Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) has published evidence-based international guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM). However, adherence to these guidelines has not been evaluated. This survey assessed OM management in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) centers in Australia and New Zealand.</p> Methods <p>Specialist nurses in 41 transplant hospitals were invited to complete a survey. Questions covered general unit information, oral assessment (tools, assessors, frequency), prevention strategies (guidelines, oral care, cryotherapy, photobiomodulation, palifermin, and barriers to use), and treatment strategies (pain management and nutritional support).</p> Results <p>Of 41 hospitals, 24 (59%) responded. All but one responder were specialized nurses. Oral assessment was primarily conducted by nurses (100%) and doctors (80%). The most commonly used tools were the World Health Organization grading scale (42%), pain scores (46%), and EviQ (Australian online cancer resource) (42%). EviQ guidelines (67%), which exclude palifermin and photobiomodulation, followed by institutional guidelines (29%) and MASCC/ISOO guidelines (17%). Oral care (100%) and cryotherapy with melphalan (96%) were widely adopted, while photobiomodulation and palifermin were rarely used due to cost and access barriers. For OM-related pain, as-needed opioids (100%), patient-controlled analgesia (58%), and topical analgesics (46%) were common. When OM impaired oral intake, supportive measures included supplemental drinks (88%), enteral nutrition (50%), and parenteral nutrition (67%).</p> Conclusion <p>In Australia and New Zealand, national EviQ guidelines are used more often than the MASCC/ISOO guidelines. Feasibility for implementing palifermin and photobiomodulation should be reassessed, and greater collaboration in developing guidelines is necessary.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Oral mucositis management in hematopoietic cell transplantation in Australia and New Zealand (CAN EAT Survey)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月3日

查看全文
  • Emma Munro,
  • Nicole C Gavin,
  • Midori Nakagaki

摘要

Purpose

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) has published evidence-based international guidelines for the management of oral mucositis (OM). However, adherence to these guidelines has not been evaluated. This survey assessed OM management in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) centers in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods

Specialist nurses in 41 transplant hospitals were invited to complete a survey. Questions covered general unit information, oral assessment (tools, assessors, frequency), prevention strategies (guidelines, oral care, cryotherapy, photobiomodulation, palifermin, and barriers to use), and treatment strategies (pain management and nutritional support).

Results

Of 41 hospitals, 24 (59%) responded. All but one responder were specialized nurses. Oral assessment was primarily conducted by nurses (100%) and doctors (80%). The most commonly used tools were the World Health Organization grading scale (42%), pain scores (46%), and EviQ (Australian online cancer resource) (42%). EviQ guidelines (67%), which exclude palifermin and photobiomodulation, followed by institutional guidelines (29%) and MASCC/ISOO guidelines (17%). Oral care (100%) and cryotherapy with melphalan (96%) were widely adopted, while photobiomodulation and palifermin were rarely used due to cost and access barriers. For OM-related pain, as-needed opioids (100%), patient-controlled analgesia (58%), and topical analgesics (46%) were common. When OM impaired oral intake, supportive measures included supplemental drinks (88%), enteral nutrition (50%), and parenteral nutrition (67%).

Conclusion

In Australia and New Zealand, national EviQ guidelines are used more often than the MASCC/ISOO guidelines. Feasibility for implementing palifermin and photobiomodulation should be reassessed, and greater collaboration in developing guidelines is necessary.