MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy

BACKGROUND: Mucositis is a highly significant, and sometimes dose-limiting, toxicity of cancer therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify eligible published articles, based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Each article was independently reviewed by 2 reviewers. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws as per previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each treatment setting, was assigned a level of evidence, based on previously published criteria. Guidelines were developed based on the level of evidence, with 3 possible guideline determinations: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: The literature search identified 8279 papers, 1032 of which were retrieved for detailed evaluation based on titles and abstracts. Of these, 570 qualified for final inclusion in the systematic reviews. Sixteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings. In total, the MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Guidelines now include 32 guidelines: 22 for oral mucositis and 10 for gastrointestinal mucositis. This article describes these updated guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis will help clinicians provide evidence-based management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy.Rajesh V. Lalla, Joanne Bowen, Andrei Barasch, Linda Elting, Joel Epstein, Dorothy M. Keefe, Deborah B. McGuire, Cesar Migliorati, Ourania Nicolatou-Galitis, Douglas E. Peterson, Judith E. Raber-Durlacher, Stephen T. Sonis, Sharon Elad and The Mucositis Guidelines Leadership Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO

Supportive care 2030 movement: towards unifying ambitions for global excellence in supportive cancer care-an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care to ensure optimal quality of life is an essential component of cancer care and symptom control across the lifespan. Ongoing advances in cancer treatment, increasing toxicity from many novel treatment regimes, and variations in access to care and cancer outcomes across the globe and resource settings present significant challenges for supportive care delivery. To date, no overarching framework has been developed to guide supportive care development worldwide. As an initial step of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Supportive Care 2030 Movement, we developed a targeted, unifying set of ambition statements to envision the future of supportive cancer care. METHODS: From September 2022 until June 2023, we used a modified Delphi methodology to develop and attain consensus about ambition statements related to supportive cancer care. Leaders of MASCC Study Groups were invited to participate in an Expert Panel for the first two Delphi rounds (and a preliminary round to suggest potential ambition statements). Patient Advocates then examined and provided input regarding the ambition statements. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven Expert Panelists and 11 Patient Advocates participated. Consensus was attained on 13 ambition statements, with two sub-statements. The ambition statements addressed global standards for guideline development and implementation, coordinated and individualized care, dedicated supportive oncology services, self-management, needs for screening and actions, patient education, behavioral support, financial impact minimization, comprehensive survivorship care, and timely palliative care, reflecting collaboration, coordination and team-based approach across all levels. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first to develop shared ambitions for the future of supportive cancer care on a global level. These ambition statements can facilitate a coordinated, resource-stratified, and person-centered approach and inform research, education, clinical services, and policy efforts. FUNDING: This project received funding support from Prof Raymond Chan's NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1194051)

Developing evidence-based guidelines for management of alimentary mucositis: process and pitfalls

The original publication can be found at www.springerlink.comIntroduction: It is important yet difficult to maintain currency in clinical oncology practice. The emergence of new diagnostic technologies and new paradigms for cancer treatment combine to produce a rapidly changing clinical approach to patients aided by the increasing use of multidisciplinary care teams and development of evidence-based protocols. Methods: Teams of experts review the literature in a given area and produce management guidelines and protocols for use by practicing clinicians. Traditionally within Hematology/Oncology, these guidelines have been directed to management of a given tumor type. However, in recent years, attention has increasingly turned to supportive oncology; for example, there are now management guidelines for conditions such as neutropenic fever [Hughes et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases 34(6):730–751, 2002], antiemetic (The Antiemetic Subcommittee of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Annals of Oncology 17:20–28, 2006) and most recently, mucositis [Rubenstein et al. Cancer 100(9 Suppl):2026–2046, 2004]. It is critical that any guideline process should include education, evaluation, and timely update in its remit, because guidelines become highly compromised if their existence is not widely known, if they do not facilitate clinical practice, or if they are not reflective of contemporary medical literature. Results: The Mucositis Study Group (MSG) of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology was created in 1998 to specifically address the multiprofessional approach to clinical care, research, and education associated with mucosal injury in cancer patients. A specific outcome has been the development of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mucositis [Rubenstein et al. Cancer 100(9 Suppl):2026–2046, 2004; The Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISSO 2005]. The original guidelines [Rubenstein et al. Cancer 100(9 Suppl):2026–2046, 2004] and a companion paper discussing the science behind mucositis [Sonis et al. Cancer 100(9):1995–2025, 2004], were published in 2004. The MSG has recently updated the guidelines [The Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISSO 2005]. Discussion: This paper discusses the process involved and the lessons learned that might help other groups planning to undertake a similar project.Dorothy M. Keefe, Douglas E. Peterson and Mark M. Schuber

A systematic review of oral herpetic viral infections in cancer patients:commonly used outcome measures and interventions

Purpose: To review the literature for outcome measures for oral viral infections in cancer patients. A secondary aim was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) clinical practice guidelines for the management of oral viral infections in cancer patients. Methods: Databases were searched for articles published in the English language, 1981–2013. Studies that met the eligibility criteria were reviewed systematically. The data about the outcome measures were classified according to the aim of the study: prevention, treatment, or non-interventional. The results of interventional studies were compared to the 2010 MASCC/ISOO publication. Results: Multiple clinical and laboratory tests were used to measure oral viral infections, with great variability between studies. Most of the studies were about Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV). The outcome measure that was most commonly used was the presence of HSV infection diagnosed based on a combination of suggestive clinical presentation with a positive laboratory result. HSV culture was the most commonly reported laboratory outcome measure. Acyclovir and valacyclovir were consistently reported to be efficacious in the management of oral herpetic infections. No new data on the quality of life and economic aspects was found. Conclusions: Considering the variability in outcome measures reported to assess oral herpetic infections the researcher should select carefully the appropriate measures based on the objective of the study. Acyclovir and valacyclovir are effective in the management of oral herpetic infections in patients receiving treatment for cancer. Studies on newer anti-viral drugs may be useful to address the issue of anti-viral resistance