The incidence and the severity of chemotherapy-associated oral mucositis were determined in a retrospective analysis of 150 patients with various solid tumors. In addition, possible risk factors for the development of mucositis were identified. Patients were treated with chemotherapeutic regimens appropriate to tumor type and disease stage on an in- or outpatient basis. Mucositis was scored using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Eighty-seven episodes of mucositis occurred in 47 (31%) patients. Twenty-six patients each experienced only one episode, whereas 21 patients had up to eight episodes of mucositis. The 1,281 chemotherapy cycles that have been analyzed included 87 cycles in which mucositis was observed. In 16 patients (11%) only slight oral mucosal changes were recorded (maximum WHO score 1), while 25 patients (17%) experienced mild to moderate mucositis (maximum WHO score 2), and in 6 patients (4%) mucositis was moderate to severe (maximum WHO score 3). No grade 4 mucositis developed. In 24 of the 47 patients with mucositis (51%) clinical features of acute pseudomembranous candidiasis were present. Leukopenia, leukopenic fever, and use of corticosteroids and central venous catheters were associated with the chemotherapy cycles with mucositis. Multivariate analysis identified the administration of paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or etoposide as independent risk factor (adjusted rate ratios 8.06, 7.35, and 6.70, respectively), whereas low body mass was associated with a slightly increased risk (adjusted rate ratio 0.92) for the development of mucositis. In conclusion, almost one-third of patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors experienced one or more episodes of mild to more severe oral mucositis, indicating that this is a frequent complication in such patients.

IntroductionRobotic guidance (RG) and computer-assisted navigation (NV) have seen increased adoption in instrumented spine surgery over the last decade. Although there exists some evidence that these techniques increase radiological pedicle screw accuracy compared with conventional freehand (FH) surgery, this may not directly translate to any tangible clinical benefits, especially considering the relatively high inherent costs. As a non-randomised, expertise-based study, the European Robotic Spinal Instrumentation Study aims to create prospective multicentre evidence on the potential comparative clinical benefits of RG, NV and FH in a real-world setting.Methods and analysisPatients are allocated in a non-randomised, non-blinded fashion to the RG, NV or FH arms. Adult patients that are to undergo thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation for degenerative pathologies, infections, vertebral tumours or fractures are considered for inclusion. Deformity correction and surgery at more than five levels represent exclusion criteria. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, as well as 12 and 24 months. The primary endpoint is defined as the time to revision surgery for a malpositioned or loosened pedicle screw within the first postoperative year. Secondary endpoints include patient-reported back and leg pain, as well as Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaires. Use of analgesic medication and work status are recorded. The primary analysis, conducted on the 12-month data, is carried out according to the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint is analysed using crude and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Patient-reported outcomes are analysed using baseline-adjusted linear mixed models. The study is monitored according to a prespecified monitoring plan.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol is approved by the appropriate national and local authorities. Written informed consent is obtained from all participants. The final results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberClinical Trials.gov registryNCT03398915; Pre-results, recruiting stage.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract