## Abstract ## Background. the study was designed to test whether vitamin E (VE) provides oral mucosal protection in patients with irradiated cancers of the head and neck. ## Methods. Fiftyβfour patients with cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx were randomly assigned to rinse the oral cavit
Double blind randomized trial of sucralfate vs placebo during radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancers
β Scribed by Dennis L. Carter; Mary E. Hebert; Karen Smink; Kenneth A. Leopold; Robert L. Clough; David M. Brizel
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1999
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 86 KB
- Volume
- 21
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1043-3074
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Background. This study sought to determine whether sucralfate prophylaxis during a course of high dose radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer decreases acute side effects.
Methods. Patients receiving curative intent RT for advanced head and neck cancers participated in a single institution doubleblind randomized trial comparing sucralfate to placebo. Patients were stratified according to fractionation, use of concurrent chemotherapy, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), age, and pretreatment presence of a feeding gastrostomy. Patients were prospectively evaluated during weekly treatment checks, and analyzed with regard to time (measured in terms of dose) until development of the following: weight loss, mucositis, pain, nutritional intake, and need for a treatment break. After completion of RT, time until healing was similarly compared.
Results. Fifty-two patients received sucralfate and 50 received placebo. The mean (Β±SD) prescribed dose was 69 Β± 7 Gy. Sixty-nine patients received BID fractionation and 27 received concurrent chemotherapy. No difference was detected in any outcome measure in the direct comparison between the two groups.
On multivariate analysis, weight loss >5% or >10% occurred more frequently in patients receiving chemotherapy (p < 0.01 and p = 0.05, respectively). Grade 3 mucositis was more common in patients receiving chemotherapy (p = 0.05) or BID fractionation (p = 0.04) or having a poor KPS (p = 0.02). Interval to healing was not associated with any of the pretreatment-or treatment-related factors. Sucralfate did not result in any additional toxicity.
Conclusions. Prophylactic treatment with sucralfate during high-dose head and neck RT did not decrease acute treatment side effects. Other modalities should be investigated.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract ## BACKGROUND: A significant response to placebo in randomized controlled trials of treatments for cancerβrelated fatigue (CRF) had been reported. A retrospective study was conducted to determine the frequency and predictors of response to placebo effect and nocebo effects in patients
## Abstract ## Background. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group undertook a multicenter, randomized, doubleβblind controlled trial of an oral antimicrobial versus placebo to prevent and treat mucositis. We present the quality of life (QOL) analysis for this trial. ## Meth
## Abstract ## BACKGROUND. Topical antifungal treatments are recommended but rarely used as firstβline therapy for oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC) in patients with cancer. Miconazole Lauriad 50βmg mucoadhesive buccal tablet (MBT) Loramyc reportedly delivered rapid and prolonged, effective concentr