f.k.l.spijkervet@kchir.umcg.nl L. Jankovic Clinic for Periodontology and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Stomatology, University of Belgrade, P.O. Box 506, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: omlj@eunet.rs E. Andersen Department of Oncology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej, 2730 Herlev, Denmark e-mail: eloand01@heh.regionh.dk N. N. F. Lopes Pediatric Dentistry, Service of Oral Medicine, IOP–Pediatric Oncology Institute/GRAACC, Federal University of São Paulo, Rua Botucatu 743, CEP 04023-062 São Paulo, Brazil e-mail: nnflopes@terra.com.br C. G. Brown School of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA e-mail: cgb@udel.edu

  2. 1062 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 study population, interventions, outcome measures, results, and conclusions. Results Seventy-two interventional studies met the inclu- sion criteria. In addition, 49 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) studies were included as a management strategy aiming for less salivary gland damage. Manage- ment guideline recommendations were drawn up for IMRT, amifostine, muscarinic agonist stimulation, oral mucosal lubricants, acupuncture, and submandibular gland transfer. Conclusions There is evidence that salivary gland hypo- function and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies can be prevented or symptoms be minimized to some degree, depending on the type of cancer treatment. Management guideline recommendations are provided for IMRT, amifostine, muscarinic agonist stimulation, oral mucosal lubricants, acupuncture, and submandibular gland trans- fer. Fields of sparse literature identified included effects of gustatory and masticatory stimulation, specific oral mucosal lubricant formulas, submandibular gland trans- fer, acupuncture, hyperbaric oxygen treatment, manage- ment strategies in pediatric cancer populations, and the economic consequences of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. Keywords Cancer therapy.Salivary gland hypofunction. Xerostomia.Management strategies.Economic impact Introduction The profound salivary gland hypofunction (i.e., diminished salivary flow) and xerostomia (i.e., the subjective sensation of a dry mouth) often observed in response to external radiotherapy in the head and neck region may have a massive A. L. S. Mello Department of Endocrinology, Federal University of São Paulo, Medicine Paulista School, Rua Pedro de Toledo 910, São Paulo, Brazil e-mail: anasoaresbr@yahoo.com.br A. Nogueira-Rodrigues Department of Oncology and Research, Associação do Combate ao Câncer do Centro Oeste de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Pesquisas Oncológicas Minas Gerais, IPOM, Hospital do Câncer Centro Oeste de Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais, Brazil e-mail: angelica.onco@uol.com.br L. V. Muniz Department of Odontology, Associação do Combate ao Câncer do Centro Oeste de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Pesquisas Oncológicas Minas Gerais, IPOM, Hospital do Câncer Centro Oeste de Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais, Brazil e-mail: lucianavmuniz@hotmail.com D. Saunders Department of Dentistry, Sudbury Regional Hospital Cancer Program, Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital, 41 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON P3E 5J1, Canada e-mail: DSaunders@hrsrh.on.ca C. A. Murdoch-Kinch Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Hospital Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA e-mail: camurdoc@umich.edu I. von Bültzingslöwen Departments of Oral Immunology and Oral Medicine, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregaten 12, 413 90 Gothenburg, Sweden e-mail: inger.von.bultzingslowen@liv.se R. G. Nair Centre for Medicine and Oral Health, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, QLD 4222 Gold Coast, Australia e-mail: r.nair@griffith.edu.au D. S. Weikel Department of Pathology and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Maryland Dental School and Greenebaum Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA e-mail: dweikel@umm.edu J. J. Napeñas:B. Stirling:M. T. Brennan Department of Oral Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, P.O. Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28232, USA J. J. Napeñas e-mail: joel.napenas@carolinas.org L. S. Elting Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA e-mail: lelting@mdanderson.org B. Stirling e-mail: bethstirling@gmail.com M. T. Brennan e-mail: mike.brennan@carolinas.org

  3. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1063 management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia were directed towards: impact on patient’s oral health and oral health-related quality of life (QoL) [1]. Importantly, the impact of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia on oral health and QoL is both acute and life-long. The adverse effects of other radiation regimens (e.g., interstitional radiotherapy, radioactive iodine) and chemotherapy on salivary gland function has been shown tobe much less severeand chemotherapy-induced xerostomia to be reversible after the end of treatment [1]. Treatment of salivary gland hypofunction and xerosto- mia induced by cancer therapies is primarily symptomatic by stimulation of residual secretory capacity of the salivary glands or by the use of lubricating and/or moisturizing agents when saliva secretion cannot be stimulated. Al- though these treatment approaches have been shown to provide some relief of patients’ dryness-related complaints, the continuing development of certain irradiation techni- ques to limit the dose to the salivary glands, agents to reduce the radiation injury to salivary gland tissue, and approaches to repair the radiation damage to the salivary gland will bear the largest potential to reduce post- radiotherapy salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. Patients may benefit from these approaches, thus providing patients with bearable xerostomia-related adverse effects after cancer treatment, since effects of symptomatic treatment in general is of short duration, lacks the properties of natural saliva, or may have significant side effects. This systematic review represents a search and evaluation of the literature appearing since the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Conference on the Oral Complications of Cancer Therapies [2] and the publica- tion of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Monographs 1990 [3] evaluating management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as sequelae of cancer therapies. Development of accurate, quantifiable, reproducible criteria for assessing and classifying oral complications of cancer therapy. Development of radioprotective and chemoprotective agents. Development of more effective sialagogues and saliva substitutes and to evaluate their effectiveness in preventing the complications of xerostomia. Determination of the most effective strategies to ensure patient compliance with therapeutic regimens. & & & & Historical summary of the literature before 1990 on management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as oral complications of cancer therapies Before 1990, radiation techniques such as 3D-conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modified radiotherapy (IMRT) that currently are applied in head and neck cancer to reduce radiation damage to normal tissues (including salivary glands) were in development. At that time, the focus of research was on prevention and treatment of salivary glands from post-radiotherapy functional loss applying sialo- gogues, radioprotective agents, and/or saliva substitutes. Regarding sialogogues, the observation that drug-induced depletion of submandibular serous cell granules before irradiation resulted in a decreased radiosensitivity of rodent submandibular glands linked the radiosensitivity of these cells to the content of secretory granules [4–6]. In rodents, these granules contain high amounts of proteolytic enzymes and transition metals [4]. Based on this phenomenon, it was reasoned that metal-catalyzed induction of lipid peroxidation of the membranes surrounding the granules will result in rupture of the granular membranes. Next, the resulting release of lytic enzymes within the cell would lead to cell lysis. In addition, in clinical studies the administration of sialogogues, in particular pilocarpine, was applied to stimulate any residual function of the salivary gland post-radiotherapy. This approach was shown to be worthwhile to a limited extent because the functional gain ceased as soon as the adminis- tration of the sialogogue was stopped [7]. Finally, to obtain a more persisting effect of pilocarpine, a pilot study was performed on the effect of administration of pilocarpine during radiotherapy. This study indicated that this approach might result in less radiation-induced reduction of salivary flow [8]. Regarding radioprotectors, animal studies showed that WR-2721 (amifostine) and its active metabolite WR-1065 accumulated inoral mucosa and salivary glands [9]. Next, the radioprotective effect of WR-2721 on rat parotid gland tissue The 1989 NIH consensus Consensus from the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Conference [2] relevant for management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia included: All cancer patients should have an oral examination before initiation of cancer therapy. Some clinicians may wish to include volumetric assessment of resting and stimulated whole saliva. No agreed-upon pretreatment strategies to prevent or minimize xerostomia. Currently, the best treatments for chronic xerostomia include regular use of topical fluorides, attention to oral hygiene, and sialagogues. & & & Directions for future research from the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Conference [2] applicable to

  4. 1064 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 identify all literature containing original data describing (1) prevalence of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerosto- mia, (2) impact on oral health-related QoL, (3) management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or combined treatment modalities as well as (4) the economic burden of such therapy. An initial literature search targeting salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia was performed in the elec- tronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE in March 2008 and updated in April 2009 using combinations of the MeSH terms of: [Saliva] OR [Salivary Glands] OR [Salivation] OR [Salivary Gland Diseases] OR [Xerosto- mia] OR [Dry Mouth] OR [Oral Dryness] AND [Neo- plasms] OR [Head and Neck Neoplasms/Radiotherapy] OR [Radiotherapy] OR [Antineoplastic Agents] OR [Antineo- plastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols] OR [Combined Modality Therapy] OR [Whole-Body Irradiation] OR [Bone Marrow Transplantation] OR [Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation] AND [Humans] AND [1990/01/ 01:2008/12/31]. The search results were imported into a computerized database (Reference Manager Version 12). The following publication types were eliminated: systematic and non-systematic reviews; studies not reporting actual data on xerostomia/salivary gland hypofunction; studies reporting datafrompreviouspublicationsorwitharelevantlaterfollow- uppublication;phaseIandIIstudies,opinionpapers,andcase reports; articles published before 1990; and articles from the 1990 NCI Monographs [3] based on the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Conference on the Oral Complica- tions of Cancer Therapies [2]. Regarding xerostomia-related QoL, studies were included if they specifically related salivary gland hypofunction or xerostomia to QoL domains. Thus, single-item questions of dry mouth symptoms, i.e., the subjective amount or consistency of saliva without correla- tion to QoL domains, was interpreted as a measure of xerostomia and not included as xerostomia-related QoL. Furthermore, the search was limited to the English language. Gender and age were not limited. Studies addressing management strategies are reported in the present paper, whereas observational studies dealing with prevalence, severity, and QoL related to salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as sequelae of anticancer therapies have been reported in a separate paper [1]. morphology and function could be shown in a rat model [10, 11]. Notwithstanding the radioprotective effect WR-2721 may have on tumor tissue too, in a pilot study it was shown that amifostine might have a radioprotective effect on chronic radiation injury to salivary gland tissue [12]. As before 1990 there were no effective, clinically available preventive measures, the treatment of hyposalivation was mainly palliative. This treatment consisted of oral hygiene practices, stimulation of residual salivary gland tissue (sialo- gogues),andsymptomatic reliefoforaldryness.Manyrinsing solutions were tested, but an important disadvantage of all these mouthwashes was the necessity of frequent applications because of poor retention properties. For this reason, complex saliva substitutes were developed that contain agents not only to impart viscosity and to keep soft tissues moist but also include inorganic substances to retard enamel solubility. These substitutes were based on carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) [13, 14] or mucin [15]. Mucin-containing saliva substitutes were usually preferred over CMC-containing and placebo substitutes [16–19]. When compared to CMC substitutes, mucin-containing substitutes were shown to have superior rheological and wetting properties [20, 21]. Management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer treatments other than irradiation of the head and neck, such as radioactive iodine treatment, total body irradiation/hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and chemotherapy, had been very sparsely covered in the literature before 1990. Aims To extend on the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Confer- ence on the Oral Complications of Cancer Therapies [2], the goals of the present systematic review were the following: 1. Assess the management strategies for salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia and determine the quality of recommendations for different treatment strategies. 2. Determine the economic impact of salivary gland hypofunction/xerostomia. Systematic review methodology Search strategy and criteria for selecting studies Review method The systematic review methodology has been described in detail elsewhere [1, 22]. In brief, a systematic literature search was conducted with assistance from a research librarian in the databases MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE for articles published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2008. The primary outcome was to The abstract of each article was reviewed by the salivary gland hypofunction/xerostomia section head (SBJ) and the systematic review organizer (MTB). Irrelevant citations were removed according to the abovementioned criteria. The selected full-text articles were distributed to the

