Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com
Review article
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.
Methods: The review of the literature was based on a keyword strategy and pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The keywords
head and neck cancer, radiotherapy, oral mucositis, controlled trial and honey were used as search terms in the EMBASE, CINAHL,
COCHRANE and PUBMED databases. The citation and reference list of the eligible articles were also screened for potentially relevant articles.
The methodological quality of the selected trials was assessed by the JADAD scale.
Results: In total, 5 studies met the criteria and were included in the systematic review. Three studies assessed the effectiveness of honey against
other products including golden syrup, lignocaine and saline and two studies assessed the effectiveness of honey against standard treatment regimes.
Four out of the five studies demonstrated significant reduction in the mucositis levels and one study reported that honey had no statistical association
with less severe mucositis. Methodologically the quality of most studies was moderate due to the small sample size, which might impact upon the
significance of the findings.
Conclusions: Although honey appears to be a simple, affordable, available and cost-effective treatment for the management of radiation-induced
oral mucositis, there is a need for further multi-centre randomized trials to validate these findings.
2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Clinical trials; Honey; Oral mucositis; Radiation therapy; Head and neck cancer
Introduction
An estimated 36,500 new cases of and 7900 deaths from oral
cavity and pharyngeal cancers occurred in 2010 in the United
States [1]. Squamous cell carcinoma or a variant is the histologic
type in more than 90% of these tumours [2,3]. The three main
kinds of treatment that may be given independently or in combination, for head and neck cancers include surgery, chemotherapy
Corresponding author at: Nursing Department, Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus. Tel.: +357 25002011; fax: +357 25002822.
E-mail address: andreas.charalambous@cut.ac.cy (A. Charalambous).
1 www.cut.ac.cy/medyp.
2 http://www.euro-mediterraneancenter.com.
1876-3820/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2013.01.003
218
528 titles
428 studies excluded with
reasons (title)
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) RCTs that use
honey as a sole intervention (rinses in oral cavity) or as an adjunct
to another standard treatment for the treatment of oral mucositis,
(b) adult participants (>18+ years old), (c) head and/or neck
cancer populations, and (d) written in English or Greek language.
Articles were excluded if: (a) the trials were in progress, (b)
the trials were published in the form of dissertations, abstracts,
single case studies, reviews or meta-analyses, (c) the trials did
not focus solely on head and neck cancer patients, and (d) oral
mucositis was not the side-effect of radiotherapy.
Validity assessment
Walji and Boon [33], state that RCTs are widely recognized
as the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of a new intervention or treatment. However, it is common in the literature that the
poorly designed RCTs may suffer from methodological problems which impact the quality, generalizability and acceptability
of their findings. Furthermore, any variations in their methodological quality can affect the conclusions about the existing
evidence [34] and this is the reason why their quality assessment
becomes essential.
As part of the current review, all potentially relevant RCTs
were independently read by three authors (MC, AC, VR) and
were scored for methodological quality following the JADAD
scale scoring system [35]. This scale assigns points ranging
from poor (=0) to high (=5) methodological quality. The items
of the JADAD score assess randomization (maximum points:
2), blinding (maximum points: 2) and reporting of withdrawals
and dropouts (maximum points: 1) [35]. The decision to use
the JADAD scoring scale lays on the following reasons: The
JADAD scale has been adapted for use in many health care
areas and it was found to be the most frequently cited and the
most commonly used scale by the health care community [36].
Furthermore, it was tested for construct validity [24], test-retest
reliability in different areas and it presented the best validity
evidence compared to other scales [35].
Search outcome
The literature search was carried out by the three researchers
(MC, AC, VR). The researchers screened independently all references from each database. The total number of references
derived from the searched strategy was 528 and included studies on the general management of radiation-induced mucositis
(Fig. 1). Fifteen articles were retrieved from EMBASE, 18 articles from CINAHL, 70 from COCHRANE and another 425 from
PUBMED.
