BACKGROUNDMucositis 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.METHODSA 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONSThe updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis will help clinicians provide evidence‐based management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. Cancer 2014;120:1453–1461. © 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Background Mucositis is a significant toxicity of cancer therapy with numerous systemic sequelae. 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 the management of mucositis. Methods The literature was reviewed systematically to identify interventions for mucositis. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws according to previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention and 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 guideline covers evidence from 1197 publications related to oral or gastrointestinal mucositis. Thirteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings, and 11 previous guidelines were confirmed after aa review of new evidence. Thirteen previously established guidelines were carried over because there was no new evidence for these interventions. Conclusions The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis provide professional health caregivers with a clinical setting‐specific, evidence‐based tool to help with the management of mucositis in patients who have cancer.

Skeletal complications caused by osteoporosis or bone metastases are associated with considerable pain, increased mortality, and reduced quality of life. Furthermore, such events place a burden on health care resources. Agents that prevent bone resorption, such as bisphosphonates or denosumab, can reduce the risk of skeletal-related events and are widely used in patients with osteoporosis or bone metastases of cancer. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a rare, but potentially serious, adverse event associated with high cumulative doses of bisphosphonates or denosumab. However, MRONJ can be treated, and the likelihood of the development of this condition can be reduced through prophylactic dental care and the maintenance of good oral hygiene. Dentists, as part of a multiprofessional team, have a critical role in preventing MRONJ. This review describes the incidence and pathophysiology of MRONJ and provides guidance for dental practitioners with regard to the screening, prophylactic treatment, diagnosis, and management of patients with this condition. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019;127:117À135) Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is an uncommon condition that can occur after exposure to agents used to prevent bone complications, such as bisphosphonates or denosumab, or treatment with other agents, such as angiogenesis inhibitors. 1 In the majority of cases, MRONJ manifests as exposed bone in the maxillofacial region (Figure 1), although non-exposed MRONJ has also been recognized (Figure 2). 2-5 Bisphosphonates and denosumab are predominantly used to reduce the risk of skeletal complications in patients with bone loss, resulting from long-term cancer treatment or osteoporosis, and in patients with malignant bone disease. 6-8 Bisphosphonates are small molecules that dock in hydroxyapatite-binding sites on bone surfaces. When osteoclasts begin to resorb bisphosphonate-impregnated bone, the liberated bisphosphonates bind to farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase inside the osteoclasts, ultimately leading to apoptosis. 8-10 Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody, which has a different mode of action from that of bisphosphonates. It targets and binds to the receptor activator of nuclear factor k-B (RANK) ligand (RANKL); in doing so it prevents the activation of RANK on the surface of osteoclasts and osteoclast precursors. Inhibition of the RANKLÀRANK interaction impedes osteoclast formation, function, and survival, thereby decreasing bone resorption. 11 MRONJ is more prevalent among patients receiving high cumulative doses of bisphosphonates or denosumab than in patients who receive lower doses. 12,13 The first cases Statement of Clinical Relevance Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is a rare, but potentially serious, complication of treatment with bisphosphonates and denosumab. It is important for dentists to be aware of ways to identify and treat patients at risk of this condition.

Purpose-The aims of this systematic review were to determine, in patients receiving cancer therapy, the prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization, to determine the impact on quality of life and cost of care, and to review current management strategies for oral fungal infections.Methods-Thirty-nine articles that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were independently reviewed by two calibrated reviewers, each using a standard form. Information was extracted on a number of variables, including study design, study population, sample size, interventions, blinding, outcome measures, methods, results, and conclusions for each article. Areas of discrepancy between the two reviews were resolved by consensus. Studies were weighted as to the quality of the study design, and recommendations were based on the relative strength of each paper. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization.Results-For all cancer treatments, the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection was found to be 7.5% pretreatment, 39.1% during treatment, and 32.6% after the end of cancer therapy. Head and neck radiotherapy and chemotherapy were each independently associated with a significantly increased risk for oral fungal infection. For all cancer treatments, the prevalence of oral colonization with fungal organisms was 48.2% before treatment, 72.2% during treatment, and 70.1% after treatment. The prophylactic use of fluconazole during cancer therapy resulted in a prevalence of clinical fungal infection of 1.9%. No information specific to oral fungal infections was found on quality of life or cost of care.Conclusions-There is an increased risk of clinically significant oral fungal infection during cancer therapy. Systemic antifungals are effective in the prevention of clinical oral fungal infection in patients receiving cancer therapy. Currently available topical antifungal agents are less efficacious, suggesting a need for better topical agents.

No abstract