  5. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1065 reviewer team along with an evaluation form customized for reviewing salivary gland hypofunction/xerostomia data modified from “Form T. Evaluation of studies assessing the effects of intervention” [22, 23]. The reviewers had been calibrated at teleconferences, by email correspondences, and/or at the Salivary Gland Hypofunc- tion/Xerostomia Group Meeting at the MASCC/ISOO Symposium, Houston, Texas, June 2008. Two independent reviewers extracted information regarding study design, study population, interventions, outcome measures, meth- ods, results, and conclusions for each article, and the evaluation results were compared and re-evaluated until consensus was reached (for further methodology details, see Brennan et al. [22]). The review team was recruited from the Oral Care Study Group (chair, FKLS), Multinational Association of Sup- portive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO) and included expertise in the topic area of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia covering oral medicine, oral pathology, clinical oral physiology, oral oncology, oncology nursing, radiation oncology, oral immunology, pediatric dentistry, oral and maxillofacial surgery, palliative oncology, periodontology, epidemiology, and biostatistics. inclusion criteria. Seventy-two interventional studies are described in the present systematic review, whereas 184 observational/cancer treatment studies are included in Jensen et al. [1]. Forty-nine studies addressing IMRT are included both in this paper as a management strategy and in the estimation of prevalence and severity of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies in Jensen et al. [1]. For details regarding interventions, number of studies, and study designs of the included studies, see Table 1. None of the studies dealing with management strategies included pediatric/ adolescent cancer populations. Assessment of management strategies IMRT IMRT [1] allows a more accurate delivery of specific radiation dosage and dose distribution to the tumor and thereby brings about the possibility of better sparing of surrounding tissues, e.g., major salivary glands. As such, IMRT can be classified as a management strategy aiming for less salivary gland hypofunction and less xerostomia compared to conventional radiation regimens. IMRT was evaluated in 49 studies; two randomized controlled trials (both nasopharyngeal cancer), 38 cohort studies, two case– control, and seven cross-sectional studies. Thirty-three studies were not controlled. Eighteen studies reported data on salivary gland hypofunction (13 salivary flow rate, five by scintigraphy), and 44 studies assessed xerostomia. One study included a pediatric population [24]. General consen- Results Description of studies The electronic searches identified over a thousand titles and abstracts, and from these, 255 articles satisfied the Table 1 Prevention and management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia associated with cancer therapies Treatment strategy Number of studies RCT Before and after Cohort Case–control Cross-sectional 49a 16a IMRT Amifostine Muscarinic agonist stimulation Pilocarpine after RT Pilocarpine during RT Cevimeline Bethanechol Gustatory and masticatory stimulation Mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes Submandibular gland transfer Acupuncture HBO treatment 2 9 41 6 2 4 1 16b,c 13b 2 1 4 12c 4 4 2 9 11 1 1 1 8 7 2 1 2 4 4 1 2 1 2 1 RCT randomized controlled trial, IMRT intensity-modulated radiation therapy, RT radiation therapy, HBO hyperbaric oxygen aOne study included both IMRT and amifostine bOne study included pilocarpine both during and after RT cOne study included both saliva substitutes and pilocarpine

  6. 1066 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 sus from the randomized controlled trials, cohort, case– control, and cross-sectional studies provided supporting evidence that parotid-sparing IMRT has the potential to decrease the prevalence and severity of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia [25–56]. In addition, saliva secretion from spared salivary glands has the potential of increasing over time after therapy, unlike when similar tumors were treated by conventional radiation therapy [27, 36, 40, 47, 57–64]. As such, the benefits from IMRT on salivary gland function, xerostomia, and xerostomia-related QoL are most pronounced late (≥6 months) after radiother- apy and results in improvement of xerostomia-related QoL over time (assessed up to 2 years after therapy) [25–27, 31, 36, 37, 40, 47, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62–69]. To preserve salivary gland function, mean radiation doses ≤26–30 Gy [25, 57, 59, 60, 64, 67], <38 Gy [62], or <40 Gy [70] to the parotid glands have been suggested as well as submandib- ular/sublingual-sparing IMRT can be of relevance in selected patients [71] with a mean dose of ≤39 Gy to the submandibular/sublingual glands for potential recovery of gland function over time [72]. less sensitive for radiation damage. Amifostine was assessed in 16 studies; nine randomized controlled trials, six cohort studies (two retrospective), and one cross- sectional study. Fifteen studies were performed in patients receiving radiotherapy or chemoradiation for a head and neck tumor; in one study, high dose131I treatment was used for differentiated thyroid cancer. Three studies reported data on salivary gland hypofunction (one by salivary flow rate, three by scintigraphy), seven studies assessed xerostomia, and six studies evaluated both parameters [all xerostomia, hypofunction was assessed either by salivary flow rate (five studies) or scintigraphy (two studies)]. The various cohort studies and randomized clinical trials performed revealed that amifostine has a potential to reduce complaints of xerostomia during and post- radiation treatment. The results of the various studies included were not consistent, however, as some studies showed a significant benefit of amifostine treatment on patients’ experience of acute and late xerostomia, although the effect may be clinically minor [77] and in some of the studies the effect just reached significance [74, 75, 78–80], while other studies showed such a beneficial effect only for some acute and late time points assessed [81, 82]. Intravenous administration of amifostine has also been shown to reduce radiation-induced xerostomia and salivary gland dysfunction (scintigraphy) in patients treated with radioiodine [83]. Although many studies showed a beneficial effect on xerostomia, most studies failed to show that amifostine treatment also resulted in a smaller reduction in salivary flow rate in response to radiotherapy [74, 75, 82, 84, 85]. Secondary analyses of the salivary flow results of a few studies, whichdidnotshowadifferenceinsalivary flowrate, reported that significantly more patients treated with amifos- tine than controls had meaningful unstimulated whole saliva secretion [74, 75]. One study mentioned that salivary gland functional data were collected, but no results were provided [79]. Scintigraphic studies showed that amifostine pretreat- ment may reduce radiation damage to salivary glands [48, 85, 86]. Moreover, in one of these studies, such a beneficial effect was only observed in salivary glands being irradiated with a cumulative dose <40 Gy [48]. A frequent documented major drawback of the use of amifostine is its severe adverse effects (e.g., hypotension, vomiting, nausea, allergic reaction), particularly when administered intravenously. Recent studies indicated that these adverse effects might be reduced by subcutaneous administration of amifostine because subcutaneous injec- tion seems to be better tolerated by patients than intrave- nous administration [87, 88]. The main adverse effect after subcutaneous administration was nausea/vomiting, while more severe adverse effects such as hypotension and allergic reactions were not observed. IMRT and salivary gland hypofunction/xerostomia-related QoL Eleven studies specifically assessed the impact of xerostomia or salivary gland hypofunction on QoL aspects in relation to IMRT [25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 56, 58, 59, 73]. An association was found between xerostomia and QoL after parotid-sparing IMRT, with a decline in QoL in the 6-month period after radiation therapy and then followed by improvement of xerostomia- related QoL up to 24 months after RT [27, 31, 32, 34, 44, 58]. Regarding the impact of salivary gland hypofunction on QoL, whole saliva flow rates were related to oral comfort, speech, chewing/swallowing, and sleep [25]. Salivary gland hypofunction also demonstrated an impact on a combined QoL score of xerostomia’s impact on daily activities, sleeping patterns, speech, swallowing [59], and to emotional function [40]. On the other hand, whole saliva as well as parotid and submandibular flow rates could not be shown to be associated with QoL scores up to 2 years after radiotherapy [27, 40, 58, 73], except for one report showing a correlation between stimulated parotid flow rate and speech problems [40]. Amifostine Direct radioprotection in a classical way may be achieved by the use of amifostine, a radical scavenger, when systemically administered during radiation treatment [74– 76]. Amifostine is preferentially accumulated in certain tissues, including the salivary glands, making these tissues

