SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • stomatitis;
  • oral mucositis;
  • gastrointestinal mucositis;
  • mucosal barrier injury;
  • mucositis clinical assessment scales;
  • mucositis etiopathogenesis

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

BACKGROUND

A frequent complication of anticancer treatment, oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis, threatens the effectiveness of therapy because it leads to dose reductions, increases healthcare costs, and impairs patients' quality of life. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an international multidisciplinary panel of experts to create clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, evaluation, and treatment of mucositis.

METHODS

The panelists examined medical literature published from January 1966 through May 2002, presented their findings at two separate conferences, and then created a writing committee that produced two articles: the current study and another that codifies the clinical implications of the panel's findings in practice guidelines.

RESULTS

New evidence supports the view that oral mucositis is a complex process involving all the tissues and cellular elements of the mucosa. Other findings suggest that some aspects of mucositis risk may be determined genetically. GI proapoptotic and antiapoptotic gene levels change along the GI tract, perhaps explaining differences in the frequency with which mucositis occurs at different sites. Studies of mucositis incidence in clinical trials by quality and using meta-analysis techniques produced estimates of incidence that are presented herein for what to our knowledge may be a broader range of cancers than ever presented before.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the pathobiology of mucositis, its incidence, and scoring are essential for progress in research and care directed at this common side-effect of anticancer therapies. Cancer 2004;100(9 Suppl):1995–2025. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Oral mucositis is a frequent complication of cytoreductive cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In many patients, it is associated with considerable pain and, thus, can significantly impair quality of life; in neutropenic patients with cancer, mucositis represents a clinically significant risk factor for sepsis.1 Furthermore, in some patients, it becomes a dose-limiting toxicity, slowing or preventing continuation of selected cancer therapies, including accelerated fractionation and hyperfractionation in radiotherapy and interventions that combine chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis, which represents injury of the rest of the alimentary tract, also is becoming recognized increasingly as a toxicity associated with many standard-dose chemotherapy regimens commonly used in the treatment of cancer and with radiation to any part of the GI tract. After chemotherapy, GI mucositis is most prominent in the small intestine, but it also occurs in the esophagus, stomach, and large intestine. Radiation esophagitis and radiation proctitis are also manifestations of GI mucositis.

Over the past 5 years, investigators have developed insight into the basic molecular mechanisms of mucosal barrier injury, prompting new strategies for prevention and treatment. Equally significant are recent studies that have defined the epidemiologic aspects of mucositis further, because they form the basis for any analysis in which the potential efficacy of an intervention is evaluated.1 Furthermore, because interpreting the epidemiologic data depends on understanding the scoring systems used to measure and objectively classify mucositis, the strengths and limitations of the scoring systems are reviewed before the epidemiologic data are presented. Therefore, in this article, we describe the most current view of mucositis pathobiology, the scoring systems, the current epidemiology, and the economic and clinical consequences of mucositis for patients. The epidemiologic data are drawn from a comprehensive, evidence-based literature review that was conducted by the Mucositis Section of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology, as part of the effort to create clinical practice guidelines (see the accompanying article in this issue2).

BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Oral Mucositis

The biologic complexities underlying mucosal barrier injury and, in particular, oral mucositis have been appreciated only recently. In fact, our understanding of the molecular, cellular, and tissue events that lead to this common and often dose-limiting toxicity continue to evolve. Historically, mucositis was viewed solely as an epithelium-mediated event that was the result of the nonspecific toxic effects of radiation or chemotherapy on dividing epithelial stem cells.3 It was believed that direct damage by chemotherapy or radiation therapy to the basal epithelial cell layer led to loss of the renewal capacity of the epithelium, resulting in clonogenic cell death, atrophy, and consequent ulceration. This direct, somewhat linear process failed to account for several more recent findings about the role of other cells and the extracellular matrix in the submucosal region. These observations outlined below indicate that the mechanisms that result in mucositis are not so direct or simple.4

Microvascular injury (e.g., injury mediated by endothelial apoptosis) may play a significant role in the development of radiation-induced intestinal injury.5 Morphologic evidence provided by electron microscopy demonstrates that endothelial and connective tissue damage precedes epithelial changes in irradiated oral mucosa,4 suggesting that endothelial injury is an early event in the development of radiation-induced mucosal injury. Whether endothelial injury has a sustaining role is unclear, however, inasmuch as morphologic evidence of vascular damage was not observed in human material obtained from patients who had received cumulative radiation doses of 30 grays, despite increased expression of adhesion molecules.6 The finding that the inhibition of platelet aggregation is associated with reduced mucosal toxicity also suggests a possible role for vascular endothelium and platelets in the pathogenesis of mucositis.7

Further evidence suggesting that mucositis is not just an epithelial process comes from examining the relation between proinflammatory cytokines and mucosal toxicity in animal and human studies. Increased peripheral blood levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukins 1 and 6 (IL-1 and IL-6) correlate with the extent of nonhematologic toxicities in patients following chemotherapy.8 Similarly, mucosal levels of IL-1β and gene expression of TNF-α are associated with the development of mucositis in animal models.4 Agents known to attenuate the expression of both cytokines have demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of both experimental4 and clinical9 mucositis. For example, in a radiation-injury mucositis model, IL-11, a pleotrophic cytokine, can decrease TNF-α levels, an event associated with a reduction in mucositis scores. Furthermore, it has been noted recently that tissue apoptotic rates that vary in different disease states (in psoriasis, antiapoptotic; in Addison disease, proapoptotic) are associated with opposing risks for mucositis compared with controls without either condition (Chen E, unpublished data).

Increasing direct and indirect experimental evidence supports the concept that virtually all the cells and tissues of the oral mucosa, including the extracellular matrix, contribute to barrier injury. The sequence of cell and tissue changes further implies that nothing occurs within the mucosa as a biologically isolated event. Rather, it appears that interactions among the various mucosal components, including those influenced by the oral environment, collectively lead to mucositis.

For illustrative purposes, mucosal barrier injury can be viewed as having five phases: initiation, up-regulation with generation of messengers, signaling and amplification, ulceration with inflammation, and, finally, healing. This model of injury is demonstrated best in the oral mucosa but also may take place in the rest of the alimentary canal. Although the model as described seems linear, injury occurs very quickly and simultaneously in all tissues.

Initiation

Whatever the target tissue, generation of oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species (ROS) by chemotherapeutic agents or radiation appears to be a primary event in most pathways leading to mucositis. The consistent reports of ROS generation after exposure to stomatotoxic agents10 and the results of studies that demonstrate successful attenuation of mucosal injury by agents that effectively block or scavenge oxygen-free radicals11 suggest a significant role for ROS in injury induction. Whether they are generated by chemotherapy or radiation exposure, ROS directly damage cells, tissues, and blood vessels. The activation of ROS and their subsequent ability to stimulate a number of transcription factors seem to characterize the acute tissue response to a stomatotoxic challenge and are considered the hallmark of the initiation phase of mucositis leading to other biologic events.

Up-regulation and generation of messenger signals

During the second phase, multiple events occur simultaneously. ROS cause DNA damage and subsequent clonogenic cell death in the epithelial layer. Importantly, direct clonogenic death of basal epithelial cell death is insufficient to account for the extent of mucositis observed. Given the observed sequence of cellular and tissue events, the search for a pivotal biologic event that drives mucositis is compelling. Of the transcription factors that may be significant, nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) has many of the characteristics that suggest that it may be a key element in the genesis of mucositis: It is activated by either radiotherapy or chemotherapy, the 26S proteasome is detectable in stressed mucosa, it has the capacity to up-regulate a large panel of genes with the potential to elicit a broad range of tissue responses, and it can respond differently to varying challenges. Once activated, NF-κB leads to the up-regulation of many genes, including those that result in the production of the proinflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6. This leads to tissue injury and apoptosis. Upregulation of other genes causes the expression of adhesion molecules, subsequent activation of the cyclooxgenase-2 pathway, and consequent angiogenesis (Fig. 1).

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Chemotherapy (CT) or radiotherapy (RT) may initiate mucositis directly by causing DNA strand breaks, through the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), or through enzymatic or transcription factor activation in multiple cellular elements within the mucosa. ROS may damage other cells and tissues directly and also stimulate secondary mediators of injury, including such transcription factors as nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB). When messenger signals are up-regulated and generated, multiple events occur simultaneously. ROS cause DNA damage leading to clonogenic cell death. Activation of transcription factors in response to ROS, RT, or CT results in gene up-regulation, including the genes tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and the interleukins (IL-1β) and IL-6, leading to tissue injury and apoptosis of cells within the submucosa and primary injury of cells within the basal epithelium. Other genes also are up-regulated, leading to the expression of adhesion molecules, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), and subsequent angiogenesis.

Download figure to PowerPoint

It would be naïve to suggest that NF-κB is the sole pathway leading to chemotherapy-induced or radiotherapy-induced normal tissue apoptosis. For example, ROS can activate sphyngomyelinase, chemotherapy can activate ceramide synthase directly, and the ceramide pathway may work in parallel or sequentially to induce primary apoptosis.12 Fibronectin break-up also occurs during the up-regulation and message-generating phase of mucositis. Macrophages are activated subsequently, leading matrix metalloproteinases to then cause tissue injury directly or leading to more production of TNF-α. The end result of the up-regulation and message-generation phase of mucositis is one of simultaneous events in all involved tissues at all levels (see Fig. 2).

thumbnail image

Figure 2. During up-regulation and generation of messenger signals, enzymes (sphingomyelinase and ceramide synthase) that catalyze ceramide synthesis are activated directly by radiotherapy (RT) or chemotherapy (CT) or indirectly by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α). The ceramide pathway provides an alternative conduit for apoptosis of both submucosal and basal epithelial cells. In addition, fibronectin breakdown leads to macrophage activation and subsequent tissue injury mediated by matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and production of additional TNF-α.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Signaling and amplification

It seems likely that, in addition to exerting a direct damaging effect on mucosal target cells, proinflammatory cytokines also play an indirect role in amplifying mucosal injury initiated by radiation and chemotherapy. For example, TNF-α is a very capable activator of a number of pathways that can lead to tissue injury, including the ceramide and caspase pathways and the transcription pathway mediated by NF-κB. These signals lead to further production of the proinflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6. In addition, activation of the ceramide pathway by TNF-α may provide an effector mechanism for secondary TNF-α-mediated tissue damage. The ultimate consequence of this phase is that the tissue is altered biologically, even though it may appear normal (Fig. 3).

thumbnail image

Figure 3. During the signaling and amplification phase, one consequence of the flood of mediators released in response to the initial insult is a series of positive feedback loops that serve to amplify and prolong tissue injury through their effects on transcription factors and on the ceramide and caspase pathways (not shown). Consequently, gene up-regulation occurs with resultant increases in injurious cytokine production. Because the damaging events are focused in the submucosa and basal epithelium, the clinical appearance of the mucosal surface remains deceptively normal. CT: chemotherapy; IL: interleukin; MMP: matrix metalloproteinase; NF-κB: nuclear factor-κB; ROS: reactive oxygen species; RT: radiotherapy; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-α.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Ulceration

Mucositis, especially that induced by radiation, frequently is referred to as an inflammatory process; however, the phrase may misrepresent the significance of inflammation in mucosal barrier injury. An acute inflammatory infiltrate is not identifiable histologically during the early stages of radiation-induced mucositis. Furthermore, stomatotoxicity occurs during periods of maximum myeloablation in patients treated with chemotherapy. Despite the lack of a robust neutrophil infiltrate during the development of mucositis, a round cell infiltrate, comprised largely of reparative RM3/1 positive macrophages, has been reported in response to increasing doses of radiation.13 This infiltrate most likely is the consequence of a sequence of events triggered by oxidative stress, mediated by activated T cells, and preceded by the production of adhesion molecules. It has been suggested that the presence of these cells represents an intermediate, antiinflammatory response.13 Mast cells have been observed in irradiated rat intestinal mucosa, and investigators have speculated that these cells have a protective role.14 Not unexpectedly, the ulcerative phase of mucositis is characterized by a robust inflammatory infiltrate comprised of both polymorphonuclear and round inflammatory cells.

During the ulcerative phase of mucositis, bacterial colonization occurs with gram-positive, gram-negative, and anaerobic organisms. The role of such oral environmental factors as bacteria and their products is unclear. Cell wall products from bacteria can activate tissue macrophages, leading to more production of the proinflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6. Although bacterial cell wall products have the ability to amplify and accelerate local tissue damage markedly by stimulating a variety of pathways, the effect of directly reducing the bacterial load on the course of mucositis has been erratic. Similarly, changes in the composition and amount of saliva presumably may influence the susceptibility of tissue to cytotoxic agents and the tissue's ability to heal. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, outcomes of mucositis studies in which salivary function is targeted are unclear. Ultimately, the consequences of ulceration are further cytokine amplification, inflammation, and pain, and the patient is at increased risk for bacteremia and sepsis (Fig. 4).

thumbnail image

Figure 4. The ulcerative phase is the phase associated most consistently with mucositis. The injury and death of the basal epithelial stem cells resulting from the prior phases result in atrophic changes that culminate in true deterioration and breakdown of the mucosa. This phase generally is markedly symptomatic. The ulcer serves as a focus for bacterial colonization, particularly in an environment so rich in microorganisms. Secondary infection is common. What is significant is that cell wall products from bacteria penetrate the submucosa and further exacerbate the condition by stimulating infiltrating macrophages to produce and release additional proinflammatory cytokines. In neutropenic patients, whole bacteria may invade submucosal vessels to cause bacteremia or sepsis. IL: interleukin; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor-α.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Healing

A review of the physiology of wound healing is far beyond the scope of this report; however, the healing phase of oral mucositis starts with a signal from the extracellular matrix. This leads to a renewal of epithelial proliferation and differentiation and reestablishment of the local microbial flora. Depending on the clinical setting, other associated clinical events simultaneously return to normal. For example, in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the healing phase also is marked by leukocyte recovery. After the healing phase, the oral mucosa appears normal; however, despite its normal appearance, the mucosal environment has been altered significantly. There is residual angiogenesis, and the patient is now at increased risk of future episodes of oral mucositis and its complications with subsequent anticancer therapy.

Genetic risk and modulation of mucositis

All of the tissue changes described above may occur in the context of tissue that either is primed genetically or is resistant to regimen-related toxicities. Mounting evidence suggests that some aspects of mucositis risk may be determined genetically. Three lines of evidence support this hypothesis. Differences in individual susceptibility to chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced toxicities have been noted for years. Recently reported studies have concluded that murine strains vary in their mucosal response to radiation.15 Single nucleotide polymorphisms have been identified that are associated with the metabolism of a number of chemotherapeutic agents. Individuals who express phenotypes that result in deficiencies of enzymes needed for metabolism of specific chemotherapy drugs are at increased risk for toxicity. For example, polymorphisms that predispose to methotrexate-related toxicities have been noted in bone marrow transplantation recipients with increased levels of mucositis.16 These findings, as well as results suggesting that the risk of toxicity is determined in part by gender or ethnicity, undoubtedly will be topics for additional investigation.

The effect of NF-κB on apoptosis is paradoxical. There are numerous reports demonstrating that activation of NF-κB is antiapoptotic and, therefore, that regimen-related toxicity may lead to the conclusion that chemotherapy-induced or radiotherapy-induced NF-κB activation in normal cells is not only not cytoprotective but also proapoptotic. This concept suggests that there are differences in the way in which normal cells and tumor cells respond to cytotoxic challenges and potentially presents a huge opportunity for targeted mucositis interventions that do not jeopardize therapy-induced tumor kill.17 Consequently, the role of NF-κB, and other transcription factors in the pathogenesis of mucositis is of great potential interest.

Although to our knowledge much of the mechanistic basis for regimen-related mucosal injury has yet to be determined, based on the data available, it is evident that mucositis is much more than just an epithelial event. This five-phase model helps to provide a mechanistic understanding of the complex biology of mucositis. It also serves as a basis for understanding the rationale for therapeutic interventions as single agents or combination therapies.

GI Mucositis

In contrast to earlier thinking, there is no reason to assume that the pathobiology of intestinal mucositis is any less complex than the pathobiology suggested for oral mucositis. The common embryologic development of the entire GI tract makes it likely that the basic pathogenesis of mucositis is similar, with local differences due to the specialized differentiation in each area. In fact, it is likely that the initiating events in both tissue types are similar. However, in addition to the obvious morphologic differences observed between the most proximal and distal elements of the GI tract and its intestinal elements, specific functional components also make each section distinctive.

Teleologically, it might be assumed that chemotherapy-derived or radiotherapy-derived, cell-damaging or cell-destroying mechanisms must share a certain degree of commonality. It could be argued that the damage that occurs in the intestine is similar to the damage that occurs in the basal epithelium of stratified mucosa but acts at a much faster rate. In addition, the functional and symptomatic outcomes of gut toxicity are very different from the outcomes noted secondary to oral, esophageal, or rectal injury.

Similar to oral mucositis, in GI mucositis, it was believed historically that radiation caused direct cytocidal injury (clonogenic and apoptotic cell death), direct functional injury, and a number of reactive (indirect) changes. Although, to a large extent, acute toxicity is a result of crypt cell death, resulting in the breakdown of the mucosal barrier and in mucosal inflammation, controversy exists regarding whether this effect, in fact, is direct or is mediated through a series of intermediate steps. Paris et al.,5 as noted earlier, argued that crypt cell death is actually an indirect consequence of endothelial cell apoptosis and that endothelial cell apoptosis, therefore, is the primary lesion responsible for the intestinal radiation syndrome. Although these findings are not accepted universally, they provide strong evidence that intestinal injury may be the consequence, at least in part, of intermediate events mediated by nonepithelial tissues. This hypothesis may be supported by the finding that during fractionated radiation therapy, a number of compensatory changes also occur. For example, during pelvic radiation therapy, intestinal permeability and histologic injury actually are maximal in the middle of the radiation course and then improve toward the end, despite continued daily irradiation and increasing symptoms of intestinal toxicity.18, 19 This suggests that mechanisms other than histologically detectable changes in the mucosa are responsible for bowel symptoms (nausea, emesis, diarrhea,and pain) in patients during fractionated radiation therapy.

Although aspects of GI radiation-induced injury have been studied in all segments of the alimentary tract (esophagus, stomach, duodenum, small intestine, colon, and rectum) and have been reviewed recently by Fajardo et al.20 and Hauer-Jensen et al.,21 to our knowledge, investigations of chemotherapy-induced GI mucositis have been focused mainly on the small intestine.

Many cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents kill rapidly dividing cells, making the GI tract particularly vulnerable. In the small intestine, cytotoxic agents act at different levels of the crypt cell hierarchy, leading to crypt hypoplasia followed by regeneration.22, 23 The first abnormality noted in the human small intestine is an increase in apoptosis on Day 1 after chemotherapy; this is followed by reductions in crypt length, villus area, and mitotic index, which reach their nadir on Day 3. Rebound hyperplasia follows on Day 5, prior to normalization.24 This has now been modeled in rats, in which it follows a similar pattern over a shorter time course.25–27 However, Pritchard et al.28 have shown that an increase in apoptosis does not necessarily correlate with the severity of overt mucositis, suggesting a contribution from p53 and p21. Gibson et al.29 confirmed this in the DA rat model. Further research has shown30 that the ratio of proapoptotic genes to antiapoptotic genes of the bcl-2 family changes along the GI tract. There is a higher ratio of proapoptotic to antiapoptotic genes in the small intestine than in the large intestine, which may help explain the differences in mucositis that occur. The different ratio of proapoptotic to antiapoptotic genes found at the different levels of the GI tract most likely relates to the differences in function, with the small intestine receiving a large volume of potential toxins, most of which have been neutralized prior to arrival in the colon. It also may help to explain the rarity of small intestinal malignancy compared with colonic malignancy. Because chemotherapy acts on tumors partly through apoptosis, antiapoptotic strategies to prevent mucositis would need to be very specific to the GI tract rather than tumor. Gibson et al. have shown that the small intestine damage caused by irinotecan (CPT-11) is the same as that caused by drugs such as methotrexate, but that there is more colonic crypt goblet cell hyperplasia.31

The esophagus is lined by nonkeratinized epithelium with a lamina propria and muscularis mucosa. Chemotherapy damages the dividing and differentiating cells, leading to a thin and ulcerated epithelium.32 Chemotherapy also alters the proliferative rate of connective tissue cells within the lamina propria, which results in increased vascular permeability and an inflammatory infiltrate. Fibrosis and tissue ischemia ensue. There is little information in the literature regarding esophageal mucositis because most symptoms localized to the esophagus usually are attributed to gastroesophageal reflux disease or to either viral or fungal infections, which can coexist with any direct chemotherapy-induced toxicity.

Likewise, little data exist concerning mucositis of the stomach. Sartori et al. described gastric erosions after chemotherapy with combined cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or with 5-FU alone.33, 34 The colon is not considered an area that is particularly susceptible to chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Gibson et al.26 reported crypt damage in the colon after methotrexate and CPT-11 therapy, but the damage observed was less than that noted in the small intestine. Typhlitis, or postchemotherapy enterocolitis (usually involving the cecum), has been reported in several articles,35–39 but to our knowledge no histopathologic studies have been performed. It appears to be increasing in incidence with the advent of newer chemotherapeutic agents, such as the taxanes.

Whatever the initiating event, it is likely that mucosal barrier injury in the GI tract and the oral mucosa share similar mechanisms. Although more molecular events have been elucidated in the pathogenesis of oral mucositis relative to its GI counterpart, future research is likely to demonstrate that the oral cavity and the GI tract have sufficient homology that differences between them will be due to local differences in specialized cell differentiation.

CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

From routine patient care to sophisticated clinical research settings, the importance of being able to describe precisely, classify objectively, and measure reproducibly the severity of mucosal damage cannot be overestimated. Ideally, a mucositis scoring system should be objective, validated, and reproducible across all clinical situations and applications. The scale should be sufficiently sensitive to measure appropriate parameters of the mucositis experience consistently across different treatment modalities, including cancer chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy. It also should precisely measure elements associated with mucositis consistently (i.e., content validity). Minimal training should be necessary to produce systematic, accurate results, and the scale should be characterized by intrarater and interrater reliability. No scale established to date meets all these criteria or is accepted universally.

Because the need for mucositis measurement instruments has become more acute, a number of different scoring systems have been developed (Table 1).40–54 A few scales measure GI mucositis, but the majority of the scales measure oral mucositis. Oral mucositis scales range considerably in their complexity and have undergone varying degrees of validation.

Table 1. Measurement of Oral Mucositis
Scale (use)SourceElements measuredAdvantagesDisadvantages
  1. NCI-CTC: National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria; HSCT: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; WHO: World Health Organization; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; VAS: visual analog scale; OMI: Oral Mucositis Scale; OMAS: Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale.

Simple, combined-variable mucositis scoring scales    
 NCI-CTC (clinical and research)Trotti et al., 200040 (see also http://ctep.cancer.gov/forms/CTCv20_4-30-992.pdf41)Combined elements: symptom (pain), signs (erythema, ulceration); function; type of dietary intakeUsed widely in research and clinical care settings; specific scales for mucositis in patients undergoing head/neck radiation, chemotherapy, or HSCTResearch assessment potentially confounded by combination of symptoms, signs, and functional changes
 WHO (clinical and research)WHO, 197942Combined elements: symptom (pain), signs (erythema, ulceration); function: type of dietary intakeUsed widely in research and clinical care settings; specific scales for mucositis in patients undergoing head/neck radiation, chemotherapy, or HSCTResearch assessment potentially confounded by combination of symptoms, signs, and functional changes
 RTOG (clinical and research)RTOG (see http://www.rtog.org/members/toxicity/acute.html43)Combined elements: symptom (pain), signs (unspecified); function: unspecifiedUsed widely in research and clinical care settingsResearch assessment potentially confounded by combination of symptoms, signs, and functional changes
Detailed, objective mucositis scoring scales    
 OMI for HSCT (research)Schubert et al., 199244Thirty-four mucosal changes: signs (atrophy, erythema, ulceration/pseudomembrane, edema, and selected sites); pain scores (separate VAS)Specific to 11 oral anatomic sites, thereby permitting subanalyses of changes across the oral mucosa; eliminates confounders of symptoms and functional disturbances; cores consistent with NCI and WHO scoresRequires more examiner experience and time than NCI-CTC and WHO scales; only tested in patients undergoing HSCT
 Twenty-item OMI for HSCT (research)McGuire et al., 200245Twenty mucosal changes: signs (atrophy, erythema, ulceration/pseudomembrane edema, and selected sites)Specific to nine oral anatomic sites; clinical objective changes scored as in full OMIRequires less expertise than OMI
 OMAS for chemotherapy, radiation, and HSCT (research)Sonis et al., 199946Signs (erythema, ulceration)Same advantages as OMI with fewer oral anatomic sites scoredRequires more examiner experience and time than NCI-CTC and WHO scales but less time than OMI
 Spijkervet Radiation Mucositis Scale (research)Spijkervet, 198947White discoloration, erythema, pseudomembrane ulcerationPermits objective measure of tissue injury of tissue injuryDetailed mathematical calculation required; requires further validation in multicenter setting
Combined objective/functional/symptom scales    
 Oral Assessment Guide (clinical)Eilers et al. (1988)47Signs (erythema), symptoms (pain, salivary changes), functional disturbances (swallowing, voice)Global scale that can reflect clinical status/outcomes; suitable for nursing care decision makingNot all variables necessarily link with clinical status; some variables not continuous
 Western Consortium for Cancer Nursing Scale (clinical)Western Consortium for Cancer Nursing Research, 199149Lesions, color, bleeding, subjective variablesGlobal scale that can reflect clinical status/outcomes; refined in 1998, based on elimination of five measures other than lesions, color, or bleedingMixed objective, subjective, and functional variables; difficult to score precisely
 Walsh Quantitative Scoring System for Oral Mucositis (clinical and research)Walsh et al., 199950Mucosal changes, functional changes, salivary function, painConceptual elements of NCI or WHO scale applied to specific anatomic sites; moderate trainingNot validated; only tested in HSCT patients
 Tardieu Quantitative Scale of Oral Mucositis for HSCT (research)Tardieu et al., 199651Mucosal changes, salivary function, function (voice, swallow), painIncludes four anatomic sites, range of severityNot validated (pilot study only); only tested in HSCT patients; detailed, requires moderate to significant training
 Daily Mucositis Scale for HSCT (research and clinical)Donnelly et al., 199252Erythema, oral edema, pain, dysphagiaGlobal scale that can reflect clinical status/outcomes; less detailed than mostValidation in multicenter study needed
 MacDibbs Mouth Assessment (research and clinical)Dibble et al., 199653Patient symptoms, ulcerations, erythema/hyperkeratosis, sputum smear/herpes simplex virus cultureEase of administration generalized assessment (not oral site-specific)Only reported for radiation mucositis; not validated (pilot study only)
In vitro measurement    
 Epithelial Viability Scale (research)Wymenga et al., 199754Trypan blue-based exclusion, based on oral epithelial smearsEasily administered; in vitro objective measure; studied with both chemotherapy-induced and radiation-induced mucositisEarly in development; requires additional validation

Scoring of Oral Mucositis

The mucositis scales used most commonly were designed to define in global terms stomatotoxicity resulting from different cancer treatments. These tools are comprised of four-point or five-point scales that rate the overall status of the mouth relative to the clinically observed mucosal appearance, severity of patient pain, and, in some instances, the patient's functional capabilities relative to his or her oral status (e.g., the ability to eat). Historically, many of these simple, combined, variable toxicity scales have been based on a scale developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the clinical assessment of patients receiving cancer therapy. A number of similar scales have been developed and promoted as part of the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) scales, which are used frequently by cooperative oncology groups and oncology researchers (Table 1).

A second group of scales has evolved out of these simpler scales, and developed as nursing management and clinical research tools. These can be characterized as utilizing a combination of objective, functional, and symptomatic variables. Like the simpler toxicity scales, the oral mucositis scales combining objective, functional, and symptomatic descriptors apply them to specific anatomic areas, adding greater specificity with various aspects of oral function and subjective patient responses. A third series of scales, the detailed objective scoring scales, were designed for clinical research trials and tend to focus on directed, separately scored, objective and subjective end points (for a description of these scales, see Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of Toxicity Grading of Oral Mucositis According to World Health Organization Criteria, National Cancer Institute—Common Toxicity Criteria, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Scales and Subscales
ScaleSide effect(s)Grade 0 (none)Grade 1 (mild)Grade 2 (moderate)Grade 3 (severe)Grade 4 (life-threatening)Grade 5 (death)
  1. WHO: World Health Organization; NCI-CTC: National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria; IV: intravenous; HSCT: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

WHOOral mucositis (stomatitis)NoneOral soreness, erythemaOral erythema, ulcers, solid diet toleratedOral ulcers, liquid diet onlyOral alimentation impossible
NCI-CTCChemotherapy-induced stomatitis/pharyngitis (oral/pharyngeal mucositis)NonePainless ulcers, erythema, or mild soreness in the absence of lesionsPainful erythema, edema, or ulcers but eating or or swallowing possiblePainful erythema, edema, or ulcers requiring IV hydrationSevere ulceration or requiring parenteral or enteral nutritional support or prophylactic intubationDeath related to toxicity
NCI-CTCAssociated with HSCT (stomatitis/pharyngitis, oral/pharyngeal mucositis)NonePainless ulcers, erythema, or mild soreness in the absence of lesionsPainful erythema, edema, or ulcers but swallowing possiblePainful erythema, edema, or ulcers preventing swallowing or requiring hydration or parenteral (or enteral) nutritional supportSevere ulceration requiring prophylactic intubation or resulting in documented aspiration pneumoniaDeath related to toxicity
NCI-CTCMucositis due to radiationNoneErythema of the mucosaPatchy, pseudomembranous reaction (patches generally < 1.5 cm in greatest dimension and noncontiguous)Pseudo-membranous reaction (contiguous patches generally > 1.5 cm in greatest dimension)Ulceration and occasional bleeding not induced by minor trauma or abrasionDeath related to toxicity
RTOGAcute oral mucous membrane toxicity caused by radiationNo change over baselineInjection, may experience mild pain not requiring analgesicPatchy mucositis that may produce inflammatory serosanguinitis discharge; may experience moderate pain requiring analgesiaConfluent, fibrinous mucositis, may include severe pain requiring narcoticUlceration, hemorrhage, or necrosis

The most relevant scales for clinical management appear to be those based on NCI or WHO design. As noted earlier, symptoms, signs, and functional disturbances are assessed, and a global score is achieved readily. Analysis of approximately 400 trials, as a component of the evidence-based review for the clinical practice guidelines, determined that most of the studies utilized the NCI (43%) or WHO (38%) scales. Ten percent of studies employed a study-specific scale, and 5% used a cooperative group scale, such as scales used by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Remaining scales, including the Stanford and Herzig scales, were used by < 0.5% of studies each.

Regardless of the scale used, increasing evidence confirms the importance of training and standardization to improving the accuracy and consistency of mucositis assessment. It is interesting to note that the clinical qualifications of the evaluator (M.D., D.M.D., R.N. degrees) appear to be less important, ultimately, than training and experience with using the scale.55

The frequency with which mucosal health needs to be assessed is a function of the objective of the examination. Whereas daily evaluations are of value for a nursing care plan, an intense, twice-weekly examination may be effective for an interventional study. In contrast, the success of a study in which mucositis duration is a primary endpoint may require daily evaluations.

Similar to other aspects of physical examination, sensitivity and accuracy are often a function of the conditions under which the examination takes place. Examination conditions are an issue of practicality—if the examiner cannot conduct an adequate visual inspection of the area to be examined, then results will be compromised. Adequate illumination of oral tissues is critical for an accurate assessment.

Halogen light sources can provide consistent intensity and color. In contrast, flashlights can vary significantly in intensity and may cast patterns based on the quality and type of light bulb, reflector, and lens. In addition, depending on bulb type (e.g., element and gas parameters), the color of light emitted from the flashlight can distort the color of the oral tissues and produce variable light intensity.

The convenience and comfort of both the examiner and the patient during the examination can influence the quality of the overall examination results. For example, whether the patient is being evaluated in a hospital bed, on a medical examination table, or in a dental chair may influence access and inspection of oral tissues.

Visualization of the oral cavity becomes compromised and, along with it, accuracy and reproducibility as a patient's medical condition deteriorates and/or as mucositis worsens. Oral debris, pseudomembranous candidiasis, and topical oral care therapies can obscure tissue conditions. If a patient requires orotracheal intubation, it becomes all but impossible to examine the entire oral cavity unless arrangements are made to examine the patient when tube care and retaping occur. At times, oral hemorrhage can compromise observation of oral tissues significantly.

Many scoring systems have not compensated for instances in which a patient cannot be examined because of these and other compromising situations—bleeding, pain, nausea, or emesis. Although, in some instances, the clinical situation may be a direct extension of the severity of the oral mucositis, whereas at other times it may be unrelated. Consideration must be given to these clinical parameters, especially if the scale is administered for research purposes and the assessment accuracy is paramount.

There is clear utility in separately scoring objective measures of mucosal damage and other variables related to oral mucositis (e.g., subjective variables such as pain and dryness and functional variables such as talking, swallowing, or ability to eat). Investigators have demonstrated that detailed oral mucositis scores, such as the Oral Mucositis Index and the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale, correlate closely with oral mucositis pain scores.44, 56 Conversely, scoring of functional variables may not be correlated directly with oral mucosal events. For example, oral mucositis assessed with a scale such as the NCI-CTC scale may be rated Grade 4, which describes the patient as requiring “parenteral or enteral nutrition or support.” However, in the HSCT setting, many patients are placed on total parenteral nutrition because of intestinal toxicity; otherwise, they very well could continue with oral nutritional intake. Similar problems exist for the NCI-CTC Grade 3 oral toxicity category, in which the patient requires intravenous hydration. Consideration of how best to integrate these issues with the specific outcomes of the study should be determined during protocol design.

Scoring of GI Mucositis

Most of the available information regarding the incidence of GI toxicity relates to symptoms and functional changes. Making accurate evaluation of damage impossible are the problems of obtaining sequential biopsy before, during, and after treatment; the specimens' typically superficial nature; and the inaccessibility of important segments of the GI tract. With chemotherapy, 40–100% of patients experience GI mucositis, depending on the dose and type of chemotherapy.57 It is difficult to identify when the problem is based solely on symptoms: pain and diarrhea are universal and cannot be traced easily to the section of the GI tract that is affected (for a comparison of scoring systems used to assess GI tract mucositis, see Table 3).

Table 3. Grading Systems in Gastrointestinal Mucositis
Organ, tract, and symptomsGrade 0Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4
  1. RTOG: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; NG: nasogastric; IV: intravenous; GI: gastrointestinal; EORTC: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

RTOG: Acute radiation morbidity scoring criteria     
 Pharynx and esophagusNo change over baselineMild dysphagia or odynophagia; may require topical anesthetic or nonnarcotic analgesis; may require soft dietModerate dysphagia or odynophadga; may require narcotic analgesics; may require purée or liquid dietSevere dysphagia or odynophagia with dehydration or weight loss (> 15% from pretreatment baseline) requiring NG tube feeing and IV fluids or hyperalimentationComplete obstruction, ulceration, perforation, fistula
 LarynxNo change over baselineMild or intermittent hoarseness/though not requiring antitussive/erythema of mucosisPersistent hoarseness but able to vocalize; referred ear pain, sore throat, patchy fibrinous exudates or mild arytenoid edema not requiring narcotics/cough requiring antitussiveWhispered speech, throat pain or referred ear pain requiring narcotic, confluent fibrinous exudate, marked arytenoid edemaMarked dyspnea, stridor, or hemoptysis with tracheostomy or intubation necessary
 Upper GI tractNo changeAnorexia with ≤ 5% weight loss from pretreatment baseline, nausea not requiring antiemetics, abdominal discomfort not requiring parasympatholytis drugs or analgesicsAnorexia with ≤ 15% weight loss from pretreatment baseline, nausea and/or emesis requiring antemetics, abdominal pain requiring analgesicsAnorexia with > 15% weight loss from pretreatment baseline or requiring NG tube or parenteral support; nausea and/or emesis requiring tube or parenteral support; abdominal pain severe despite medication; hematemesis or melena; abdominal distention (flat-plate radiograph demonstrates distended bowel loops)Ileus, subacute or acute obstruction, perforation. GI bleeding requiring transfusion, abdominal pain requiring tube decompression or bowel diversion
 Lower GI tract, including pelvisNo changeIncreased frequency or change in quality of bowel habits not requiring medication, rectal discomfort not requiring analgesicsDiarrhea requiring parasympatholytic drugs (e.g., Lomotil [diphenoxylate atropine]); mucous discharge not necessitating sanitary pads; rectal or abdominal pain requiring analgesicsDiarrhea requiring parenteral support, severe mucous or blood discharge necessitating sanitary pads, abdominal distention (flat-plate radiograph demonstrates distended bowel loops)Acute or subacute obstruction, fistula or perforation, GI bleeding requiring transfusion; abdominal pain or tenesmus requiring tube decompression or bowel diversion
RTOG chronic toxicity: GI tract     
 NauseaNoneAble to eat, reasonable intakeIntake significantly decreased, but patient can eatNo significant intake
 EmesisNoneOne episode in 24 hrsTwo to 5 episodes in 24 hrsSix to 10 episodes in 24 hrsGreater than 10 episodes in 24 hrs or requiring parenteral support
 DiarrheaNoneIncrease of 2 to 3 stools per day over pretreatment levelIncrease of 4 to 6 stools per day, nocturnal stools, or moderate crampingIncrease of 7 to 9 stools per day or incontinence or severe crampingIncrease of ≥ 10 stools per day or macroscopically bloody diarrhea, or need for parenteral support
RTOG-EORTC: Late radiation morbidity scoring system     
 EsophagusNoneMild fibrosis, slight difficulty in swallowing solids, no pain on swallowingUnable to take solid food normally, swallowing semisolid food, dilatation may be indicatedSevere fibrosis, able to swallow only liquids, may have pain on swallowing, dilatation requiredNecrosis, perforation, fistula
 Small/large intestineNoneMild diarrhea, mild cramping, bowel movement 5 times daily, slight rectal discharge or bleedingModerate diarrhea and colic, bowel movement > 5 times daily, excessive rectal mucus or intermittent bleedingObstruction or bleeding requiring surgeryNecrosis, perforation, fistula
NCI-CTCMildModerateSevereLife-threatening
 Emesis episodes/24 hr12–56–10> 10 or parenteral support
 Diarrhea (increased frequency over normal)2–34–6 or nocturnal7–9 or incontinence or severe cramping> 9, macroscopic blood, enteral support

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Most data supporting the computation of incidence of mucositis are derived from clinical trials of chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in which the reporting of mucositis is a secondary objective. Not unexpectedly, in the current review, we found that virtually all trials were underpowered and unable to produce stable estimates of rarely occurring events, such as toxicities, and most studies included only limited discussion of methods for analyzing toxicity data. The quality of articles was graded on three parameters: adequate definition of mucositis, blinded or independent assessment of mucositis, and sample size. Articles that provided either a definition of mucositis or named a standard grading system, such as the systems of the NCI, the ECOG, or the National Cancer Institute of Canada, were assigned 1 quality point. Articles with a blinded or independent assessment of mucositis were assigned 1 quality point. The quality score was obtained by summing the quality points and adding the sum to 1 (the quality score for the lowest quality article). Therefore, all articles were scored on a scale of 1 to 3. Sample size and the quality scores were incorporated in the computation of the average incidence of mucositis as follows: We defined the overall quality-adjusted mucositis rate, poverall, as:

  • equation image

in which qsj is the quality score for the jth study, nj is the sample size for the jth study, and pj is the mucositis rate observed in the jth study. This method is a modification of that of Berard and Bravo.58 Because some of the study sample sizes were small, it was believed that the Gaussian approximation to the binomial distribution was not applicable (because the Gaussian approximation is a large-sample result). Therefore, an estimate of the 95% confidence interval for the overall quality-adjusted mucositis rate was obtained using the bootstrap method described by Efron.59

One thousand bootstrap samples were generated for a given treatment regimen using the SAS/IML statistical software package (SAS Inc., Cary, NC). For each of the bootstrap samples, the overall mucositis rate was calculated. These bootstrap mucositis rates then were ordered from smallest to largest. The 2.5th percentile and 97.5th percentile bootstrap mucositis rates then were used to report the 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the treatment regimen.

To our knowledge, Grades 1 and 2 mucositis are not reported uniformly in clinical trials of chemotherapy; therefore, for estimates of incidence, only Grade 3 and 4 mucositis, which were combined across all scoring systems (Grade 3–4), are reported. For the few reports that used study-specific scoring systems, scores that corresponded with ulceration or that were considered severe have included.

Risk of Grade 3–4 Oral or GI Mucositis

The incidence of oral and GI mucositis varied significantly among different treatment regimens and modalities (Table 4).60–398 Most anthracycline-based regimens were associated with rates of oral mucositis in the 1–10% range, except when regimens included 5-FU. Included among these are the standard regimens for adjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer (5-FU, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide; doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; or 5-FU, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) as well as regimens for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP). To our knowledge, it has not been demonstrated that the addition of rituximab to CHOP increases the risk of oral or GI mucositis. Other new agents, such as imatinib, are associated with a very low incidence of oral and GI mucositis. Similar rates are reported with taxane-based and platinum-based regimens, again except for regimens containing 5-FU. However, radiation therapy to the head and neck or to the pelvis or abdomen was associated with increased incidence of Grade 3–4 oral or GI mucositis, respectively, often exceeding 50% of patients.

Table 4. Relation between Antineoplastic Therapy and Risk of Grade 3–4 Oral and Gastrointestinal Mucositisa
RegimenNo. of studiesNo. of patientsRisk of Grade 3–4 oral mucositisRisk of Grade 3–4 GI mucositis
%95% CI%95% CI
  • GI: gastrointestinal; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; FAC: doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; FEC: 5-FU, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide; NR: not reported (no mention of toxicity in the reports); XRT: radiotherapy; UFT: tegafur–uracil; CI: continuous infusion; misc: miscellaneous; BMT: bone marrow transplantation; TBI: total body irradiation; ara-C: cytosine arabinoside.

  • a

    Source: Risk measures based on reports of clinical antineoplastic therapy.58–396

Anthracyclines191139109–1231–4
 + Cyclophosphamide487297–10NRNR
 + 5-FU/cyclophosphamide (FAC, FEC)8138232–41< 1–1
 + 5-FU/platinum313083–1231–6
 + Paclitaxel10790119–13< 1< 1–1
 + Docetaxel17845115–181411–18
 + Docetaxel/cyclophosphamide2105115–1811–42
 +Docetaxel/5-FU21086658–747363–82
 + Paclitaxel/platinum210753–1052–9
 + Docetaxel/platinum253122–25NRNR
Taxanes      
 Docetaxel alone1616971311–1575–10
 Paclitaxel alone316731–621–4
 Docetaxel + XRT1219890–98NRNR
 Paclitaxel + XRT71174839–5666–15
 Docetaxel/5-FU33034641–5052–8
 Paclitaxel/5-FU11663–1963–19
 Paclitaxel/5-FU + XRT21137567–8311–2
 Docetaxel/platinum431121–321–4
 Paclitaxel/platinum429611–383–17
 Docetaxel/platinum + XRT115203–40NRNR
 Paclitaxel/platinum + XRT103466056–6422–8
 Docetaxel/platinum/5-FU21154334–5263–9
 Paclitaxel/platinum/5-FU32252723–311812–23
 Docetaxel/gemcitabine1034775–1032–5
 Paclitaxel/gemcitabine14521–711–4
 Docetaxel/vinorelbine562575–10NRNR
 Docetaxel and others377189–27134–23
 Paclitaxel and others6257139–1743–6
Platinum35533–822–8
 Platinum + XRT6309118–14117–16
 Oxaliplatin + XRT1293117–48NRNR
 Platinum/gemcitabine323732–673–11
 Platinum/gemcitabine/taxane13631–8142–25
 Platinum/gemcitabine/5-FU316842–631–6
 Platinum and any taxane1067121–332–5
 Platinum/taxane + XRT123296459–6922–8
 Platinum/taxane/irinotecan12152–14102–24
 Platinum/methotrexate/leucovorin3731810–27NRNR
 Platinum/UFT14611–4NRNR
5-FU5161521–351–11
 5-FU CI31461410–1811–4
 5-FU/leucovorin2131771412–151110–12
 5-FU CI + XRT18461–12126–19
 5-FU/cyclophosphamide/methotrexate581032–421–4
 5-FU/platinum125081815–211410–18
 5-FU/leucovorin/platinum1676354–786–10
 5-FU/platinum + XRT126873835–411410–17
 5-FU/LPALM168775–9NRNR
 5-FU/other misc drugs554364–854–8
 5-FU CI/other misc drugs7213128–1763–13
 5-FU/other misc drugs + XRT19116–33NRNR
 5-FU/leucovorin/other misc drugs833842–643–7
 5-FU/leucovorin/other misc drugs + XRT14371–1671–16
 5-FU/leucovorin/taxane41454134–4962–10
 5-FU/leucovorin/mitomycin C3161159–20105–16
Irinotecan440921–43025–35
 Irinotecan/5-FU352431–464–8
 Irinotecan/5-FU + XRT2363622–477150–93
 Irinotecan/5-FU CI + XRT122NRNR185–36
 Irinotecan/5-FU/platinum17093–16NRNR
 Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin531853–82520–30
 Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin/platinum313062–113830–47
 Irinotecan/taxane35733–92211–33
 Irinotecan/UFT/leucovorin12442–132913–50
Adult BMT      
 With TBI86116461–6873–16
 Busulfan conditioning regimen (no TBI)103605247–55107–14
 Other conditioning regimens (no TBI)34393127–351511–19
 Stem cells: Myeloma51393630–43148–23
 Stem cells: Solid tumors92662724–3164–9
Pediatric BMT      
 With TBI73204237–473312–62
 With busulfan/etoposide/cyclophosphamide conditioning (no TBI)3362713–42NRNR
 With melphalan/carboplatin/etoposide conditioning (no TBI)4593125–40143–36
Other pediatric regimens      
 Ara-C, idarubicin, fludarabine41922010–33137–21
 Methotrexate31322316–30NRNR
 Doxorubicin/L-asparaginase1362713–42NRNR
 Doxorubicin/5-FU/cyclophosphamide11200–17NRNR
 Mitoxantrone166125–21
 Thiotepa/cyclophosphamide15161–14NRNR
 Topotecan14900–421–48
 Ifosfamide/etoposide1602012–30NRNR

In contrast, the administration of 5-FU often was associated with rates of Grade 3–4 oral mucositis > 15%, whereas CPT-11 was associated with similarly high rates of GI mucositis. The addition of radiation therapy to 5-FU-based and CPT-11-based regimens may increase the risk of Grade 3–4 oral and GI mucositis to > 30%. Because these agents form the basis of most regimens for patients with GI malignancies, the severe mucositis resulting from these agents is of particular clinical importance.

Patients who underwent HSCT, particularly those who received total body irradiation, experienced high rates of mucositis. The highest rates were observed when total body irradiation was used, with the rate of Grade 3–4 mucositis exceeding 60% in most reports. However, incidence rates approached 30–50% without total body irradiation. Slightly lower rates were noted among some of those patients, depending on the chemotherapy regimen received. Children who underwent HSCT also experienced a high incidence of oral mucositis, particularly when total body irradiation was used for conditioning. Rates with other chemotherapy regimens varied from very low (1–2%) with single-agent therapy with topotecan or etoposide to very high (> 20%) with combination regimens, including high doses of ifosfamide or anthracyclines.

Because they frequently receive radiation therapy, 5-FU, or CPT-11, patients with GI or gynecologic malignancies experience Grade 3–4 GI mucositis at significantly higher rates than their counterparts with other malignancies (Table 5).60–398 Patients with cancers of the head and neck, esophagus, or upper GI tract were found to be at high risk of Grade 3–4 oral mucositis for the same reasons. Acute damage to the GI mucosa is a consequence of radiotherapy in 85% of patients symptomatically and in 100% of patients histologically.

Table 5. Relation between Cancer Diagnosis and Risk of Grade 3–4 Oral and Gastrointestinal Mucositisa
DiagnosisNo. of studiesNo. of patientsRisk of Grade 3–4 oral mucositisRisk of Grade 3–4 gastrointestinal mucositis
%95% CI%95% CI
  • 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; NR: not reported (no mention of toxicity in the reports).

  • a

    Source: Risk measures based on clinical reports.58–396

Acute myelogenous leukemia112621210–1665–11
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia3643425–44NRNR
Chronic myelogenous leukemia23673–1733–12
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma483159–24NRNR
Lymphomas—various2962315–3251–11
Breast cancer9610,53088–965–6
Colorectal cancer65841266–71211–12
Rectal cancer210683–12137–20
Prostate cancer5122149–2142–8
Small cell lung cancer975398–1232–5
Nonsmall cell lung cancer1562264–853–8
Mesothelioma3532012–3033–13
Head and neck cancer5822064240–4465–8
Esophageal cancer31944640–53106–15
Gastric cancer1163786–1043–6
Pancreatic cancer134771411–1675–9
Gastrointestinal tumors—various41365347–583927–49
Cervical cancer672411–21513–18
Uterine cancer13911–511–5
Ovarian cancer1151675–1032–5
Gynecologic cancers—various1125< 1< 1–2NRNR
Bladder cancer12222–992–23
Renal cell cancer12482–21NRNR
Testicular cancer3157117–15NRMR
Germ cell cancer2522312–3533–27
Sarcoma cancer28652–972–13
Glioma11384–23NRNR
Unknown primary24693–17NRNR
Solid tumors—various227341210–1475–9

These data are supported by recent reports of the incidence of mucositis among patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Elting et al. observed oral mucositis in 22% of cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, GI mucositis in 7% of cycles, and both oral and GI mucositis in 8% of cycles.1

Outcomes and Cost of Oral and GI Mucositis

Even rates of 5–15% for Grade 3–4 oral or GI mucositis are significant clinically because of the serious clinical outcomes that result from this condition. In approximately 35% of patients with Grade 3–4 mucositis, the subsequent cycle of chemotherapy is delayed. The doses of chemotherapy are reduced in approximately 60% of patients (range, 15–100%), and the regimen is discontinued in approximately 30% of patients (range, 8–100%). Among patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy regimens, 70% of patients with Grade 3–4 oral mucositis require feeding tubes to maintain adequate nutrition, approximately 60% of patients have fever, and 62% of patients require hospitalization. Among adult HSCT recipients and patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with HSCT support, 87% require feeding tubes. Opioid analgesics are required in 80% of HSCT recipients. Sonis et al. reported 5.8 additional days of narcotics and 1.9 additional days of total parenteral nutrition among HSCT recipients who had oral ulceration compared with patients who did not have ulceration.65 Those investigators also reported 2 additional febrile days per patient with oral ulcers compared with patients without oral ulcers. The association between oral ulceration and infection was observed previously by Ruescher et al, who reported that oral ulceration was three times more common among bone marrow transplantation recipients with streptococcal bacteremias than among patients without streptococcal bacteremias.66

Among patients with solid tumors who receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy, infection occurs during 73% of cycles complicated by mucositis, but during only 36% of cycles with similar myelosuppression without mucositis. Fatigue also is more common during cycles with mucositis than in cycles without mucositis (9% compared with 5%; P = 0.0007).1 In the same report, the high incidence of serious clinical outcomes during cycles with mucositis led to an increase of > 2-fold in the average number of hospital days per cycle (7.7 days vs. 3.9 days; P < 0.0001).

Severe oral mucositis is a particularly ominous clinical sign among children because of the risk of airway compromise. Among pediatric bone marrow transplantation recipients, airway compromise due to oral mucositis was reported in 2–19% of all patients. Death or anoxia-induced brain damage occurred occasionally. Likewise, > 90% of pediatric HSCT recipients with Grade 3–4 mucositis required feeding tubes, total parenteral nutrition, and opioid analgesics. These occasionally are associated with systemic infection. Although these interventions are required less commonly for standard-dose chemotherapy regimens, maintenance of proper nutrition is a particularly important goal among children.

Because of its serious clinical consequences, Grade 3–4 mucositis would be expected to be a financially significant event; however, the financial implications of mucositis have been reported only rarely. Groener et al.166 reported that Grade 3–4 mucositis accounted for 3% of resource utilization ($17) during cycles of raltitrexed and 21% of resource utilization ($113) during cycles of 5-FU and leucovorin. The additional days of fever, hospitalization, narcotic usage, and total parenteral nutrition reported by Sonis et al. among HSCT recipients with oral ulcers also translated into additional hospital charges of $42,749 per patient.65 Elting et al. reported incremental costs of $2725 and $5565 per cycle for Grade 1–2 mucositis and Grade 3–4 mucositis, respectively.1

The cost of GI mucositis has not been studied formally, but includes a reduction in cure rate as a result of treatment interruptions or inadequate treatment as well as the cost of the symptom management itself. Data regarding the influence of overall treatment time outside of the head and neck are most reliable for cervical cancer. The effect of prolonging treatment time reportedly results in a decrease in control of between 0.55% and 1.4% per day.399

Although this report focuses on acute manifestations and short-term outcomes, permanent damage to both oral and GI mucosa may occur as a result of radiotherapy. Yeoh et al.400, 401 have shown that permanent damage and dysfunction occur in 70–90% of patients undergoing radiotherapy, depending on the treatment site and radiation dose. Radiotherapy also causes changes in motility proximal to the site at which radiation is administered.402–404 Because patients treated for pelvic or gastric cancer constitute the majority of long-term cancer survivors, the prevalence of chronic toxicity is significant. Moreover, some patients may be asymptomatic but still exhibit severe functional changes, including reductions in B12 and calcium absorption, which have the potential to cause substantial problems.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Mucositis can be a frequent and clinically significant event elicited by drug and radiation cancer therapy. Although mucositis typically has been associated with specific patient populations, such as those receiving conditioning regimens for HSCT and radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, its incidence and impact also have been appreciated recently in other patients with solid tumors. Defining the epidemiology of mucositis has been confounded historically by a number of variables, including underreporting, differences in the terminology used to describe it, differences in assessment techniques and scales, and the correlation between mucositis and other clinically important sequelae. However, establishing strong multiprofessional and interdisciplinary collaborations has resulted in marked advances in the improvement of psychometric and utilization components of mucositis scales.

The pathobiology of mucositis long has been considered to be limited to direct epithelial injury. A continuum of mechanistic studies conducted in recent years has revealed that, in fact, mucositis is the culmination of a series of biologically complex and interactive events that occur in all tissues of the mucosa. Although the complete definition of mucositis as a biologic process remains a work in progress, the current understanding of cellular and molecular events that lead to mucosal injury has provided a number of potential interventional targets. Consequently, for the first time, directed, biologically rational therapies are now in various stages of development. Furthermore, mechanistically based risk prediction and disease monitoring appear to be realistic goals for the not-too-distant future.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