Following this, a hand search was performed in all articles
and their citation list in order to ensure that no relevant articles
were overlooked or duplicated. During this phase 52 studies
were removed due to duplication. All articles went through
219
5 full text
(RCTs)
5 studies included in
systematic review
220
Table 1
List of reviewed studies.
Study design
Scales-tools
Type of honey
Analysis
Results
JADAD
score
[39]
Clinical and
mirror examination of
the mucosa.
Tea plant
(Camellia
sinensis)
Demographic,
treatment, morbidity
scores Microsoft-Excel
software difference
between various
parameters was compared
using chi-squared test
RTOG grading
system scale
Clinical
evaluation every week
for radiation mucositis
(WHO)
A single-blinded,
randomized controlled trial
Clinical
evaluation every week
for radiation mucositis
RTOG (Grating
system)
[37]
[38]
20 patients in honey
group(s/a) rinses of 20 ml pure
honey 15 before and 15 after
radiotherapy and before going to
bed
20 patients in lignocaine
group (c/a) rinses of 20 ml
lignocaine gel 15 before and 15
after radiotherapy and before
going to bed
Microsoft-Excel
software
Descriptive analysis
and Yates corrected
chi-square analysis
Forest honey
To determine whether
there was a statistically
significant difference in
proportions of patients in
the groups with
intolerable mucositis the
chi-squared test was
applied
Authors
Table 1 (Continued)
Authors
Study design
Scales-tools
Type of honey
Analysis
Results
JADAD
score
Clinical
evaluation every week
for radiation mucositis
(OMAS scale)
Clinical
evaluation every week
for radiation mucositis
RTOG scale to assess
mucositis was used
Thyme and
astragale
(Astragalus
membranaceus)
T-test
MannWhitney test
Friedman test
Manuka
[41]
A single-blinded,
randomized controlled trial
64 patients in placebo
(golden syrup) rinses of 20 ml of
the allocated substance, and to
swallow it slowly, 4 times a day
for the duration of the
radiotherapy (4 weeks) and for 2
weeks after treatment (42 days in
total).
221
RTOG, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; WHO, World Health Organization; OMAS, Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale.
222
Molan [46] and Sela [47] in their studies identified the potential
positive role of explicit properties of honey in oral health. A
common finding in these two studies supports that the supposed
solubility-reducing factor present in honey, which according
to literature, remains active in the absence of saliva, but will
be inactivated by salivary enzymes, gives some support to the
hypothesis that honey is less cariogenic in dry-mouth subjects
[47].
The majority of the studies examined have a small number
of individuals in both arms and as a consequence these findings
must be treated with caution as it might have a negative impact on
their significance (i.e. generalizability). The researchers do not
discuss the rationale underlying the sample sizes and whether
these had sufficient statistical power.
In these studies the researchers have used different types
of honey and therefore this might have biased the findings
reported. The researchers have used Manuka honey [41], forest
honey [40], honey from clover (Trifolium alexandrenum) [37]
and tea honey (Camellia sinsesis) [39]. In the study of Khanal
et al. [38], the authors only mentioned that the honey was pure
without specifying its origin. Different types of honey (i.e. thymus honey) have fortified specific qualities that may cause a
greater effect on the amelioration of oral mucositis whilst others (i.e. Manuka honey) can be more effective in wound healing.
Although it has been determined that the antimicrobial and healing activity of each kind of honey varies [47,48] there are not
enough clinical studies that compare or consider the honeys
source (i.e. plants origin) as an indicator of its effectiveness. In
light of this aspect, findings are comparable only in those cases
where the same type of honey was tested.
