Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
Preventive versus curative photobiomodulation for oral mucositis in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: which approach is more effective?
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rupel K, Cornacchia A, Poiani M, Mohamed S, De Bellis E, Ballerini M, Bogdan Preda TM, Poropat A, Di Lenarda R, Zaja F, Biasotto M, Ottaviani G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: There is increasing evidence that photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy is both an effective and safe approach in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for both prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM), but its use in clinical practice is still limited and the timing of application is under discussion. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate possible differences between patients treated either with preventive or curative PBM therapy.
METHODS: The retrospective case series included 24 patients suffering from multiple myeloma who underwent the same conditioning and transplantation protocol. Patients were treated either with preventive PBM starting from the first day of conditioning up to two days post-HSCT or with curative PBM (starting at OM onset for four consecutive days). OM score, pain, and functional parameters were recorded.
RESULTS: All patients developed OM. Preventive PBM was significantly more effective in reducing OM severity (p < 0.0001) and pain (p < 0.0001) post-HSCT than curative PBM. Furthermore, we found a lower number of patients reporting discomfort in all subjective parameters (pain during swallowing, chewing, and speaking) in the preventive PBM group. No adverse events related to PBM therapy were recorded in both groups.
CONCLUSION: The timing for PBM therapy in patients undergoing HSCT is crucial: when started on the first day of conditioning, it significantly reduces both pain and OM severity, providing an important benefit also in subjective oral functions such as speaking, swallowing, and chewing, thus increasing the overall adherence to the oncological therapies.
METHODS: The retrospective case series included 24 patients suffering from multiple myeloma who underwent the same conditioning and transplantation protocol. Patients were treated either with preventive PBM starting from the first day of conditioning up to two days post-HSCT or with curative PBM (starting at OM onset for four consecutive days). OM score, pain, and functional parameters were recorded.
RESULTS: All patients developed OM. Preventive PBM was significantly more effective in reducing OM severity (p < 0.0001) and pain (p < 0.0001) post-HSCT than curative PBM. Furthermore, we found a lower number of patients reporting discomfort in all subjective parameters (pain during swallowing, chewing, and speaking) in the preventive PBM group. No adverse events related to PBM therapy were recorded in both groups.
CONCLUSION: The timing for PBM therapy in patients undergoing HSCT is crucial: when started on the first day of conditioning, it significantly reduces both pain and OM severity, providing an important benefit also in subjective oral functions such as speaking, swallowing, and chewing, thus increasing the overall adherence to the oncological therapies.