The MASCC and ISOO Mucositis Study Section thank medical librarian Ronald D. Hutchins and medical editor Beth W. Allen.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. BIOLOGIC BASIS AND PATHOGENESIS
  4. CLINICAL MUCOSITIS ASSESSMENT SCALES
  5. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Elting L, Cooksley C, Chambers M, Cantor S, Manzullo E, Rubenstein E. The burdens of cancer therapy: clinical and economic outcomes of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Cancer. 2003; 98: 15311539.
  • 2
    Rubenstein EB, Peterson DE, Shubert M, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis. Cancer. 2004; 100(Suppl): 20262046.
  • 3
    Lockhart PB, Sonis ST. Alterations in the oral mucosa caused by chemotherapeutic agents. A histologic study. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1981; 7: 10191025.
  • 4
    Sonis ST, Peterson RL, Edwards LJ, et al. Defining mechanisms of action of interleukin-11 on the progression of radiation-induced oral mucositis in hamsters. Oral Oncol. 2000; 36: 373381.
  • 5
    Paris F, Fuks Z, Kang A, et al. Endothelial apoptosis as the primary lesion initiating intestinal radiation damage in mice. Science. 2001; 293: 293297.
  • 6
    Handschel J, Prott FJ, Sunderkotter C, Metze D, Meyer U, Joos U. Irradiation induces increase of adhesion molecules and accumulation of beta2-integrin-expressing cells in humans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 45: 475481.
  • 7
    Wang J, Albertson CM, Zheng H, Fink LM, Herbert JM, Hauer-Jensen M. Short-term inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation by clopidogrel ameliorates radiation-induced toxicity in rat small intestine. Thromb Haemost. 2002; 87: 122128.
  • 8
    Hall PD, Benko H, Hogan KR, Stuart RK. The influence of serum tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 concentrations on nonhematologic toxicity and hematologic recovery in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. Exp Hematol. 1995; 23: 12561260.
  • 9
    Epstein JB, Silverman S Jr., Paggiarino DA, et al. Benzydamine HCl for prophylaxis of radiation-induced oral mucositis: results from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Cancer. 2001; 92: 875885.
  • 10
    Gate L, Paul J, Ba GN, Tew KD, Tapiero H. Oxidative stress induced in pathologies: the role of antioxidants. Biomed Pharmacother. 1999; 53: 169180.
  • 11
    Culy C, Spencer C. Amifostine: an update on its clinical status as a cytoprotectant in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy and its potential therapeutic application in myelodysplastic syndrome. Drugs. 2001; 61: 641684.
  • 12
    Maddens S, Charruyer A, Plo I, et al. Kit signaling inhibits the sphingomyelin-ceramide pathway through PLC gamma 1: implication in stem cell factor radioprotective effect. Blood. 2002; 100: 12941301.
  • 13
    Handschel J, Sunderkotter C, Prott FJ, Meyer U, Kruse-Losler B, Joos U. Increase of RM3/1-positive macrophages in radiation-induced oral mucositis. J Pathol. 2001; 193: 242247.
  • 14
    Zheng H, Wang J, Hauer-Jensen M. Role of mast cells in early and delayed radiation injury in rat intestine. Radiat Res. 2000; 153(5 Pt 1): 533539.
  • 15
    Dorr W, Spekl K, Martin M. Radiation-induced oral mucositis in mice: strain differences. Cell Prolif. 2002; 35(Suppl 1): 6067.
  • 16
    Ulrich CM, Yasui Y, Storb R, et al. Pharmacogenetics of methotrexate: toxicity among marrow transplantation patients varies with the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism. Blood. 2001; 98: 231234.
  • 17
    Sonis ST. The biologic role for nuclear factor-κB in disease and its potential involvement in mucosal injury associated with antineoplastic therapy. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2002; 13: 380389.
  • 18
    Carratu R, Secondulfo M, de Magistris L, et al. Assessment of small intestinal damage in patients treated with pelvic radiotherapy. Oncol Rep. 1998; 5: 635639.
  • 19
    Hovdenak N, Fajardo L, Hauer-Jensen M. Acute radiation proctitis: a sequential clinicopathologic study during pelvic radiotherapy. J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 48: 11111117.
  • 20
    Fajardo L, Berthrong M, Anderson R. Alimentary tract radiation pathology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 208247.
  • 21
    Hauer-Jensen M, Wang J, Denham JW. Mechanisms and modification of the radiation response of gastrointestinal organs. In: MilasL, AngKK, NiederC, editors. Biological modification of radiation response. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2003: 4972.
  • 22
    Ijiri K, Potten CS. Response of intestinal cells of differing topographical and hierarchical status to ten cytotoxic drugs and five sources of radiation. Br J Cancer. 1983; 47: 175185.
  • 23
    Ijiri K, Potten CS. Further studies on the response of intestinal crypt cells of different hierarchical status to eighteen different cytotoxic agents. Br J Cancer. 1987; 55: 113123.
  • 24
    Keefe DM, Brealey J, Goland GJ, Cummins AG. Chemotherapy for cancer causes apoptosis that precedes hypoplasia in crypts of the small intestine in humans. Gut. 2000; 47: 632637.
  • 25
    Daniele B, Perrone F, Gallo C, et al. Oral glutamine in the prevention of fluorouracil induced intestinal toxicity: a double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial. Gut. 2001; 48: 2833.
  • 26
    Gibson RJ, Keefe DM, Thompson FM, Clarke JM, Goland GJ, Cummins AG. Effect of interleukin-11 on ameliorating intestinal damage after methotrexate treatment of breast cancer in rats. Dig Dis Sci. 2002; 47: 27512757.
  • 27
    Keefe DM. The effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on the mucosa of the small intestine. Adelaide, South Australia: University of Adelaide, 1998.
  • 28
    Pritchard DM, Potten CS, Hickman JA. The relationships between p53 and dependent apoptosis, inhibition of proliferation and 5-flououracil-induced histopathology in murine intestinal epithelia. Cancer Res. 1998; 58: 54535465.
  • 29
    Gibson RJ, Keefe DM, Clarke JM, et al. The effect of keratinocyte growth factor on tumour growth and small intestinal mucositis after chemotherapy in the rat with breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2002; 50: 5358.
  • 30
    Bowen JM. The expression of the Bcl-2 family members in the small and large intestine. Adelaide, South Australia: Department of Medicine Adelaide, University of Adelaide, 2001.
  • 31
    Gibson R, Bowen J, Inglis M, Cummins A, Keefe D. Irinotecan causes severe small intestinal damage, as well as colonic damage, in the rat with implanted breast cancer. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003; 18: 10951100.
  • 32
    Squier CA, Kremer MJ. Biology of oral mucosa and esophagus. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001; 29: 715.
  • 33
    Sartori S, Trevisani L, Nielsen I, Tassinari D, Abbasciano V. Misoprostol and omeprazole in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute gastroduodenal mucosal injury. A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. Cancer. 1996; 78: 14771482.
  • 34
    Sartori S, Trevisani L, Nielsen I, Tassinari D, Panzini I, Abbasciano V. Randomized trial of omeprazole or ranitidine versus placebo in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced gastroduodenal injury. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 463467.
  • 35
    Ibrahim NK, Rahman Z, Valero V, Murray JL III, Frye D, Hortobagyi GN. Phase I study of vinorelbine and docetaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Invest. 2002; 20: 2937.
  • 36
    Dosik GM, Luna M, Valdivieso M, et al. Necrotizing colitis in patients with cancer. Am J Med. 1979; 67: 646656.
  • 37
    Keidan RD, Fanning J, Gatenby RA, Weese JL. Recurrent typhlitis. A disease resulting from aggressive chemotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989; 32: 206209.
  • 38
    Cardenal F, Montes A, Llort G, Segui J, Mesia R. Typhlitis associated with docetaxel treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 10781079.
  • 39
    Pestalozzi BC, Sotos GA, Choyke PL, Fisherman JS, Cowan KH, O'Shaughnessy JA. Typhlitis resulting from treatment with taxol and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 1993; 71: 17971800.
  • 40
    Trotti A, Byhardt R, Stetz J, et al. Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. An improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 47: 1347.
  • 41
    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program forms and templates: Generic CTC version 2.0. Data collection form. Available from URL: http://ctep.cancer.gov/forms/ctc_genatacol.pdf [accessed June 15, 2003].
  • 42
    World Health Organization. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1979.
  • 43
    Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Acute radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Available from URL: http://www.rtog.org/members/toxicity/acute.htm, n.d. [accessed June 15, 2003].
  • 44
    Schubert MM, Williams BE, Lloid ME, Donaldson G, Chapko MK. Clinical assessment scale for the rating of oral mucosal changes associated with bone marrow transplantation. Development of an oral mucositis index. Cancer. 1992; 69: 24692477.
  • 45
    McGuire DB, Peterson DE, Muller S, Owen DC, Slemmons MF, Schubert MM. The 20 item oral mucositis index: reliability and validity in bone marrow and stem cell transplant patients. Cancer Invest. 2002; 20(7–8): 893903.
  • 46
    Sonis ST, Eilers JP, Epstein JB, 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: 21032113.
  • 47
    Spijkervet FK, van Saene HK, Panders AK, Vermey A, Mehta DM. Scoring irradiation mucositis in head and neck cancer patients. J Oral Pathol Med. 1989; 18: 167171.
  • 48
    Eilers J, Berger AM, Petersen MC. Development, testing, and application of the oral assessment guide. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1988; 15: 325330.
  • 49
    Western Consortium for Cancer Nursing Research. Development of a staging system for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. Cancer Nurs. 1991; 14: 612.
  • 50
    Walsh L, Hill G, Seymour G, Roberts A. A scoring system for the quantitative evaluation of oral mucositis during bone marrow transplantation. Spec Care Dentist. 1999; 10: 190195.
  • 51
    Tardieu C, Cowen D, Thirion X, Franquin JC. Quantitative scale of oral mucositis associated with autologous bone marrow transplantation. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol. 1996; 32B: 381387.
  • 52
    Donnelly JP, Muus P, Schattenberg A, De Witte T, Horrevorts A, DePauw BE. A scheme for daily monitoring of oral mucositis in allogeneic BMT recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1992; 9: 409413.
  • 53
    Dibble SL, Shiba G, MacPhail L, Dodd MJ. MacDibbs Mouth Assessment. A new tool to evaluate mucositis in the radiation therapy patient. Cancer Pract. 1996; 4: 135140.
  • 54
    Wymenga AN, van der Graaf WT, Spijkervet FL, et al. A new in vitro assay for quantitation of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Br J Cancer. 1997; 76: 10621066.
  • 55
    Schubert MM. Measurement of oral tissue damage and mucositis pain. New York: Raven Press, 1993.
  • 56
    Chapko MK, Syrjala KL, Schilter L, Cummings C, Sullivan KM. Chemoradiotherapy toxicity during bone marrow transplantation: time course and variation in pain and nausea. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1989; 4: 181186.
  • 57
    Keefe DM, Cummins AG, Dale BM, Kotasek D, Robb TA, Sage RE. Effect of high-dose chemotherapy on intestinal permeability in humans. Clin Sci (London). 1997; 92: 385389.
  • 58
    Berard A, Bravo G. Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: application to bone loss in postmenopausal women. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 801807.
  • 59
    Efron B. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
  • 60
    Zittoun R, Achard S, Ruszniewski M. Assessment of quality of life during intensive chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation. Psychooncology. 1999; 8: 6473.
  • 61
    Kelemen E, Masszi T, Remenyi P, Barta A, Paloczi K. Reduction in the frequency of transplant-related complications in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia undergoing BMT preconditioned with a new, non-myeloablative drug combination. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998; 21: 747749.
  • 62
    Yuen KY, Woo PC, Hui CH, et al. Unique risk factors for bacteraemia in allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients before and after engraftment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998; 21: 11371143.
  • 63
    Bush NE, Haberman M, Donaldson G, Sullivan KM. Quality of life of 125 adults surviving 6–18 years after bone marrow transplantation. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 40: 479490.
  • 64
    Bellm LA, Epstein JB, Rose-Ped A, Martin P, Fuchs HJ. Patient reports of complications of bone marrow transplantation. Support Care Cancer. 2000; 8: 3339.
  • 65
    Sonis ST, Oster G, Fuchs H, et al. Oral mucositis and the clinical and economic outcomes of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 22012205.
  • 66
    Ruescher T, Sodeifi A, Scrivani S, Kaban L, Sonis ST. The impact of mucositis on alpha hemolytic streptococcal infection in patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation for hematological malignancies. Cancer. 1998; 82: 22752281.
  • 67
    Coghlin Dickson TM, Wong RM, Negrin R, et al. Effect of oral glutamine supplementation during bone marrow transplantation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2000; 24: 6166.
  • 68
    Mills W, Strang J, Goldstone AH, Linch DC. Dose intensification of etoposide in the BEAM ABMT protocol for malignant lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 1995; 17(3–4): 263270.
  • 69
    Atkinson K, Biggs J, Noble G, Ashby M, Concannon A, Dodds A. Preparative regimens for marrow transplantation containing busulphan are associated with haemorrhagic cystitis and hepatic veno-occlusive disease but a short duration of leucopenia and little oro-pharyngeal mucositis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1987; 2: 385394.
  • 70
    Wardley AM, Jayson GC, Swindell R, et al. Prospective evaluation of oral mucositis in patients receiving myeloablative conditioning regimens and haemopoietic progenitor rescue. Br J Haematol. 2000; 110: 292299.
  • 71
    Muus P, Donnelly P, Schattenberg A, et al. Idarubicin-related side effects in recipients of T-cell-depleted allogeneic bone marrow transplants are schedule dependent. Semin Oncol. 1993; 20(6 Suppl 8 ): 4752.
  • 72
    Spitzer T, Cottler-Fox M, Torrisi J, Cahill R, Greenspan A, Lynch M. Escalating doses of etoposide with cyclophosphamide and fractionated total body irradiation or busulfan as conditioning for bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1989; 4: 559565.
  • 73
    Beelen DW, Quabeck K, Graeven U, Sayer HG, Mahmoud HK, Schaefer UW. Acute toxicity and first clinical results of intensive postinduction therapy using a modified busulfan and cyclophosphamide regimen with autologous bone marrow rescue in first remission of acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 1989; 74: 15071516.
  • 74
    Kroger N, Kruger W, Wacker-Backhaus G, et al. Intensified conditioning regimen in bone marrow transplantation for Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998; 22: 10291033.
  • 75
    Kroger N, Hoffknecht M, Hanel M, et al. Busulfan, cyclophosphamide and etoposide as high-dose conditioning therapy in patients with malignant lymphoma and prior dose-limiting radiation therapy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998; 21: 11711175.
  • 76
    Kleiner S, Kirsch A, Schwaner I, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with carboplatin, etoposide and ifosfamide followed by autologous stem cell rescue in patients with relapsed or refractory malignant lymphomas: a Phase I/II study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997; 20: 953959.