  7. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1067 with oral pilocarpine HCl (36 months) [101]. Most studies reported a radiation dose to the parotid glands above 40 Gy, but one study related the level of xerostomia and salivary gland function to the dose/volume radiotherapy parameters and found that the response to pilocarpine HCl could not be predicted from radiation dose/volume [104]. Nevertheless, patients with some sparing of the major salivary gland and/or cumulative doses of <50 Gy on the major salivary glands were among the best responders to pilocarpine [104]. Data from the randomized clinical trials and before and after studies indicate that oral administration of pilocarpine HCl is effective in the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer [92–95, 99, 101, 104]. The effect of oral pilocarpine were also assessed after total body irradiation and radioactive iodine treatment reporting improvement of xerostomia [102] and a moderate although transient increase in whole saliva flow rates [106, 107] with no improvement of xerostomia [100], respectively, but the small number of patients included in these studies limits interpretation of the results. Results from randomized, placebo-controlled trials suggest that oral pilocarpine HCl is more effective than a placebo treatment and that approximately 50% of the patients will benefit from oral pilocarpine treatment post-radiotherapy [92, 93, 95]. Optimum results were obtained with continuous treatment for more than 8 weeks with doses higher than 2.5 mg three times a day [92, 93, 95]. The time to response could be up to 12 weeks in some patients. Moreover, in two placebo-controlled clinical trials, topical oral administration of pilocarpine HCl suspended in a candy-like pastille [96] and a lozenge [98] has been shown to be more effective than placebo treatment in alleviating symptoms of post-radiation xerostomia (response rate 74% and 70%, respectively). An additional randomized cross-over study revealed that pilo- carpine administered as a mouthwash improved xerostomia in 12 out of 17 patients with head and neck cancer who had received radiotherapy, and this was more effective than mucin-based artificial saliva [94]. Regarding salivary gland hypofunction, data from randomized clinical studies suggest that use of oral pilocarpine HCl increases unstimulated whole salivary flow rates [92, 93, 95], stimulated whole salivary flow rates [92], and unstimulated [92, 93, 95] and stimulated parotid saliva flow rates [92, 95] and mucous palatal secretion [103]. However, in the latter study, the parotid saliva flow was not significantly improved by stimulation with pilocarpine HCl [103]. Furthermore, variations in parotid flow throughout the pilocarpine treatment period as well as a lack of persistency of an initial increase in flow in response to pilocarpine were noted [92]. In a number of studies, the improvement in oral dryness did not correlate with the improvement in whole salivary and/or parotid flow rates [92, 96, 104], which Finally, there is still the concern that amifostine might have an undesirable effect of tumor protection, raising questions about the appropriateness of amifostine in cancer patients [89]. The various trials included in this systematic review did not show this undesirable effect, although non- significant differences in survival and tumor control between amifostine-treated and control groups are present in the various studies. Amifostine and salivary gland hypofunction/xerostomia-related QoL QoL data related to xerostomia or salivary flow rates were very sparsely available in studies assessing the effect of amifostine on post-radiotherapy salivary gland functioning and xerostomia. Only one study showed a tendency that administration of amifostine had a beneficial effect on QoL related tosalivarygland function asoverall scoresapproached significance at the 1- and 2-year evaluation [75]. Muscarinic agonist stimulation Pilocarpine Pilocarpine is a cholinergic parasympathomimetic agent with mainly non-selective muscarinic action but also mild beta- adrenergic activity. Pilocarpine has been shown to enhance salivary secretion by stimulating muscarinic receptors on the surfaces of the salivary gland cells, and thereby reduces the sensation of dry mouth in patients in whom some functional salivary gland tissue has been preserved [90]. Pilocarpine hydrochloride (HCl) is approved in several countries for the treatment of xerostomia induced by radiotherapy in the head and neck region [91]. The present review includes 31 studies in which the efficacy of using oral pilocarpine during and after radiotherapy was evaluated. Treatment with pilocarpine after radiation therapy Sixteen studies evaluated the effect of pilocarpine after radiation therapy. Nine studies were randomized controlled trials (one was cross-over with patients as their own controls) [92–100] and seven were before and after studies (one controlled) [101–107]. Seven studies assessed xero- stomia [94, 99–102, 104, 105] and nine studies evaluated both xerostomia and salivary flow rate [92, 93, 95–98, 103, 106, 107]. The dosage of pilocarpine HCl varied between studies; from 5 mg single dose and up to 30 mg daily (in dose titration studies). However, mainly a fixed dose of 5 mg three times dailywas used.Also,thetreatment periodvariedandonlyone study assessed the efficacy and safety of long-term treatment

  8. 1068 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 could be ascribed to a significant stimulatory action of pilocarpine HCl on minor (predominantly mucous) sali- vary glands and/or a more preserved functional capacity of these glands. This is further substantiated by a study in which it was shown that the palatal glands exhibit greater resistance to radiotherapy than the major salivary glands, and that the function of the palatal glands was partially restored to about 40–50% of the baseline function after radiotherapy [103]. Adverse effects were common in relation to treatment with pilocarpine but generally reported as being mild or of moderate severity [92, 93, 95, 101]. Nevertheless, some patients had to withdraw from trials due to adverse effects (6–15%). While the adverse effects were dose dependent, the response rates were not [92, 93]. The most common adverse effects at a standard dose of 5 mg three times daily included sweating (15–55%), headache (15%), urinary frequency (14%), vasodilatation (12%), dizziness (10%), dyspepsia (10%), lacrimation (10%), and nausea (6–20%) [92, 93, 95, 99, 101]. Although often not very prominent, the adverse effects of pilocarpine are of clinical relevance as the observed improvement of radiation-induced xerosto- mia and salivary gland function declines after the cessation of treatment with pilocarpine [92, 93]. Consequently, pilocarpine has to be administered life-long, which can be problematic due to its adverse effects. Oral pilocarpine HCl should be administered with caution and close medical monitoring is required in patients with cardiovascular disease like hypertension and arrhythmia as well as pulmonary disease like asthma, chronic bronchitis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Contraindications for pilocarpine HCl include narrow-angle glaucoma, un- controlled asthma, and gastric ulcers [108, 109]. The interaction of pilocarpine HCl with other medications especially with agents with parasympathetic and beta- adrenergic effects may also preclude its use. whole salivary flow rates in four studies [97, 116, 117, 119], and stimulated whole salivary flow rates in three studies [116, 117, 119] and salivary scintigraphy in one study [122]. Only one study was taking the radiation dose/ volume parameter into account [120]. Seven studies found no statistical significant differences between patients treated with placebo and those treated with oral pilocarpine HCl during radiotherapy with regard to xerostomia [113, 115–117, 119, 120, 122]. A problem of most of these studies is that a wide range of cumulative doses was applied and thus the potential beneficial effect of pilocarpine can be confounded, i.e., patients subjected to a low cumulative dose (radiation effects are reversible) and patients subjected to a very high cumulative dose (radiation damageissoseverethatnosparingeffectofpilocarpineistobe expected). In a large study, unstimulated whole salivary flow rates significantly increased at 3 and 6 months in patients who received pilocarpine HCl, although there were no significant differences in xerostomia [119]. On the other hand, no improvement of salivary gland function (unstimulated/ stimulated whole salivary flow rates and scintigraphy) has been observed in patients taking pilocarpine HCl during radiotherapy [117, 122]. In addition, no significant differ- ences were found between patients who had received oral pilocarpine HCl and a placebo group with regard to submandibular/sublingual flow rates [120]. Importantly, the submandibular glands in this study either where removed as a part of the head and neck dissection procedure or had been exposed to high cumulative doses (>60 Gy). However, the results from the latter study indicated that the efficacy of oral pilocarpine HCl was dependent on the dose distributed to the parotid glands; i.e., in patients in whom the mean parotid dose exceeded 40 Gy, pilocarpine HCl significantly spared parotid gland function flow and reduced xerostomia, which became particularly significant after 12 months [120]. The adverse effects reported in the various studies were generally mild to moderate. The protective effect of pilocarpine HCl on the salivary gland function is not fully understood. It has been stated that pilocarpine HCl acts by causing depletion of secretory granules in serous cells and thereby reducing the extent of radiation-induced salivary gland damage [121]. Others suggest that pilocarpine has stimulatory actions on minor salivary glands outside the radiation field [104, 110]. Treatment with pilocarpine during radiation therapy It has been suggested that oral pilocarpine HCl given during radiotherapy may reduce salivary gland impairment and xerostomia both during and after radiotherapy [110]. Furthermore, it has no effect on tumor regrowth [111]. A total number of 13 studies assessed the protective effect of oral pilocarpine HCl being administered concomitantly with radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer; 11 randomized controlled trials (one was cross-over with patients as their own controls) [97, 110, 112–120] and two controlled before and after studies [121, 122]. Xerostomia was evaluated in all studies, whereas salivary gland function was measured in six studies, parotid and submandibular/ sublingual salivary flow rates (unstimulated and stimu- lated) in three studies [110, 112, 120], unstimulated Oral pilocarpine and salivary gland hypofunction/ xerostomia-related QoL Two studies assessed the effect of pilocarpine HCl on post- radiotherapy salivary gland functioning and xerostomia- related QoL [104, 105]. Although some patients displayed a moderate improvement in radiation-induced xerostomia due to pilocarpine, administration of pilocarpine still had a

  9. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1069 assessed xerostomia. No general consensus can be extracted from the included studies, since the addressed topics are sporadic within the field of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as sequelae of cancer therapies. Small studies of sucking on acidic candy and salivary- stimulating lozenge resulted in an increase in whole saliva secretion and improvement of oral dryness, respectively [126, 127], whereas an oral antimicrobial lozenge admin- istered to reduce acute radiation toxicity, i.e., mucositis, did not influence xerostomia during radiation treatment [128]. A study of131I treatment for post-surgical thyroid cancer reported that early use of a sialogogue, i.e., sucking of lemon candy (intervention starting 1 h after adminis- tration of radioactive iodine and continuing for 5 days) aggravated xerostomia and salivary gland hypofunction as measured by scintigraphy compared to postponed admin- istration of lemon candy stimulation until 1 day after131I treatment [129]. The authors explained this by the high blood concentration of131I early period after administra- tion and an increase in blood flow in the major salivary glands in response to the sialogogue causing a greater amount of tissue [129]. None of the studies assessed xerostomia- related QoL. significant influence on QoL [104], while others found that disease-specific, health-related QoL recovered after radio- therapy despite persistent xerostomia [105]. Four studies assessed the xerostomia-related QoL in patients who had taken pilocarpine HCl during radiotherapy, andresultswerediverging[97, 116, 117, 119]. Accordingly, a slight improvement in QoL has been reported in patients taking pilocarpine with no improvement of xerostomia and salivary gland function [117], whereas others found con- comitant improvement in xerostomia, salivary gland func- tion, and xerostomia-related QoL [97]. In contrast, no significant improvement in QoL has also been shown, although salivary gland function was improved in response to pilocarpine [116, 119]. Cevimeline and bethanechol Cevimeline HCl is a relatively new cholinergic agonist with high affinity for muscarinic M3 receptors, which are predominantly present on the salivary gland cells. It has minimal adverse effects on organs like heart and lungs. This review includes two large studies concerning the use of cevimeline HCl in the treatment of post-radiation xerosto- mia in patients with head and neck cancer; one open label study and a randomized controlled trial [123, 124]. In these studies, cevimeline HCl was generally well tolerated and oral administration of 30–45 mg three times daily for 52 weeks improved xerostomia (response rate 59% at the final visit) [124] and significantly increased unstimulated, but not stimulated, whole salivary flow rate [123]. About 70% experienced adverse effects, and most of them were mild to moderate [123]. The most common adverse effect was sweating followed by dyspepsia. Other systemic sialogogues include bethanechol HCl which is a carbamic ester of β-methylcholine resistant to the action of cholinesterase. Most of the effect of bethanechol HCl is due to M3 muscarinic activity. The efficacy of bethanechol HCl was tested in a randomized phase III study concomitant with radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer and revealed a significant increase in unstimulated whole flow rate and a tendency of xerostomia to decrease [125]. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of both cevimeline HCl and bethanechol HCl. 131I to be accumulated in the salivary gland Oral mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes Oral mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes are mainly useful in patients who do not respond to pharmacological, gustatory, or masticatory stimulation. Various saliva sub- stitutes or dry mouth systems with constituents resembling the physical properties of glycoproteins and antibacterial components of saliva have been developed and are commercially available in the form of moisturizing gels, mouthwashes, or sprays. Twelve studies assessed lubricat- ing gels, sprays, and mouthwashes all following radiation treatment in the head and neck; seven randomized controlled trials (patients served as their own controls in a randomized cross-over design) and five before and after studies (four non-controlled; see also the historical summa- ry of the literature study as many lubricant/substitute studies were performed before 1990). All studies assessed xerostomia and two studies reported salivary flow rate. Only studies addressing saliva substitutes in patients suffering from salivary gland hypofunction and xerosto- mia induced by cancer therapies were included in this systematic review. Generally, the various saliva substitutes were sporadically tested and the study designs included small study populations testing the saliva substitute for a short period of use. The saliva substitutes evaluated were based on animal mucin, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC), hydroxyethylcel- lulose (HEC), polyglycerylmethacrylate (PGM), polyeth- Gustatory and masticatory stimulation Four studies assessed gustatory and/or masticatory effects on saliva secretion following different radiation regimens; one randomized controlled trial, one cohort study, and two beforeand after studies.Two studieswerenot controlled. Two studies reported data on salivary gland hypofunction (one by salivary flow rate, one by scintigraphy) and three studies