In addition to the type, the classification and quality of the
honey must also be taken to consideration. Honey can be subjected to a variety of processing methods (i.e. pasteurization),
that determine its classification. Based on these processing methods, honey can be classified as crystallized, pasteurized, raw,
strained, ultra filtered, ultrasonicated, whipped, dried, comb and
chunk. Only two of the reviewed studies clarified the classification of honey used [37,39]. In both studies the honey used was
classified as raw. This means that the honey was as it existed
in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining
without adding heat. The honey was subjected to chemical analysis in four out of the five studies [37,3941] in order to verify its
quality. Particularly, three of the studies [37,39,40] mentioned
that honey subjected to chemical analysis, microbial, pH, density and viscosity measurements while in one was reported that
honey underwent stringent quality control testing [41].
Contrary to the varied types of honey assessed, the protocols
(amount and frequency) used by the researchers in the 5 trials is
rather consistent. This potentially allows for cross-studies comparisons at least on the basis of the amount and the solution
density of the honey used in the intervention groups.
Also, notable were the variety of oral mucositis assessment
scales, the frequency and the duration of assessments used in
each of the reviewed trials. A number of scoring systems have
been defined to assess the severity of oral mucositis including
the World Healths organization scale (WHO) [49], the National
Cancer Institutes Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC version
223
224
References
[1] American Cancer society. Cancer facts & figures Atlanta: American
Cancer Society. Available at: http://www.cancer.org./downloads/STT/
Cancer-Facts-and-Figures-2010 (accessed 12.04.11).
[2] De Vita Jr V, Lawrence T, Rosenberg S. Cancer: principles & practice of
oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
[3] Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal
for Clinicians 2010;60:277300.
[4] Scully C, Epstein JB. Oral health care for the cancer patient. Oral Oncology
European Journal of Cancer 1996;32B:28192.
[5] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Head and Neck Cancers:
Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology 2011;9(6). Available at:
www.NCCN.org
[6] Sonis ST. The pathobiology of mucositis. Nature Reviews of Cancer
2004;4:27784.
[7] Dische S, Saunders M, Barrett A, Harvey A, Gibson D, Parmar M. Accelerated fractionation (AF) compared to conventional fractionation (CF).
Improve loco-regional control in the radiotherapy of advanced head and
neck cancer: results of the EORTC 22851 trial. Radiotherapy and Oncology
1997;44:12336.
[8] McGuire DB, Correa ME, Johnson J, Wienandts P. The role of basic
oral care and good clinical practice principles in the management of oral
mucositis. Support Care Cancer 2006;14:5417.
[9] Shieh SH, Wang ST, Tsai ST, Tseng CC. Mouth care for nasopharyngeal
cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Oral Oncology 1997;33:3641.
[10] Lalla RV, Schubert MM, Bensadoun RJ, Keefe D. Anti-inflammatory
agents in themanagement of alimentary mucositis. Support Care Cancer
2006;14(6):55865.
[11] Mahood DJ, Dose AM, Loprinzi CL, Veeder MH, Athmann LM, Therneau
TM, et al. Inhibition of fluorouracil-induced stomatitis by oral cryotherapy.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 1991;9:44952.
[12] Barasch A, Peterson DE, Tanzer JM, DAmbrosio JA, Nuki K, Schubert MM, et al. Heliumneon laser effects on conditioning-induced oral
mucositis in bone marrow transplantation. Cancer 1995 Dec 15;76(12):
25506.
[13] Spielberger R, Stiff P, Bensinger W, Gentile T, Weisdorf D, Kewalramani T,
et al. Palifermin for oral mucositis after intensive therapy for hematologic
cancers. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351:25908.
[14] Wyminga AN, van der Graaf WT, Hofstra LS, Spijkervet FKL, Timens W,
Timmer-Bosscha H, et al. Phase I study of transforming growth factor-beta3
mouthwashes for prevention of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Clinical
Cancer Research 1999;5:13638.
[15] Foncuberta MC, Cagnoni PJ, Brandts CH, Mandanas R, Fields K, Derigs
HG, et al. Topical transforming growth factor-beta3 in the prevention or
alleviation of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in patients with lymphomas or solid tumors. Journal of Immunotherapy 2001;24:3848.