  • 77
    Lalisang RI, Hupperets PS, ten Haaft MA, Jansen RL, Schouten HC. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support as consolidation after standard-dose adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer patients with seven or more involved axillary lymph nodes. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998; 21: 243247.
  • 78
    Zander AR, Berger C, Kroger N, et al. High dose chemotherapy with busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide as conditioning regimen for allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission. Clin Cancer Res. 1997; 3(12 Pt 2): 26712675.
  • 79
    Desikan KR, Tricot G, Dhodapkar M, et al. Melphalan plus total body irradiation (MEL-TBI) or cyclophosphamide (MEL-CY) as a conditioning regimen with second autotransplant in responding patients with myeloma is inferior compared to historical controls receiving tandem transplants with melphalan alone. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000; 25: 483487.
  • 80
    Chan KW, Petropoulos D, Choroszy M, et al. High-dose sequential chemotherapy and autologous stem cell reinfusion in advanced pediatric solid tumors. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997; 20: 10391043.
  • 81
    Gutierrez-Delgado F, Golden J, Maloney DG, Holmberg L, Hooper H, Storb R. High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL): five-year follow up [abstract 46]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 14a.
  • 82
    Belanger G, Moreb JS, Pollock BH, Boyette R, Dillahunt T, Khan S. High dose busulfan, cyclophosphamide and etoposide followed by autografting in patients with multiple myeloma [abstract 124]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 33a.
  • 83
    Fernandez HF, Cadlera H, Goodman MS, Smith RJ, Hanlon JD, Cassileth PA. The treatment of poor prognosis breast cancer with high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa and peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) rescue [abstract 515]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 132a.
  • 84
    Martinez-Aguillo M, Perez-Calvo J, Villafranca AE, Santisteban M, Garcia-Rayo S, Martin-Algarra S. Feasibility of sequential dose-intensive chemotherapy with stem cell support in poor-prognosis Ewing's sarcoma [abstract 2217]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 563a.
  • 85
    Tiersten A, Hershman D, Smith D, et al. Phase I/II multicycle study of high dose paclitaxel & carboplatin, topotecan & etopophos, and thiotepa with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support in the treatment of relapsed or refractory ovarian cancer (OC) [abstract 2482]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 183b.
  • 86
    Sullivan D, Partyka J, Dalton W, Djulbegovic B, Fields K, Field T. A Phase I/II study of high-dose melphalan + topotecan + VP-16 phosphate (MTV) followed by autologous stem cell rescue in multiple myeloma [abstract 53]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 14a.
  • 87
    Sun CC, Donato ML, Cooke S, Borden CL, Basen-Engquist K, Fitzgerald MA. Ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients (Pts) undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS): preferences for toxicities over time [abstract 2576]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 206b.
  • 88
    Ozkaynak MF, Matthay K, Cairo M, et al. Double-alkylator non-total-body irradiation regimen with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in pediatric solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16: 937944.
  • 89
    Gordon BG, Warkentin PI, Strandjord SE, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for children with acute leukemia: long-term follow-up of patients prepared with high-dose cytosine arabinoside and fractionated total body irradiation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997; 20: 510.
  • 90
    Gordon BG, Warkentin PI, Weisenburger DD, et al. Bone marrow transplantation for peripheral T-cell lymphoma in children and adolescents. Blood. 1992; 80: 29382942.
  • 91
    Rubin CM, Mick R, Johnson FL. Bone marrow transplantation for the treatment of haematological disorders in Down's syndrome: toxicity and outcome. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996; 18: 533540.
  • 92
    McCowage GB, Vowels MR, Shaw PJ, Lockwood L, Mameghan H. Autologous bone marrow transplantation for advanced neuroblastoma using teniposide, doxorubicin, melphalan, cisplatin, and total-body irradiation. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13: 27892795.
  • 93
    Borgmann A, Emminger W, Emminger-Schmidmeier W, et al. Influence of fractionated total body irradiation on mucosal toxicity in intensified conditioning regimens for autologous bone marrow transplantation in pediatric cancer patients. Klin Padiatr. 1994; 206: 299302.
  • 94
    Tubergen DG, Krailo MD, Meadows AT, et al. Comparison of treatment regimens for pediatric lymphoblastic non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a Childrens Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13: 13681376.
  • 95
    Gaynon PS, Bleyer WA, Steinherz PG, et al. Modified BFM therapy for children with previously untreated acute lymphoblastic leukemia and unfavorable prognostic features. Report of Children's Cancer Study Group study CCG-193P. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1988; 10: 4250.
  • 96
    Pein F, Pinkerton R, Tournade MF, et al. Etoposide in relapsed or refractory Wilms' tumor: a Phase II study by the French Society of Pediatric Oncology and the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11: 14781481.
  • 97
    Buckley JD, Lampkin BC, Nesbit ME, et al. Remission induction in children with acute non-lymphocytic leukemia using cytosine arabinoside and doxorubicin or daunorubicin: a report from the Childrens Cancer Study Group. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1989; 17: 382390.
  • 98
    Kelly KM, Hutchinson RJ, Sposto R, et al. Feasibility of upfront dose-intensive chemotherapy in children with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: preliminary results from the Children's Cancer Group study CCG-59704. Ann Oncol. 2002; 13(Suppl 1): 107111.
  • 99
    Nachman JB, Sposto R, Herzog P, et al. Randomized comparison of low-dose involved-field radiotherapy and no radiotherapy for children with Hodgkin's disease who achieve a complete response to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 37653771.
  • 100
    Philip T, Iliescu C, Demaille MC, et al. High-dose methotrexate and HELP [Holoxan (ifosfamide), Eldesine (vindesine), platinum]-doxorubicin in non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity: a French multicentre pilot study. Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte contre le Cancer and Societe Francaise d'Oncologie Pediatrique. Ann Oncol. 1999; 10: 10651071.
  • 101
    Grovas A, Boyett J, Lindsley K, Rosenblum M, Yates A, Finlay J. Regimen-related toxicity of myeloablative chemotherapy with BCNU, thiotepa, and etoposide followed by autologous stem cell rescue for children with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: report from the Children's Cancer Group. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1999; 33: 8387.
  • 102
    Ortega JA, Douglass EC, Feusner JH, et al. Randomized comparison of cisplatin/vincristine/fluorouracil and cisplatin/continuous infusion doxorubicin for treatment of pediatric hepatoblastoma: a report from the Children's Cancer Group and the Pediatric Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 26652675.
  • 103
    O'Brien TA, Russell SJ, Vowels MR, et al. Results of consecutive trials for children newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia from the Australian and New Zealand Children's Cancer Study Group. Blood. 2002; 100: 27082716.
  • 104
    Lange BJ, Bostrom BC, Cherlow JM, et al. Double-delayed intensification improves event-free survival for children with intermediate-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children's Cancer Group. Blood. 2002; 99: 825833.
  • 105
    Kreissman SG, Rackoff W, Lee M, Breitfeld PP. High dose cyclophosphamide with carboplatin: a tolerable regimen suitable for dose intensification in children with solid tumors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1997; 19: 309312.
  • 106
    Nitschke R, Parkhurst J, Sullivan J, Harris MB, Bernstein M, Pratt C. Topotecan in pediatric patients with recurrent and progressive solid tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group Phase II study. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1998; 20: 315318.
  • 107
    Chan LL, Ater J, Cangir A, et al. Fractionated high-dose cyclophosphamide for advanced pediatric solid tumors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1996; 18: 6367.
  • 108
    Furman WL, Stewart CF, Kirstein M, et al. Protracted intermittent schedule of topotecan in children with refractory acute leukemia: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 16171624.
  • 109
    Ogden AK, Pollock BH, Bernstein ML, Camitta B, Buchanan GR. Intermediate-dose methotrexate and intravenous 6-mercaptopurine chemotherapy for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who did not respond to initial induction therapy. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2002; 24: 182187.
  • 110
    Dahllof G, Borgstrom P, Lundell G, Jacobsson H, Kogner P. Severe oral mucositis after therapeutic administration of [131I]MIBG in a child with neuroblastoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001; 92: 420423.
  • 111
    Muller HJ, Loning L, Horn A, et al. Pegylated asparaginase (Oncaspar) in children with ALL: drug monitoring in reinduction according to the ALL/NHL-BFM 95 protocols. Br J Haematol. 2000; 110: 379384.
  • 112
    Dahl GV, Lacayo NJ, Brophy N, et al. Mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cyclosporine therapy in pediatric patients with recurrent or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 18671875.
  • 113
    Godder K, Hazlett L, Abhyankar S, et al. Partially mismatched related-donor bone marrow transplantation for pediatric patients with acute leukemia: younger donors and absence of peripheral blasts improve outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 18561866.
  • 114
    Mulne AF, Ducore JM, Elterman RD, et al. Oral methotrexate for recurrent brain tumors in children: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2000; 22: 4144.
  • 115
    Giona F, Testi AM, Rondelli R, et al. ALL R-87 protocol in the treatment of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in early bone marrow relapse. Br J Haematol. 1997; 99: 671677.
  • 116
    Pappo AS, Bowman LC, Furman WL, et al. A Phase II trial of high-dose methotrexate in previously untreated children and adolescents with high-risk unresectable or metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1997; 19: 438442.
  • 117
    Arndt C, Tefft M, Gehan E, et al. A feasibility, toxicity, and early response study of etoposide, ifosfamide, and vincristine for the treatment of children with rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) IV pilot study. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1997; 19: 124129.
  • 118
    Bernstein ML, Abshire TC, Pollock BH, et al. Idarubicin and cytosine arabinoside reinduction therapy for children with multiple recurrent or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1997; 19: 6872.
  • 119
    Locatelli F, Pession A, Comoli P, et al. Role of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from an HLA-identical sibling or a matched unrelated donor in the treatment of children with juvenile chronic myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 1996; 92: 4954.
  • 120
    Bordigoni P, Esperou H, Souillet G, et al. Total body irradiation-high-dose cytosine arabinoside and melphalan followed by allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from HLA-identical siblings in the treatment of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia after relapse while receiving chemotherapy: a Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle study. Br J Haematol. 1998; 102: 656665.
  • 121
    Marco F, Bureo E, Ortega JJ, et al. High survival rate in infant acute leukemia treated with early high-dose chemotherapy and stem-cell support. Groupo Espanol de Trasplante de Medula Osea en Ninos. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 32563261.
  • 122
    Fleischhack G, Hasan C, Graf N, Mann G, Bode U. IDA-FLAG (idarubicin, fludarabine, cytarabine, G-CSF), an effective remission-induction therapy for poor-prognosis AML of childhood prior to allogeneic or autologous bone marrow transplantation: experiences of a Phase II trial. Br J Haematol. 1998; 102: 647655.
  • 123
    Ghim TT, Briones M, Mason P, et al. Effective adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in children: a final update of a long-term prospective study in a single institution. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1998; 20: 131135.
  • 124
    Kletzel M, Abella EM, Sandler ES, et al. Thiotepa and cyclophosphamide with stem cell rescue for consolidation therapy for children with high-risk neuroblastoma: a Phase I/II study of the Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1998; 20: 4954.
  • 125
    Shapiro JD, Harold N, Takimoto C, et al. A pilot study of interferon alpha-2a, fluorouracil, and leucovorin given with granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor in advanced gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 1999; 5: 23992408.
  • 126
    Herskovic A, Fisher J, Orton B, et al. Accelerated hyperfractionation in patients with non-small cell bronchogenic cancers as a cost-effective and user- and patient-friendly schedule. Cancer Invest. 2000; 18: 537543.
  • 127
    Butler EB, Teh BS, Grant WH III, et al. SMART (simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy) boost: a new accelerated fractionation schedule for the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 45: 2132.
  • 128
    Kohno N, Kitahara S, Tamura E, et al. The role of low dose cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil for treatment of recurrent and/or advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2000; 27(Suppl 2): 592599.
  • 129
    Regazzoni S, Pesce G, Marini G, Cavalli F, Goldhirsch A. Low-dose continuous intravenous infusion of 5-fluorouracil for metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1996; 7: 807813.
  • 130
    Focan C, Andrien JM, Closon MT, et al. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11: 12531263.
  • 131
    Bastholt L, Dalmark M, Gjedde SB, et al. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin in the treatment of postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer: a randomized study of epirubicin at four different dose levels performed by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996; 14: 11461155.
  • 132
    Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, et al. Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16: 26512658.
  • 133
    Brufman G, Colajori E, Ghilezan N, et al. Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rates. An international randomised Phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. The Epirubicin High Dose (HEPI 010) Study Group. Ann Oncol. 1997; 8: 155162.
  • 134
    Chu L, Sutton LM, Peterson BL, Havlin KA, Winer EP. Continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Infus Chemother. 1996; 6: 211216.
  • 135
    Dreizen S, McCredie KB, Bodey GP, Keating MJ. Quantitative analysis of the oral complications of antileukemia chemotherapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1986; 62: 650653.
  • 136
    Culine S, Theodore C, Bekradda M, Farhat F, Terrier-Lacombe MJ, Droz JP. Experience with bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin (BEP) and alternating cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (CISCA(II))/vinblastine, bleomycin (VB(IV)) regimens of chemotherapy in poor-risk nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Am J Clin Oncol. 1997; 20: 184188.