  10. 1070 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 ylene oxide, xanthan gum, linseed extract, rape oil, and aloe vera. Three studies assessed gels containing HPMC applied ad libitum during post-radiation periods of 2 weeks or five times daily during and for 4 weeks after radiation treatment (the gel was supplemented by a mouthwash and/or toothpaste as part of the dry mouth regimen) [130–132]. HPMC gels showed potential of reducing xerostomia [130– 132], and the reduction of oral discomfort was reported to be more pronounced compared to CMC gel [130, 132]. No changes were observed in unstimulated and stimulated whole saliva secretion in response to the use of HPMC or CMC gel [130]. Two studies evaluated HEC gels applied ad libitum for periods of 2–4 weeks in patients previously treated by irradiation in the head and neck region [131, 133]. It was reported that HEC significantly decreased xerostomia [131, 133] and was slightly superior to PGM gels in reducing xerostomia [131]. Five studies included CMC gels/fluid/spray in their testing administered ad libitum for 1-, 2-, and 3-week periods as well as five times a day during and for 4 weeks after radiation treatment (supplemented by toothpaste in two studies) [130, 132, 134–136]. They consistently reported CMC prepara- tions to decrease xerostomia [130, 132, 134–136]. Addition- ally, some studies reported that CMC gel was slightly inferior to PGM gel [130, 132], polyethylene oxide [134], and linseed fluid [135] in reducing xerostomia, whereas on the other hand CMC spray was found to be equally effective to mucin (extracted from pig stomach) spray, aloe vera gel, and rape oil spray [136]. Three studies assessed linseed fluid used ad libitum for 1- and 3-week periods post-irradiation and found that it reduces xerostomia [135–137]. Also, it was noted that the effect tended to increase with increasing time of use of the fluid (during a 3-week period) [135], that generally the patients with the most severe symptoms experienced the greatest relief [137], and that linseed fluid was preferred to CMC fluid [135]. Three studies assessed a mucin spray for a 1-week study period or for a 3-month period following radiotherapy in the head and neck region [94, 136, 138]. A decrease in xerostomia was observed in two studies [136, 138], whilst the third study compared a mucin spray and found it inferior to a pilocarpine mouthwash [94]. It has to be mentioned, however, that a pilocarpine mouthwash is meant to stimulate salivary flow and the mucin spray is meant to relieve oral dryness in patients who do not respond to a stimulation therapy. Moreover, no difference was found in the potential to reduce xerostomia when mucin spray was compared to CMC spray, aloe vera gel, and rape oil spray [136]. Thus, aloe vera gel and rape oil spray may also relieve xerostomia [136]. One study assessed a xanthan gum-based spray com- pared to a placebo of similar composition except for the xanthan gum and found that they reduced xerostomia to the same degree [139]. One study of PGM found only a statistically significant reduction in oral dryness-related complaints in patients suffering from severe xerostomia compared to moderate xerostomia [140]. The major disadvantage of the saliva substitutes described in the included studies is the generally short duration of relief they provide, and patients may instead prefer frequent use of water [134]. However, the lubricating effect of some saliva substitutes were reported to last for longer than others, i.e., linseed longer (58 min) than CMC (31 min) [135], and polyethylene oxide up to 2 h [134]. The majority of studies on this topic were published before 1990 (see historical summary in the “Introduction” section) and indicated that salivary substitutes are more effective than a placebo. Moreover, it is worthwhile to try another substitute as patient preference may play a role in the success of this treatment. The following advice on the general use of oral mucosal lubricants is extracted from Regelink et al. [140]. If severe xerostomia, the application of a saliva substitute with gel-like properties may provide relief during the night and when daily activities are at a low level [140]. During daytime, a saliva substitute with less viscous properties resembling natural saliva based on, e.g., polyacrylic acid, xanthan gum, or mucin may provide relief [140]. If moderate xerostomia, saliva substitutes with a rather low viscoelasticity, such as substitutes based on CMC, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, and mucin, or low concentrations of xanthan gum and polyacrylic acid are indicated, supplemented by a gel to provide relief during night or other periods of severe oral dryness [140]. At slight xerostomia, little alleviation is to be expected from the use of saliva substitutes [140]. Oral mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes and salivary gland hypofunction/xerostomia-related QoL Previous studies have shown that mucin spray increased the patients’ daily activities and health-related QoL [19]. Xerostomia-relatedfunctions of chewing/swallowing, speech, and taste have been shown to improve with the use of HEC gel, while swallowing and taste were improved by HPMC gel [131]. Also, these parameters demonstrated improvement during application of linseed fluid when compared to CMC fluid [135]. On the other hand, another study found neither HPMC spray nor CMC spray significantly influenced xerostomia-related QoL related to eating/swallowing, speech, dry mouth at night/on waking, or taste [130]. Along this line, neither CMC spray, mucin spray, rape oil spray nor aloe vera

  11. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1071 acupuncture (twice weekly for 6 weeks using the acupoints ST-6, LI-4, ST-36, and SP-6) in patients with post- radiotherapy xerostomia revealed a significant increase in the unstimulated whole salivary flow rates in both patients treated with real acupuncture and sham-treated patients [147]. However, in acupuncture-treated patients, xerostomia- related problems were significantly improved. The effects of acupuncture treatment on unstimulated and stimulated whole salivary flow rates and xerostomia were shown to last up to 6monthsandwithadditionalacupuncturetherapypresumably for up to 3 years [148]. Finally, in a recent single-blind randomized clinical trial using manual acupuncture, dry mouth measures improved and unstimulated whole salivary flow rates tended to increase [149]. Furthermore, the improvement of xerostomia was closely related to QoL [149]. Unfortunately, the sample size of this study was small. In summary, acupuncture treatment appears to offer a potential future intervention for the treatment of radiation- induced xerostomia [146–149]. Moreover, acupuncture is a treatment modality without serious adverse effects. Further clinical trials including sham acupuncture are needed to substantiate the clinical benefits of acupuncture and to understand the underlying mechanisms behind its actions on salivary gland function. gel were shown to relieve xerostomia-related difficulties with eating and taste, while xerostomia effects on speech and quality of sleep were improved by all of these compounds [136, 138]. When looking at subgroups of patients, a study of PGM spray found xerostomia-related complaints im- proved in patients suffering from severe xerostomia com- pared to patients with moderate xerostomia [140], and older patients to have greater benefit from mucin spray than younger patients with regards to quality of sleep [138]. The use of HEC gel has been shown to significantly improve xerostomia-related QoL, including restrictions of social life, daily activities, eating, taste, oral discomfort, and tension/ level of mood [133]. Surgical transfer of submandibular gland Early reports on surgical transfer of one submandibular gland to the submental space (outside the radiation portal) have shown preservation of submandibular gland function and reduction of radiation-induced xerostomia to some extent in selected patients followed up to 2 years after treatment [141– 144]. If all major salivary glands are to be included in the radiation portal, this management strategy may potentially be of relevance in strictly selected oropharyngeal and hypo- pharyngeal cancer patients who are to undergo surgery as the primary treatment before irradiation and where the contra- lateral submandibular gland, or the side with clinically negative cervical lymph nodes in midline primaries, can be surgically translocated to the submental space [141, 143]. A prerequisite is that the submental space, now containing the submandibular gland, is not included in the radiation portal. After the inclusion date was set as a criterion for selecting the literature eligible for inclusion in this systematic review, data from a phase III study comparing surgical transfer of the submandibular gland and oral pilocarpine were published. The results of that phase III study showed better preservation of salivary flow rate 3 to 6 months after radiotherapy with the surgical transfer of the submandibular gland procedure when compared to the administration of oral pilocarpine during and for 3 months after irradiation [145]. These new results will be addressed in future work and the management guidelines revised accordingly. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment Two studies reported on irradiated head and neck cancer patients receiving hyperbaric oxygen treatment as part of the treatment/prevention of osteoradionecrosis and sug- gested that there may be a decrease in xerostomia following hyperbaric oxygen treatment [150, 151]. Either the hyper- baric oxygen treatment was applied perioperative [151] or the mean time between application of hyperbaric oxygen treatment and the end of radiation therapy was 23 months (range 4–82 months) [150]. Moreover, both studies did not include a control group. In addition, it has to be kept in mind when interpreting these trials that recovery of xerostomia following radiation therapy may be achieved up to 2 years after cancer treatment [152]. Also, patients may have accepted that salivary gland hypofunction and xero- stomia are unavoidable after cancer treatment and therefore have adjusted their expectations. Any potential improvement within this period, therefore, may possibly not be completely attributed to hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Acupuncture Results of a preliminary before and after study including 18 patients with head and neck cancer who had received radiotherapy and who did not respond to oral pilocarpine treatment indicated that acupuncture (using auricular points and in some cases supplemented with electro-stimulation) is effective in alleviating xerostomia [146]. However, some residual functional capacity of the remaining salivary gland tissue is needed [146]. A randomized clinical trial using Management guidelines and quality of recommendations (according to the ASCO clinical practice guidelines) [22] IMRT Ifoncologically feasible, IMRTisrecommended asa standard approach in head and neck cancer to limit the cumulated

  12. 1072 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 hypofunction, but in some patients a beneficial effect has been shown on xerostomia. radiation dose to critical normal tissues. IMRTcan reduce the dosetoparotid,submandibular/sublingual,andminor salivary glands while helping maintain adequate whole saliva flow rates and reducing xerostomia. This recommendation is based on consensus of two randomized controlled trials and supporting consistent evidence from 41 cohort studies, two case–control trials, and four cross-sectional studies. Guideline The panel cannot recommend the use of oral pilocarpine during radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients for improvement of xerostomia as the results of the various randomized clinical trials were not univocal (Level II evidence, grade C recommendation). In addition, the improvement of salivary gland hypofunction was shown to be limited. The dissimilar results on sparing of salivary gland function are thought to be highly dependent on the wide range of cumulative doses applied. The only trial providing an analysis of sparing of parotid gland function related to mean parotid dose indicated significant sparing of parotid gland function and reduced xerostomia for mean parotid doses exceeding 40 Gy, and is thus in favor of suggesting the use of pilocarpine during radiotherapy. Guideline The panel recommends the use of parotid- sparing IMRT for prevention of salivary gland hypofunc- tion and xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients (Level II evidence, grade A recommendation). Amifostine Phase III trials have shown amifostine reduced xerostomia after radiation therapy. However, the possibility of tumor protection remains a clinical concern. No consensus could be reached regarding recommendation as most clinical studies do not have the statistical power to evaluate the influence of amifostine on the therapeutic index. Also, the trial design of most amifostine studies is at least question- able and the outcomes subject to debate. Many trials failed to adequately document allocation concealment or the conduct of an intention-to-treat analysis, and the majority of the trials lacked a placebo in the control arms [76]. Gustatory and masticatory stimulation Sugar-free lozenges, acidic candies, or chewing gum may potentially produce transitory relief from xerostomia by stimulating residual capacity of salivary gland tissue, but this has been sparsely addressed within the field of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as sequelae of cancer therapies, so no recommendation can be given for this specific group of patients. Guideline No guideline possible due to lack of consensus on the interpretation of existing evidence (Level II evidence, grade C recommendation). Guideline No guideline possible due to little evidence on which to base a guideline for patients suffering from xerostomia induced by cancer therapies (Level III evidence, grade D recommendation). Muscarinic agonist stimulation Oral mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes After radiotherapy Administration of pilocarpine HCl following radiation therapy has shown reduced prevalence of xerostomia and improved salivary gland function to some extent. However, the effect is temporary and of relatively short duration, thus treatment needs to be life- long. Pilocarpine is generally well tolerated but may induce mild to moderate systemic anticholinergic adverse effects, and medical monitoring of patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases is recommended. Oral mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes are suggested for reducing xerostomia following radiation therapy including major salivary glands in the radiation field. It has been shown that these lubricants/substitutes are more effective than a placebo; however, they offer limited relief of the dry mouth feelingandofrelativelyshortduration.Furthermore,theylack the protective effects of saliva, although some ofthemcontain fluoride and electrolytes to prevent demineralization. No specific mucosal lubricant formulas are recommen- ded. It should be noted that the body of studies within this field are conducted before 1990 (see historical summary in the introductory chapter). Guideline The panel recommends the use of oral pilocar- pine following radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients for improvement of xerostomia. The improvement of salivary gland hypofunction may be limited (Level II evidence, grade B recommendation). Guideline The panel recommends the use of oral mucosal lubricants/saliva substitutes for short-term improvement of xerostomia following radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients (Level II evidence, grade B recommendation). During radiotherapy Regarding the use of pilocarpine HCl concomitantly with radiation therapy, results are inconsis- tent whether to reduce xerostomia and salivary gland

  13. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1073 Epilogue Surgical transfer of submandibular gland Salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia are clinically significant adverse effects from cancer therapies and occur frequently. Since the 1989 NIH Development Consensus Conference on the Oral Complications of Cancer Therapies, the scientific approach to management strategies of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as sequelae of radio- therapy in the head and neck region has focused on preservation of salivary gland function, primarily the parotid glands, by the advances in radiation techniques, including the appearance and optimizing of 3D treatment planning, conformal radiation techniques and IMRT, the development of cytoprotective agents and preservation by stimulation with cholinergic muscarinic agonists as well as the application of new lubricating or stimulatory agents, surgical transfer of submandibular glands, and acupuncture during and following cancer treatment. Salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia management strategies were seldom addressed in other cancer treatments than radiation therapy of head and neck cancer. In conclusion, IMRT currently shows the greatest potential as a management strategy by permanently pre- serving salivary gland function in head and neck cancer patients and other available management strategies of xerostomia are mainly symptomatic, of short duration, lack the protective effects of saliva, or may potentially have significant adverse effects. The systematic review found few reports dealing with effects of gustatory and mastica- tory stimulation, use of oral mucosal lubricants on xerostomia during and after cancer therapies, hyperbaric oxygen treatment, and management strategies in pediatric cancer populations in general. No studies addressed the economic consequences of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia on oral/general health and QoL, and such evaluations should be undertaken in future studies both during cancer treatment and in a life-long perspective. Furthermore, there are currently two new promising approaches, viz. gene therapy [153] and stem cell transfer [154] both aiming for regain of function after radiotherapy. New studies emerged after the inclusion criterion of this systematic review will be addressed in future work and the management guidelines revised accordingly. Early results suggest that surgical transfer of one subman- dibular gland to the submental space potentially may be of relevance to preserve salivary gland function and reduce xerostomia in strictly selected oropharyngeal and hypo- pharyngeal cancer patients to be irradiated. Guideline Thepanelsuggeststhattheobtainedlevelofsparing by submandibular salivary gland transfer might be of clinical significance (Level IVevidence, grade B recommendation). Acupuncture Acupuncture treatment appears to offer an intervention for the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with a residual functional capacity of the salivary glands and is a treatment modality without serious adverse effects. Guideline The panel suggests the use of acupuncture to stimulate salivary gland secretion and to alleviate xerosto- mia (Level II evidence, grade C recommendation). Hyperbaric oxygen treatment Insufficient data available so no recommendation possible regarding hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Guideline No guideline possible due to no evidence on which to base a guideline (Level IV evidence, grade D recommendation). Economic impact of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia as an oral complication of cancer therapies A review of the literature revealed no data on inpatient or outpatient charges or resource utilization related specifically to the presence and/or severity of salivary gland hypo- function and xerostomia. When resource utilization was reported, e.g., mean treatment days, extra clinic visits, or days of parenteral nutrition, the resource utilization was reported to be due to parameters such as mouth pain, the inability to eat or drink, management of toxicity in general, extreme weakness, or fatigue. Furthermore, the resource utilization was reported during or in close proximity to the cancer treatment, and no studies covered this issue in a long-term perspective. Nevertheless, salivary gland hypo- function and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies may potentially have a direct economic impact of cancer treatment or be an aggravating factor with implications for some of the abovementioned parameters and thereby indirectly increase the financial costs of cancer therapies. Acknowledgments Deputy Head of the Panum Library, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, for expert assistance with the systematic literature search. We also thank Tainika Williams, Department of Oral Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, North Carolina, USA, for her overall skills with literature search. We thank Research Librarian Susie Andersen, Conflicts of interest potential conflicts of interests. The authors declared that they have no

  14. 1074 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 18. Duxbury AJ, Thakker NS, Wastell DG (1989) A double-blind cross-over trial of a mucin-containing artificial saliva. Br Dent J 166:115–120 19. Vissink A, Schaub RM, van Rijn LJ, ‘s Gravenmade EJ, Panders AK, Vermey A (1987) The efficacy of mucin-containing artificial saliva in alleviating symptoms of xerostomia. Gerodontology 6:95–101 20. Vissink A, Waterman HA, ‘s Gravenmade EJ, Panders AK, Vermey A (1984) Rheological properties of saliva substitutes containing mucin, carboxymethylcellulose or polyethylenoxide. J Oral Pathol 13:22–28 21. Vissink A, De Jong HP, Busscher HJ, Arends J, ‘s Gravenmade EJ (1986) Wetting properties of human saliva and saliva substitutes. J Dent Res 65:1121–1124 22. Brennan MT, Elting LS, Spijkervet FKL (2010) Systematic reviews of oral complications from cancer therapies, Oral Care Study Group, MASCC/ISOO: Methodology and quality of the literature. Support Care Cancer (in press) 23. Baccaglini L, Brennan MT, Lockhart PB, Patton LL (2007) World Workshop on Oral Medicine IV: process and methodology for systematic review and developing management recommendations. Reference manual for management recommendations writing committees. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103(Suppl):S3–S19 24. Louis CU, Paulino AC, Gottschalk S, Bertuch AA, Chintagumpala M, Heslop HE, Russell HV (2007) A single institution experience withpediatricnasopharyngealcarcinoma:highincidenceoftoxicity associated with platinum-based chemotherapy plus IMRT. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 29:500–505 25. Chao KS, Deasy JO, Markman J, Haynie J, Perez CA, Purdy JA, Low DA (2001) A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head-and-neck cancers receiving intensity- modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: initial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:907–916 26. Chao KS, Majhail N, Huang CJ, Simpson JR, Perez CA, Haughey B, Spector G (2001) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy reduces late salivary toxicity without compromising tumor control in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma: a comparison with conven- tional techniques. Radiother Oncol 61:275–280 27. Eisbruch A, Kim HM, Terrell JE, Marsh LH, Dawson LA, Ship JA (2001) Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid- sparing irradiation of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:695–704 28. AmossonCM,TehBS,VanTJ,UyN,HuangE,MaiWY,FrolovA, Woo SY, Chiu JK, Carpenter LS, Lu HH, Grant WH III, Butler EB (2003) Dosimetric predictors of xerostomia for head-and-neck cancer patients treated with the smart (simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy) boost technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:136–144 29. Chao KS, Ozyigit G, Blanco AI, Thorstad WL, Deasy JO, Haughey BH, Spector GJ, Sessions DG (2004) Intensity- modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:43–50 30. Lu TX, Mai WY, Teh BS, Zhao C, Han F, Huang Y, Deng XW, Lu LX, Huang SM, Zeng ZF, Lin CG, Lu HH, Chiu JK, Carpenter LS, Grant WH III, WooSY, Cui NJ, Butler EB (2004)Initialexperience using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for recurrent nasopharyn- geal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:682–687 31. Jabbari S, Kim HM, Feng M, Lin A, Tsien C, Elshaikh M, Terrel JE, Murdoch-Kinch C, Eisbruch A (2005) Matched case–control study of quality of life and xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: initial report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:725–731 32. Ng MK, Porceddu SV, Milner AD, Corry J, Hornby C, Hope G, Rischin D, Peters LJ (2005) Parotid-sparing radiotherapy: References 1. Jensen SB, Pedersen AML, Vissink A, Andersen E, Brown CG, Davies AN, Dutilh J, Fulton JS, Jankovic L, Lopes NNF, Mello ALS, Muniz LV, Murdoch-Kinch CA, Nair RG, Napeñas JJ, Nogueira-RodriguesA,SaundersD,StirlingB,vonBültzingslöwen I, Weikel DS, Elting LS, Spijkervet FKL, Brennan MT (2010) A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: prevalence, severity and impact on quality of life. Support Care Cancer doi:10.1007/s00520-010- 0827-8 2. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Confer- ence Consensus Statement (1989) Oral complications of cancer therapies: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Natl Inst Health Consens Dev Conf Consens Statement 7:1–11 3. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Confer- ence. Oral complications of cancer therapies: diagnosis, preven- tion, and treatment. Bethesda, MD, USA, April 17–19,1989 (1990) NCI Monogr 9:1–184 4. Abok K, Brunk U, Jung B, Ericsson J (1984) Morphologic and histochemical studies on the differing radiosensitivity of ductular and acinar cells of the rat submandibular gland. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol 45:443–460 5. Norberg LE, Forsberg B (1987) Alpha-adrenergic stimulation and radiosensitivity on the rat submaxillary gland. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 49:302–313 6. Norberg LE, Lundquist PG (1989) Aspects of salivary gland radiosensitivity: effects of sialagogues and irradiation. Arch Oto- Rhino-Laryngol 246:200–204 7. Greenspan D, Daniels TE (1987) Effectiveness of pilocarpine in postradiation xerostomia. Cancer 59:1123–1125 8. Wolff A, Atkinson JC, Macynski AA, Fox PC (1990) Oral complications of cancer therapies. Pretherapy interventions to modify salivary dysfunction. NCI Monogr 87–90 9. Utley JF, Marlowe C, Waddell WJ (1976) Distribution of 35S- labeled WR-2721 in normal and malignant tissues of the mouse1, 2. Radiat Res 68:284–291 10. Sodicoff M, Conger AD, Trepper P, Pratt NE (1978) Short-term radioprotective effects of WR-2721 on the rat parotid glands. Radiat Res 75:317–326 11. Sodicoff M, Conger AD, Pratt NE, Trepper P (1978) Radiopro- tection by WR-2721 against long-term chronic damage to the rat parotid gland. Radiat Res 76:172–179 12. Takahashi I, Nagai T, Miyaishi K, Maehara Y, Niibe H (1986) Clinical study of the radioprotective effects of Amifostine (YM- 08310, WR-2721) on chronic radiation injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 12:935–938 13. Matzker J, Schreiber J (1972) Synthetic saliva in the treatment of hyposialies, especially in radiation sialadenitis. Z Laryngol Rhinol Otol 51:422–428 14. Shannon IL, McCrary BR, Starcke EN (1977) A saliva substitute for use by xerostomic patients undergoing radio- therapy to the head and neck. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 44:656–661 15. ‘s Gravenmade EJ, Roukema PA, Panders AK (1974) The effect of mucin-containing artificial saliva on severe xerostomia. Int J Oral Surg 3:435–439 16. Vissink A, ‘s Gravenmade EJ, Panders AK, Vermey A, Petersen JK, Visch LL, Schaub RM (1983) A clinical comparison between commercially available mucin- and CMC-containing saliva substitutes. Int J Oral Surg 12:232–238 17. Visch LL, ‘s Gravenmade EJ, Schaub RM, Van Putten WL, Vissink A (1986) A double-blind crossover trial of CMC- and mucin-containing saliva substitutes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 15:395–400

  15. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1075 does it really reduce xerostomia? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 17:610–617 33. Nishimura Y, Nakamatsu K, Shibata T, Kanamori S, Koike R, Okumura M, Suzuki M (2005) Importance of the initial volume of parotid glands in xerostomia for patients with head and neck cancers treated with IMRT. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35:375–379 34. Pacholke HD, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, Li JG, Dempsey JF, Hinerman RW, Mendenhall WM (2005) Late xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional radio- therapy. Am J Clin Oncol 28:351–358 35. Rosenbluth BD, Serrano V, Happersett L, Shaha AR, Tuttle RM, Narayana A, Wolden SL, Rosenzweig KE, Chong LM, Lee NY (2005) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of nonanaplastic thyroid cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:1419–1426 36. Hsiung CY, Ting HM, Huang HY, Lee CH, Huang EY, Hsu HC (2006) Parotid-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: preserved parotid function after IMRT on quantitative salivary scintigraphy, and comparison with historical data after conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:454–461 37. Lee NY, de Arruda FF, Puri DR, Wolden SL, Narayana A, Mechalakos J,VenkatramanES,KrausD,ShahaA,Shah JP, Pfister DG, Zelefsky MJ (2006) A comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and concomitant boost radiotherapy in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:966–974 38. Meirovitz A, Murdoch-Kinch CA, Schipper M, Pan C, Eisbruch A (2006) Grading xerostomia by physicians or by patients after intensity-modulated radiotherapy of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:445–453 39. Nangia S, Chufal KS, Arivazhagan V, Srinivas P, Tyagi A, Ghosh D (2006) Compensator-based intensity-modulated radio- therapy in head and neck cancer: our experience in achieving dosimetric parameters and their clinical correlation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 18:485–492 40. Pow EH, Kwong DL, McMillan AS, Wong MC, Sham JS, Leung LH, Leung WK (2006) Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:981–991 41. Vosmik M, Odrazka K, Dolezel M, Vaculikova M, Kordac P, Zouhar M, Petera J, Jansa J, Zoul Z, Paluska P, Vokurka J (2006) IMRT with the use of simultaneous integrated boost in treatment of head and neck cancer: acute toxicity evaluation. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 49:167–173 42. Wendt TG, Abbasi-Senger N, Salz H, Pinquart I, Koscielny S, Przetak SM, Wiezorek T (2006) 3D-conformal-intensity modu- lated radiotherapy with compensators for head and neck cancer: clinical results of normal tissue sparing. Radiat Oncol 1:18 43. Wolden SL, Chen WC, Pfister DG, Kraus DH, Berry SL, Zelefsky MJ (2006) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharynx cancer: update of the Memorial Sloan- Kettering experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:57–62 44. Daly ME, Lieskovsky Y, Pawlicki T, Yau J, Pinto H, Kaplan M, Fee WE, Koong A, Goffinet DR, Xing L, Le QT (2007) Evaluation of patterns of failure and subjective salivary function in patients treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 29:211– 220 45. Fang FM, Tsai WL, Chen HC, Hsu HC, Hsiung CY, Chien CY, Ko SF (2007) Intensity-modulated or conformal radiotherapy improves the quality of life of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparisons of four radiotherapy techniques. Cancer 109:313–321 46. Graff P, Lapeyre M, Desandes E, Ortholan C, Bensadoun RJ, Alfonsi M, Maingon P, Giraud P, Bourhis J, Marchesi V, Mege A, Peiffert D (2007) Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer patients: matched-pair comparison with conven- tional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:1309– 1317 47. Kam MK, Leung SF, Zee B, Chau RM, Suen JJ, Mo F, Lai M, Ho R, Cheung KY, Yu BK, Chiu SK, Choi PH, Teo PM, Kwan WH, Chan AT (2007) Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 25:4873–4879 48. Munter MW, Hoffner S, Hof H, Herfarth KK, Haberkorn U, Rudat V, Huber P, Debus J, Karger CP (2007) Changes in salivary gland function after radiotherapy of head and neck tumors measured by quantitative pertechnetate scintigraphy: comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and conventional radiation therapy with and without amifostine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:651–659 49. Rades D, Fehlauer F, Wroblesky J, Albers D, Schild SE, Schmidt R (2007) Prognostic factors in head-and-neck cancer patients treated with surgery followed by intensity-modulated radiother- apy (IMRT), 3D-conformal radiotherapy, or conventional radio- therapy. Oral Oncol 43:535–543 50. Anand AK, Chaudhoory AR, Shukla A, Negi PS, Sinha SN, Babu AA, Munjal RK, Dewan AK, Kumar K, Doval DC, Vaid AK (2008) Favourable impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy on chronic dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer. Br J Radiol 81:865–871 51. Huang K, Xia P, Chuang C, Weinberg V, Glastonbury CM, Eisele DW, Lee NY, Yom SS, Phillips TL, Quivey JM (2008) Intensity-modulated chemoradiation for treatment of stage III and IV oropharyngeal carcinoma: the University of California- San Francisco experience. Cancer 113:497–507 52. Klem ML, Mechalakos JG, Wolden SL, Zelefsky MJ, Singh B, Kraus D, Shaha A, Shah J, Pfister DG, Lee NY (2008) Intensity- modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer of unknown primary: toxicity and preliminary efficacy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:1100–1107 53. Madani I, Vakaet L, Bonte K, Boterberg T, De NW (2008) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical lymph node me- tastases from unknown primary cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1158–1166 54. Rusthoven KE, Raben D, Ballonoff A, Kane M, Song JI, Chen C (2008) Effect of radiation techniques in treatment of oropharynx cancer. Laryngoscope 118:635–639 55. Seung S, Bae J, Solhjem M, Bader S, Gannett D, Hansen EK, Louie J, Underhill K, Cha C (2008) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer in the community setting. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72:1075–1081 56. van Rij CM, Oughlane-Heemsbergen WD, Ackerstaff AH, Lamers EA, Balm AJ, Rasch CR (2008) Parotid gland sparing IMRT for head and neck cancer improves xerostomia related quality of life. Radiat Oncol 3:41 57. Eisbruch A, Ten Haken RK, Kim HM, Marsh LH, Ship JA (1999) Dose, volume, and function relationships in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity-modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:577–587 58. Lin A, Kim HM, Terrell JE, Dawson LA, Ship JA, Eisbruch A (2003) Quality of life after parotid-sparing IMRT for head-and- neck cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:61–70 59. Blanco AI, Chao KS, El Naqa I, Franklin GE, Zakarian K, Vicic M, Deasy JO (2005) Dose-volume modeling of salivary function