[16] Clarkson JE, Worthington HV, Eden OB. Interventions for treating oral
mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment. Cochrane Database
of Systematic Reviews 2007:CD001973.
[17] Ernst E. Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine: a systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2000;78:3936.
[18] Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega, Pud D, Ozden G, Scott JA, Pandeli V,
et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a
European survey. Annals of Oncology 2005;16:65563.
[19] Simon L, Prebay D, Beretz A, Bagot A, Lobstein A, Rubinstein I, et al.
Complementary and alternative medicines taken by cancer patients. Bulletin du Cancer 2007;94:4838.
[20] Cavanagh D, Beazley J, Ostapowicz F. Radical operation for carcinoma
of the vulva. A new approach to wound healing. Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth 1970;77:103740.
[21] Chiba M, Idobata K, Kobayashi N, Sato Y, Muramatsu Y. Use of honey to
ease the pain of stomatitis during radiotherapy. Kangogaku Zasshi Japanese
Journal of Nursing 1985;49:1716.
[22] Smirnova II, Filatova EI, Suvorov AN, Bylinskaia EN. The use of therapeutic/prophylactic dragee honey laminolact in radiotherapy of uterine
tumors. Voprosy Onkologii 2000;46:74850.
225
[39] Biswal BM, Zakaria A, Ahmad NM. Topical application of honey in the
management of radiation mucositis: a preliminary study. Supportive Care
in Cancer 2003;11:2428.
[40] Motallebnejad M, Akram S, Moghadamnia A, Moulana Z, Omidi S. The
effect of topical application of pure honey on radiation-induced mucositis: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
2008;9:407.
[41] Bardy J, Molassiotis A, Ryder WD, Kathleen M, Sykes A, Yap P, et al. A
double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of active manuka honey
and standard oral care for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Journal of Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgery 2011;(3):2216.
[42] English HK, Pack AR, Molan PC. The effects of manuka honey on plaque
and gingivitis: a pilot study. Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology 2004;6:637.
[43] Al-Waili NS. Topical application of natural honey, beeswax and olive
oil mixture for atopic dermatitis or psoriasis: partially controlled, singleblinded study. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2003;11:22634.
[44] Fox C. Honey as a dressing for chronic wounds in adults. British Journal
of Community Nursing 2002;7:5304.
[45] Tahmaz L, Erdemir F, Kibar Y, Cosar A, Yalcyn O. Fourniers gangrene:
report of thirty-three cases and a review of the literature. International
Journal of Urology 2006;13:9607.
[46] Molan PC. The potential of honey to promote oral wellness. General Dentistry 2001;49:5849.
[47] Sela M, Maroz D, Gedalia L. Streptococcus mutans in saliva of normal
subjects and head and neck irradiated cancer subjects after conception of
honey. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2000;27:26970.
[48] Maddocks-Jennings W, Wilkinson JM, Cavanagh HM, Shillington D. Evaluating the effects of the essential oils Leptospermum scoparium [manuka]
and Kunzea ericoides (kanuka) on radiotherapy induced mucositis: a
randomized, placebo controlled feasibility study. European Journal of
Oncology Nursing 2009;13:8793.
[49] World Health Organization. WHO handbook for reporting the results of
cancer treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Offset Publications; 1979.
p. 1522.
[50] Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of Radiation Therapy Oncology
Group (RTOG) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of
Cancer (EORTC). International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology,
Physics 1995;31:13416.
[51] National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for
Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version4.0 Published: May 28, 2009
(v4.03: June 14, 2010) U.S. Department of health and humanservices, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Publication No. 09-5410
http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/About.html
[52] Sonis ST, Eilers JP, Epstein JB, LeVeque FG, Liggett Jr WH, Mulagha MT,
et al. Validation of a new scoring system for the assessment of clinical trial
research of oral mucositis induced by radiation or chemotherapy. Mucositis
study group. Cancer 1999;85(10):210313.