  16. 1076 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 in patients with head-and-neck cancer receiving radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1055–1069 60. Saarilahti K, Kouri M, Collan J, Hamalainen T, Atula T, Joensuu H, Tenhunen M (2005) Intensity modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: evidence for preserved salivary gland function. Radiother Oncol 74:251–258 61. de Arruda FF, Puri DR, Zhung J, Narayana A, Wolden S, Hunt M, Stambuk H, Pfister D, Kraus D, Shaha A, Shah J, Lee NY (2006) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:363–373 62. Liu WS, Lee SP, Lee JK, Su MC, Chen GD, Lee HS, Lee H (2006) Factors influencing the parotid function in nasopharyn- geal carcinoma treated with parotid-sparing radiotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 36:626–631 63. Liu WS, Kuo HC, Lin JC, Su MC, Lee JK, Chou MJ, Chou MC, Lee H (2006) Assessment of salivary function change in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by parotid-sparing radiother- apy. Cancer J 12:494–500 64. Li Y, Taylor JM, Ten Haken RK, Eisbruch A (2007) The impact of dose on parotid salivary recovery in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:660–669 65. Sultanem K, Shu HK, Xia P, Akazawa C, Quivey JM, Verhey LJ, Fu KK (2000) Three-dimensional intensity-modulated radiother- apy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the University of California-San Francisco experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:711–722 66. Kam MK, Teo PM, Chau RM, Cheung KY, Choi PH, Kwan WH, Leung SF, Zee B, Chan AT (2004) Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiothera- py: the Hong Kong experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:1440–1450 67. Munter MW, Karger CP, Hoffner SG, Hof H, Thilmann C, Rudat V, Nill S, Wannenmacher M, Debus J (2004) Evaluation of salivary gland function after treatment of head-and-neck tumors with intensity-modulated radiotherapy by quantitative pertechnetate scintigraphy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:175–184 68. Anand AK, Jain J, Negi PS, Chaudhoory AR, Sinha SN, Choudhury PS, Kumar R, Munjal RK (2006) Can dose reduction to one parotid gland prevent xerostomia?—A feasibility study for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 18:497–504 69. Lee NY, O’Meara W, Chan K, la-Bianca C, Mechalakos JG, Zhung J, Wolden SL, Narayana A, Kraus D, Shah JP, Pfister DG (2007) Concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radio- therapy for locoregionally advanced laryngeal and hypophar- yngeal cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:459–468 70. Roesink JM, Moerland MA, Battermann JJ, Hordijk GJ, Terhaard CH (2001) Quantitative dose-volume response analysis of changes in parotid gland function after radiother- apy in the head-and-neck region. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:938–946 71. Saarilahti K, Kouri M, Collan J, Kangasmaki A, Atula T, Joensuu H, Tenhunen M (2006) Sparing of the submandibular glands by intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 78:270–275 72. Murdoch-Kinch CA, Kim HM, Vineberg KA, Ship JA, Eisbruch A (2008) Dose–effect relationships for thesubmandibular salivary glands and implications for their sparing by intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72:373–382 73. Lin SC, Jen YM, Chang YC, Lin CC (2008) Assessment of xerostomia and its impact on quality of life in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, and validation of the Taiwanese version of the xerostomia questionnaire. J Pain Symptom Manage 36:141–148 74. Brizel DM, Wasserman TH, Henke M, Strnad V, Rudat V, Monnier A, Eschwege F, Zhang J, Russell L, Oster W, Sauer R (2000) Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radio- protector in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:3339–3345 75. Wasserman TH, Brizel DM, Henke M, Monnier A, Eschwege F, Sauer R, Strnad V (2005) Influence of intravenous amifostine on xerostomia, tumor control, and survival after radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: 2-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized, phase III trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:985–990 76. Hensley ML, Hagerty KL, Kewalramani T, Green DM, Meropol NJ, Wasserman TH, Cohen GI, Emami B, Gradishar WJ, Mitchell RB, Thigpen JT, Trotti A III, von Hoff D, Schuchter LM (2009) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 clinical practice guideline update: use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants. J Clin Oncol 27:127–145 77. Vacha P, Fehlauer F, Mahlmann B, Marx M, Hinke A, Sommer K, Richter E, Feyerabend T (2003) Randomized phase III trial of postoperative radiochemotherapy+/−amifostine in head and neck cancer. Is there evidence for radioprotection? Strahlenther Onkol 179:385–389 78. Antonadou D, Pepelassi M, Synodinou M, Puglisi M, Throuvalas N (2002)Prophylacticuseofamifostinetopreventradiochemotherapy- induced mucositis and xerostomia in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:739–747 79. Karacetin D, Yucel B, Leblebicioglu B, Aksakal O, Maral O, Incekara O (2004) A randomized trial of amifostine as radio- protector in the radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. J BUON 9:23–26 80. Buntzel J, Glatzel M, Mucke R, Micke O, Bruns F (2007) Influence of amifostine on late radiation-toxicity in head and neck cancer—a follow-up study. Anticancer Res 27:1953–1956 81. Kouloulias VE, Kouvaris JR, Kokakis JD, Kostakopoulos A, Mallas E, Metafa A, Vlahos LJ (2004) Impact on cytoprotective efficacy of intermediate interval between amifostine administra- tion and radiotherapy: a retrospective analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:1148–1156 82. Buentzel J, Micke O, Adamietz IA, Monnier A, Glatzel M, de Vries A (2006) Intravenous amifostine during chemoradio- therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a randomized placebo- controlled phase III study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:684–691 83. Bohuslavizki KH, Klutmann S, Brenner W, Kroger S, Buchert R, Bleckmann C, Mester J, Henze E, Clausen M (1999) Radiopro- tection of salivary glands by amifostine in high-dose radioiodine treatment. Results of a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 175(Suppl 4):6–12 84. Rudat V, Meyer J, Momm F, Bendel M, Henke M, Strnad V, Grotz K, Schulte A (2000) Protective effect of amifostine on dental health after radiotherapy of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:1339–1343 85. Veerasarn V, Phromratanapongse P, Suntornpong N, Lorvid- haya V, Sukthomya V, Chitapanarux I, Tesavibul C, Swang- silpa T, Khorprasert C, Shotelersuk K, Kongthanarat Y, Panichevaluk A, Chiewvit S, Pusuwan P, Aekmahachai M, Ratchadara S, Sirilipoche S, Saengsuda Y (2006) Effect of amifostine to prevent radiotherapy-induced acute and late toxicity in head and neck cancer patients who had normal or mild impaired salivary gland function. J Med Assoc Thail 89:2056–2067 86. Rudat V, Munter M, Rades D, Grotz KA, Bajrovic A, Haberkorn U, Brenner W, Debus J (2008) The effect of amifostine or IMRT to preserve the parotid function after radiotherapy of the head

  17. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1077 and neck region measured by quantitative salivary gland scintigraphy. Radiother Oncol 89:71–80 87. Ozsahin M, Betz M, Matzinger O, Bron L, Luthi F, Pasche P, Azria D, Mirimanoff RO, Zouhair A (2006) Feasibility and efficacy of subcutaneous amifostine therapy in patients with head and neck cancertreatedwithcurativeacceleratedconcomitant-boostradiation therapy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:141–145 88. Law A, Kennedy T, Pellitteri P, Wood C, Christie D, Yumen O (2007) Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous amifostine in minimiz- ing radiation-induced toxicities in patients receiving combined- modality treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:1361–1368 89. Brizel DM, Overgaard J (2003) Does amifostine have a role in chemoradiation treatment? Lancet Oncol 4:378–381 90. Fox PC, Atkinson JC, Macynski AA, Wolff A, Kung DS, Valdez IH, Jackson W, Delapenha RA, Shiroky J, Baum BJ (1991) Pilocarpine treatment of salivary gland hypofunction and dry mouth (xerostomia). Arch Intern Med 151:1149–1152 91. Wiseman LR, Faulds D (1995) Oral pilocarpine: a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical potential in xerostomia. Drugs 49:143–155 92. Johnson JT, Ferretti GA, Nethery WJ, Valdez IH, Fox PC, Ng D, Muscoplat CC, Gallagher SC (1993) Oral pilocarpine for post- irradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 329:390–395 93. LeVeque FG, Montgomery M, Potter D, Zimmer MB, Rieke JW, Steiger BW, Gallagher SC, Muscoplat CC (1993) A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-titration study of oral pilocarpine for treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 11:1124–1131 94. Davies AN, Singer J (1994) A comparison of artificial saliva and pilocarpine in radiation-induced xerostomia. J Laryngol Otol 108:663–665 95. Rieke JW, Hafermann MD, Johnson JT, LeVeque FG, Iwamoto R, Steiger BW, Muscoplat C, Gallagher SC (1995) Oral pilocarpine for radiation-induced xerostomia: integrated efficacy and safety results from two prospective randomized clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:661–669 96. Hamlar DD, Schuller DE, Gahbauer RA, Buerki RA, Staubus AE, Hall J, Altman JS, Elzinga DJ, Martin MR (1996) Determination of the efficacy of topical oral pilocarpine for postirradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck carcinoma. Laryngoscope 106:972–976 97. Nyarady Z, Nemeth A, Ban A, Mukics A, Nyarady J, Ember I, Olasz L (2006) A randomized study to assess the effectiveness of orally administered pilocarpine during and after radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. Anticancer Res 26:1557–1562 98. Taweechaisupapong S, Pesee M, Aromdee C, Laopaiboon M, Khunkitti W (2006) Efficacy of pilocarpine lozenge for post- radiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. Aust Dent J 51:333–337 99. Chitapanarux I, Kamnerdsupaphon P, Tharavichitkul E, Sumitsawan Y, Sittitrai P, Pattarasakulchai T, Lorvidhaya V, Sukthomya V, Pukanhaphan N, Traisatit P (2008) Effect of oral pilocarpine on post-irradiation xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients: a single-center, single-blind clinical trial. J Med Assoc Thail 91:1410–1415 100. Silberstein EB (2008) Reducing the incidence of 131I-induced sialadenitis: the role of pilocarpine. J Nucl Med 49:546–549 101. Jacobs CD, van der Pas M (1996) A multicenter maintenance study of oral pilocarpine tablets for radiation-induced xerosto- mia. Oncology (Williston Park) 10:16–20 102. Singhal S, Powles R, Treleaven J, Rattenbury H, Mehta J (1997) Pilocarpine hydrochloride for symptomatic relief of xerostomia due to chronic graft-versus-host disease or total-body irradiation after bone-marrow transplantation for hematologic malignancies. Leuk Lymphoma 24:539–543 103. Niedermeier W, Matthaeus C, Meyer C, Staar S, Muller RP, Schulze HJ (1998) Radiation-induced hyposalivation and its treatment with oral pilocarpine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 86:541–549 104. Horiot JC, Lipinski F, Schraub S, Maulard-Durdux C, Bensadoun RJ, Ardiet JM, Bolla M, Coscas Y, Baillet F, Coche-Dequeant B, Urbajtel M, Montbarbon X, Bourdin S, Wibault M, Alfonsi M, Calais G, Desprez P, Pene F, Lapeyre M, Vinke J, Maral J (2000) Post-radiation severe xerostomia relieved by pilocarpine: a prospective French cooperative study. Radiother Oncol 55:233–239 105. Ringash J, Warde P, Lockwood G, O’Sullivan B, Waldron J, Cummings B (2005) Postradiotherapy quality of life for head- and-neck cancer patients is independent of xerostomia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:1403–1407 106. Aframian DJ, Helcer M, Livni D, Markitziu A (2006) Pilocarpine for the treatment of salivary glands’ impairment caused by radioiodine therapy for thyroid cancer. Oral Dis 12:297–300 107. Aframian DJ, Helcer M, Livni D, Robinson SD, Markitziu A, Nadler C (2007) Pilocarpine treatment in a mixed cohort of xerostomic patients. Oral Dis 13:88–92 108. Daniels TE, Wu AJ (2000) Xerostomia—clinical evaluation and treatment in general practice. J Calif Dent Assoc 28:933–941 109. Bernardi R, Perin C, Becker FL, Ramos GZ, Gheno GZ, Lopes LR, Pires M, Barros HM (2002) Effect of pilocarpine mouth- wash on salivary flow. Braz J Med Biol Res 35:105–110 110. Valdez IH, Wolff A, Atkinson JC, Macynski AA, Fox PC (1993) Useofpilocarpineduring head and neck radiationtherapytoreduce xerostomia and salivary dysfunction. Cancer 71:1848–1851 111. Licht R, Kampinga HH, Coppes RP (2002) Salivary gland- sparing prophylactic pilocarpine treatment has no effect on tumor regrowth after irradiation. Radiat Res 157:596–598 112. Lajtman Z, Krajina Z, Krpan D, Vincelj J, Borcic V, Popovic- Kovacic J (1999) Pilocarpine in the prevention of postirradiation xerostomia. Acta Med Croatica 54:65–67 113. Sangthawan D, Watthanaarpornchai S, Phungrassami T (2001) Randomized double blind, placebo-controlled study of pilocar- pine administered during head and neck irradiation to reduce xerostomia. J Med Assoc Thail 84:195–203 114. Haddad P, Karimi M (2002) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of concomitant pilocarpine with head and neck irradiation for prevention of radiation-induced xero- stomia. Radiother Oncol 64:29–32 115. Warde P, O’Sullivan B, Aslanidis J, Kroll B, Lockwood G, Waldron J, Payne D, Bayley A, Ringash J, Kim J, Liu FF, Maxymiw W, Sprague S, Cummings BJ (2002) A phase III placebo-controlled trial of oral pilocarpine in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:9–13 116. Fisher J, Scott C, Scarantino CW, LeVeque FG, White RL, Rotman M, Hodson DI, Meredith RF, Foote R, Bachman DG, Lee N (2003) Phase III quality-of-life study results: impact on patients’ quality of life to reducing xerostomia after radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer-RTOG 97-09. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:832–836 117. Gornitsky M, Shenouda G, Sultanem K, Katz H, Hier M, Black M, Velly AM (2004) Double-blind randomized, placebo- controlled study of pilocarpine to salvage salivary gland function during radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98:45–52 118. Gorsky M, Epstein JB, Parry J, Epstein MS, Le ND, Silverman S Jr (2004) The efficacy of pilocarpine and bethanechol upon saliva production in cancer patients with hyposalivation follow-

  18. 1078 Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 ing radiation therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 97:190–195 119. Scarantino C, LeVeque F, Swann RS, White R, Schulsinger A, Hodson DI, Meredith R, Foote R, Brachman D, Lee N (2006) Effect of pilocarpine during radiation therapy: results of RTOG 97-09, a phase III randomized study in head and neck cancer patients. J Support Oncol 4:252–258 120. Burlage FR, Roesink JM, Kampinga HH, Coppes RP, Terhaard C, Langendijk JA, van LP S, MA VA (2008) Protection of salivary function by concomitant pilocarpine during radiothera- py: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:14–22 121. Zimmerman RP, Mark RJ, Tran LM, Juillard GF (1997) Concomitant pilocarpine during head and neck irradiation is associated with decreased posttreatment xerostomia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:571–575 122. Mateos JJ, Setoain X, Ferre J, Rovirosa A, Navalpotro B, Martin F, Ortega M, Lomena F, Fuster D, Pavia J, Pons F (2001) Salivary scintigraphy for assessing the protective effect of pilocarpine in head and neck irradiated tumours. Nucl Med Commun 22:651–656 123. Chambers MS, Posner M, Jones CU, Biel MA, Hodge KM, Vitti R, Armstrong I, Yen C, Weber RS (2007) Cevimeline for the treatment of postirradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:1102–1109 124. Chambers MS, Jones CU, Biel MA, Weber RS, Hodge KM, Chen Y, Holland JM, Ship JA, Vitti R, Armstrong I, Garden AS, Haddad R (2007) Open-label, long-term safety study of cevime- line in the treatment of postirradiation xerostomia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:1369–1376 125. Jham BC, Teixeira IV, Aboud CG, Carvalho AL, Coelho MM, Freire AR (2007) A randomized phase III prospective trial of bethanecholtopreventradiotherapy-inducedsalivaryglanddamage in patients with head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 43:137–142 126. Senahayake F, Piggott K, Hamilton-Miller JM (1998) A pilot study of Salix SST (saliva-stimulating lozenges) in post- irradiation xerostomia. Curr Med Res Opin 14:155–159 127. Jensdottir T, Nauntofte B, Buchwald C, Hansen HS, Bardow A (2006) Effects of sucking acidic candies on saliva in unilaterally irradiated pharyngeal cancer patients. Oral Oncol 42:317–322 128. Duncan GG, Epstein JB, Tu D, El SS, Bezjak A, Ottaway J, Pater J (2005) Quality of life, mucositis, and xerostomia from radiotherapy for head and neck cancers: a report from the NCIC CTG HN2 randomized trial of an antimicrobial lozenge to prevent mucositis. Head Neck 27:421–428 129. Nakada K, Ishibashi T, Takei T, Hirata K, Shinohara K, Katoh S, Zhao S, Tamaki N, Noguchi Y, Noguchi S (2005) Does lemon candy decrease salivary gland damage after radioiodine therapy for thyroid cancer? J Nucl Med 46:261–266 130. Epstein JB, Emerton S, Le ND, Stevenson-Moore P (1999) A double-blind crossover trial of Oral Balance gel and Biotene toothpaste versus placebo in patients with xerostomia following radiation therapy. Oral Oncol 35:132–137 131. Shahdad SA, Taylor C, Barclay SC, Steen IN, Preshaw PM (2005) A double-blind, crossover study of Biotene Oralbalance and BioXtra systems as salivary substitutes in patients with post- radiotherapy xerostomia. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 14:319–326 132. Nagy K, Urban E, Fazekas O, Thurzo L, Nagy E (2007) Controlled study of lactoperoxidase gel on oral flora and saliva in irradiated patients with oral cancer. J Craniofac Surg 18:1157–1164 133. Dirix P, Nuyts S, Vander Poorten V, Delaere P, Van den Bogaert W (2007) Efficacy of the BioXtra dry mouth care system in the treatment of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia. Support Care Cancer 15:1429–1436 134. Epstein JB, Stevenson-Moore P (1992) A clinical comparative trial of saliva substitutes in radiation-induced salivary gland hypofunction. Spec Care Dentist 12:21–23 135. Andersson G, Johansson G, Attstrom R, Edwardsson S, Glantz PO, Larsson K (1995) Comparison of the effect of the linseed extract Salinum and a methyl cellulose preparation on the symptoms of dry mouth. Gerodontology 12:12–17 136. Momm F, Volegova-Neher NJ, Schulte-Monting J, Guttenberger R (2005) Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study. Strah- lenther Onkol 181:231–236 137. Johansson G, Andersson G, Attstrom R, Glantz PO, Larsson K (1994) The effect of Salinum on the symptoms of dry mouth: a pilot study. Gerodontology 11:46–49 138. MommF,GuttenbergerR(2002)Treatmentofxerostomiafollowing radiotherapy: does age matter? Support Care Cancer 10:505–508 139. Jellema AP, Langendijk H, Bergenhenegouwen L, van der Reijden W, Leemans R, Smeele L, Slotman BJ (2001) The efficacy of Xialine in patients with xerostomia resulting from radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a pilot-study. Radiother Oncol 59:157–160 140. Regelink G, Vissink A, Reintsema H, Nauta JM (1998) Efficacy of a synthetic polymer saliva substitute in reducing oral complaints of patients suffering from irradiation-induced xero- stomia. Quintessence Int 29:383–388 141. Jha N, Seikaly H, Harris J, Williams D, Liu R, McGaw T, Hofmann H, Robinson D, Hanson J, Barnaby P (2003) Prevention of radiation induced xerostomia by surgical transfer of submandibular salivary gland into the submental space. Radiother Oncol 66:283–289 142. Pathak KA, Bhalavat RL, Mistry RC, Deshpande MS, Bhalla V, Desai SB, Malpani BL (2004) Upfront submandibular salivary gland transfer in pharyngeal cancers. Oral Oncol 40:960–963 143. Seikaly H, Jha N, Harris JR, Barnaby P, Liu R, Williams D, McGaw T, Rieger J, Wolfaardt J, Hanson J (2004) Long-term outcomes of submandibular gland transfer for prevention of postradiation xerostomia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:956–961 144. Al-Qahtani K, Hier MP, Sultanum K, Black MJ (2006) The role of submandibular salivary gland transfer in preventing xerosto- mia in the chemoradiotherapy patient. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101:753–756 145. Jha N, Seikaly H, Harris J, Williams D, Sultanem K, Hier M, Ghosh S, Black M, Butler J, Sutherland D, Kerr P, Barnaby P (2009) Phase III randomized study: oral pilocarpine versus submandibular salivary gland transfer protocol for the manage- ment of radiation-induced xerostomia. Head Neck 31:234–243 146. Johnstone PA, Peng YP, May BC, Inouye WS, Niemtzow RC (2001) Acupuncture for pilocarpine-resistant xerostomia follow- ing radiotherapy for head and neck malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:353–357 147. Blom M, Dawidson I, Fernberg JO, Johnson G, Angmar- Mansson B (1996) Acupuncture treatment of patients with radiation-induced xerostomia. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol 32B:182–190 148. Blom M, Lundeberg T (2000) Long-term follow-up of patients treated with acupuncture for xerostomia and the influence of additional treatment. Oral Dis 6:15–24 149. Cho JH, Chung WK, Kang W, Choi SM, Cho CK, Son CG (2008) Manual acupuncture improved quality of life in cancer patients with radiation-induced xerostomia. J Altern Comple- ment Med 14:523–526 150. Gerlach NL, Barkhuysen R, Kaanders JH, Janssens GO, Sterk W, Merkx MA (2008) The effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on quality of life in oral and oropharyngeal cancer

  19. Support Care Cancer (2010) 18:1061–1079 1079 patients treated with radiotherapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:255–259 151. Harding SA, Hodder SC, Courtney DJ, Bryson PJ (2008) Impact of perioperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy on the quality of life of maxillofacial patients who undergo surgery in irradiated fields. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:617–624 152. Langendijk JA, Doornaert P, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Leemans CR, Aaronson NK, Slotman BJ (2008) Impact of late treatment- related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 26:3770– 3776 153. Baum BJ, Zheng C, Cotrim AP, McCullagh L, Goldsmith CM, Brahim JS, Atkinson JC, Turner RJ, Liu S, Nikolov N, Illei GG (2009) Aquaporin-1 gene transfer to correct radiation-induced salivary hypofunction. Handb Exp Pharmacol 403–418 154. Coppes RP, van der Goot A, Lombaert IM (2009) Stem cell therapy to reduce radiation-induced normal tissue damage. Semin Radiat Oncol 19:112–121