  • 137
    Pazdur R. Phase II study of UFT plus leucovorin in colorectal cancer. Oncology. 1997; 54(Suppl 1): 1923.
  • 138
    Labianca R, Cascinu S, Frontini L, et al. High-versus low-dose levo-leucovorin as a modulator of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer: a “GISCAD” Phase III study. Italian Group for the Study of Digestive Tract Cancer. Ann Oncol. 1997; 8: 169174.
  • 139
    Guha-Thakurta N, Damek D, Pollack C, Hochberg FH. Intravenous methotrexate as initial treatment for primary central nervous system lymphoma: response to therapy and quality of life of patients. J Neurooncol. 1999; 43: 259268.
  • 140
    Barrett AP. Clinical characteristics and mechanisms involved in chemotherapy-induced oral ulceration. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987; 63: 424428.
  • 141
    Funke I, Wiesneth M, Platow S, Kubanek B. Palliative cytoreduction in refractory acute leukemia: a retrospective study of 57 adult patients. Ann Hematol. 2000; 79: 132137.
  • 142
    Feldman EJ, Seiter K, Damon L, et al. A randomized trial of high- vs standard-dose mitoxantrone with cytarabine in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 1997; 11: 485489.
  • 143
    Popescu RA, Norman A, Ross PJ, Parikh B, Cunningham D. Adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in patients 70 years or older. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 24122418.
  • 144
    Van Cutsem E, Blijham GH. Irinotecan versus infusional 5-fluorouracil: a Phase III study in metastatic colorectal cancer following failure on first-line 5-fluorouracil. V302 Study Group. Semin Oncol. 1999; 26(1 Suppl 5 ): 1320.
  • 145
    Streit M, Jaehde U, Stremetzne S, et al. Five-day continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil and pulsed folinic acid in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: an effective second-line regimen. Ann Oncol. 1997; 8: 163165.
  • 146
    Tsavaris NB, Tentas K, Kosmidis P, et al. 5-Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and mitomycin C versus 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, mitomycin C, and leucovorin in advanced gastric carcinoma. A randomized trial. Am J Clin Oncol. 1996; 19: 517521.
  • 147
    Caponigro F, Comella P, Marcolin P, et al. A Phase II trial of cisplatin, methotrexate, levofolinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with locally advanced, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer. 1999; 85: 952959.
  • 148
    Bjordal K, Freng A, Thorvik J, Kaasa S. Patient self-reported and clinician-rated quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol. 1995; 31B: 235241.
  • 149
    Hammerlid E, Mercke C, Sullivan M, Westin T. A prospective quality of life study of patients with oral or pharyngeal carcinoma treated with external beam irradiation with or without brachytherapy. Oral Oncol. 1997; 33: 189196.
  • 150
    Epstein JB, Emerton S, Kolbinson DA, et al. Quality of life and oral function following radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 1999; 21: 111.
  • 151
    Oliverio G, Canuti D, Tononi A, et al. Paclitaxel efficacy and tolerability in second-line treatment of refractory and relapsed ovarian cancer patients. J Chemother. 1999; 11: 301305.
  • 152
    Ohrn KE, Sjoden PO, Wahlin YB, Elf M. Oral health and quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer or haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer. 2001; 9: 528538.
  • 153
    Chiara S, Nobile MT, Vincenti M, et al. Advanced colorectal cancer in the elderly: results of consecutive trials with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1998; 42: 336340.
  • 154
    Mantovani G, Maccio A, Massa E, et al. Phase II study of induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer: clinical response and organ/function preservation. Oncol Rep. 1999; 6: 14251430.
  • 155
    Chougule PB, Akhtar MS, Akerley W, et al. Chemoradiotherapy for advanced inoperable head and neck cancer: a Phase II study. Semin Radiat Oncol. 1999; 9(2 Suppl 1 ): 5863.
  • 156
    Vokes EE, Kies MS, Haraf DJ, et al. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy as primary therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 16521661.
  • 157
    van Putten JW, Eppinga P, Erjavec Z, et al. Activity of high-dose epirubicin combined with gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter Phase I and II study. Br J Cancer. 2000; 82: 806811.
  • 158
    Cobleigh M, Vogel C, Tripathy D, et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized Anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 26392648.
  • 159
    Bishop JF, Dewar J, Toner GC, et al. Initial paclitaxel improves outcome compared with CMFP combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in untreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 23552364.
  • 160
    Bishop JF, Dewar J, Toner GC, et al. Paclitaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. The Taxol Investigational Trials Group, Australia and New Zealand. Oncology (Huntington). 1997; 11(4 Suppl 3 ): 1923.
  • 161
    Bishop J, Dewar J, Toner G, et al. A randomized study of paclitaxel versus cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil/prednisone in previously untreated patients with advanced breast cancer: preliminary results. Semin Oncol. 1997; 24(5 Suppl 17 ): S17-5S17-9.
  • 162
    Zaniboni A, Labianca R, Marsoni S, et al. GIVIO-SITAC 01: a randomized trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid administered to patients with colon carcinoma—long term results and evaluation of the indicators of health-related quality of life. Gruppo Italiano Valutazione Interventi in Oncologia. Studio Italiano Terapia Adiuvante Colon. Cancer. 1998; 82: 21352144.
  • 163
    Dumphy F, Boyd J, Dunleavy T. Paclitaxel and carboplatin in head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol. 1997; 24(6 Suppl 9 ): S19-25S19-27.
  • 164
    Zalcberg J. Overview of the tolerability of “Tomudex” (raltitrexed): collective clinical experience in advanced colorectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 1997; 8(Suppl 2): S17S22.
  • 165
    Cunningham D. Mature results from three large controlled studies with raltitrexed (“Tomudex”). Br J Cancer. 1998; 77(Suppl 2): 1521.
  • 166
    Groener M, van Ineveld B, Byttebier G, van Hout B, Rutten F. An economic evaluation of Tomudexa (raltitrexed) and 5-fluourouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 1999; 10: 283288.
  • 167
    Dreizen S, McCredie K, Keating M. Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in adult leukemia. Postgrad Med. 1981; 69: 103112.
  • 168
    Dillman RO. Infusion reactions associated with the therapeutic use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of malignancy. Cancer Metast Rev. 1999; 18: 465471.
  • 169
    Levy V, Porcher R, Delabarre F, Leporrier M, Cazin B, Chevret S. Evaluating treatment strategies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: use of quality-adjusted survival analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 747754.
  • 170
    Keating M, O'Brien S. High-dose rituximab therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Semin Oncol. 2000; 27(6 Suppl 12 ): 8690.
  • 171
    Itoh K, Ohtsu T, Fukuda H, et al. Randomized Phase II study of biweekly CHOP and dose-escalated CHOP with prophylactic use of lenograstim (glycosylated G-CSF) in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study 9505. Ann Oncol. 2002; 13: 13471355.
  • 172
    Intragumtornchai T, Prayoonwiwat W, Numbenjapon T, Assawametha N, O'Charoen R, Swasdikul D. CHOP versus CHOP plus ESHAP and high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation for high-intermediate-risk and high-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma. 2000; 1: 219225.
  • 173
    Walewski J, Kraszewska E, Mioduszewska O, Romejko-Jarosinska J, Hellmann A, Czyz J. Rituximab (Mabthera, Rituxan) in patients with recurrent indolent lymphoma. Med Oncol. 2000; 18: 141148.
  • 174
    Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 235242.
  • 175
    Balzarotti M, Spina M, Sarina B, et al. Intensified CHOP regimen in aggressive lymphomas: maximal dose intensity and dose density of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Ann Oncol. 2002; 13: 13411346.
  • 176
    Gaynor ER, Unger JM, Miller TP, et al. Infusional CHOP chemotherapy (CVAD) with or without chemosensitizers offers no advantage over standard CHOP therapy in the treatment of lymphoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 750755.
  • 177
    Vase J, Link B, Grossbard M, et al. Phase II study of rituximab in combination with CHOP chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated, aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 389397.
  • 178
    Czuczman MS, Grillo-Lopez AJ, White CA, et al. Treatment of patients with low-grade B-cell lymphoma with the combination of chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and CHOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 268276.
  • 179
    Czuczman MS. CHOP plus rituximab chemoimmunotherapy of indolent B-cell lymphoma. Semin Oncol. 1999; 26(5 Suppl 14 ): 8896.
  • 180
    McLaughlin P, Hagemeister FB, Rodriguez MA, et al. Safety of fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and dexamethasone combined with rituximab in the treatment of Stage IV indolent lymphoma. Semin Oncol. 2000; 27(6 Suppl 12 ): 3741.
  • 181
    Kantarjian H, Sawyers C, Hochhaus A, et al. Hematologic and cytogenetic responses to imatinib mesylate in chronic myelogenous leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 645652.
  • 182
    Kantarjian HM, Cortes J, O'Brien S, et al. Imatinib mesylate (STI571) therapy for Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia in blast phase. Blood. 2002; 99: 35473553.
  • 183
    Sawyers CL, Hochhaus A, Feldman E, et al. Imatinib induces hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia in myeloid blast crisis: results of a Phase II study. Blood. 2002; 99: 35303539.
  • 184
    Talpaz M, Silver RT, Druker BJ, et al. Imatinib induces durable hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with accelerated phase chronic myeloid leukemia: results of a Phase 2 study. Blood. 2002; 99: 19281937.
  • 185
    Di Costanzo F, Tagliaventi M, Carlini P, et al. High-dose folinic acid and fluorouracil with or without ifosfamide is an inactive combination in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized Phase II study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (G.O.I.R.C.). Am J Clin Oncol. 1996; 19: 307310.
  • 186
    Wibault P, Bensmaine MA, de Forni M, et al. Intensive concomitant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a Phase II study of radiotherapy with cisplatin and 7-week continuous infusional fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol. 1996; 14: 11921200.
  • 187
    Dragovic J, Doyle TJ, Tilchen EJ, et al. Accelerated fractionation radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy in patients with Stage IV inoperable head and neck cancer. Cancer. 1995; 76: 16551661.
  • 188
    Cunningham D, Zalcberg JR, Rath U, et al. “Tomudex” (ZD1694): results of a randomised trial in advanced colorectal cancer demonstrate efficacy and reduced mucositis and leucopenia. The “Tomudex” Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1995; 31A: 19451954.
  • 189
    Hill M, Norman A, Cunningham D, et al. Impact of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil with or without interferon alfa-2b on tumor response, survival, and quality of life in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13: 23172323.
  • 190
    Sledge GW Jr., Robert N, Sparano JA, et al. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group studies of paclitaxel and doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 1995; 22(3 Suppl 6 ): 105108.
  • 191
    Joss RA, Alberto P, Hurny C, et al. Quality versus quantity of life in the treatment of patients with advanced small-cell lung cancer? A randomized Phase III comparison of weekly carboplatin and teniposide versus cisplatin, Adriamycin, etoposide alternating with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, vincristine and lomustine. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Ann Oncol. 1995; 6: 4148.
  • 192
    Caudry M, Bonnel C, Floquet A, et al. A randomized study of bolus fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus 21-day fluorouracil infusion alone or in association with cyclophosphamide and mitomycin C in advanced colorectal carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 1995; 18: 118125.
  • 193
    Pazdur R, Lassere Y, Rhodes V, et al. Phase II trial of uracil and tegafur plus oral leucovorin: an effective oral regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1994; 12: 22962300.
  • 194
    Zagonel V, Babare R, Merola MC, et al. Cost-benefit of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in older patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with combination chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 1994; 5(Suppl 2): 127132.
  • 195
    Machover D, Grison X, Goldschmidt E, et al. 5-Fluorouracil combined with the [6S]-stereoisomer of folinic acid in high doses for treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. A Phase I–II study of two consecutive regimens. Ann Oncol. 1993; 4(Suppl 2): 2935.
  • 196
    Wiernik PH, Dutcher JP, Paietta E, et al. Long-term follow-up of treatment and potential cure of adult acute lymphocytic leukemia with MOAD: a non-anthracycline containing regimen. Leukemia. 1993; 7: 12361241.
  • 197
    Francini G, Petrioli R, Aquino A, Gonnelli S. Advanced breast cancer treatment with folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin C. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993; 32: 359364.
  • 198
    Anderson H, Hopwood P, Prendiville J, Radford JA, Thatcher N, Ashcroft L. A randomised study of bolus vs continuous pump infusion of ifosfamide and doxorubicin with oral etoposide for small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1993; 67: 13851390.
  • 199
    Bundgaard T, Tandrup O, Elbrond O. A functional evaluation of patients treated for oral cancer. A prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 22: 2834.
  • 200
    Machover D, Grison X, Goldschmidt E, et al. Fluorouracil combined with the pure (6S)-stereoisomer of folinic acid in high doses for treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma: a Phase I–II study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992; 84: 321327.
  • 201
    Cowan JD, Neidhart J, McClure S, et al. Randomized trial of doxorubicin, bisantrene, and mitoxantrone in advanced breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991; 83: 10771084.
  • 202
    Henderson IC, Allegra JC, Woodcock T, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing mitoxantrone with doxorubicin in previously treated patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1989; 7: 560571.
  • 203
    Bennett JM, Muss HB, Doroshow JH, et al. A randomized multicenter trial comparing mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, and fluorouracil with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and fluorouracil in the therapy of metastatic breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1988; 6: 16111620.
  • 204
    Mattson K, Maasilta P, Tammilehto L, Holsti LR, Grove W. Trimetrexate and cyclophosphamide for metastatic inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol. 1988; 15(2 Suppl 2 ): 3237.
  • 205
    Kish JA, Weaver A, Jacobs J, Cummings G, Al-Sarraf M. Cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil infusion in patients with recurrent and disseminated epidermoid cancer of the head and neck. Cancer. 1984; 53: 18191824.
  • 206
    Hande KR, Oldham RK, Fer MF, Richardson RL, Greco FA. Randomized study of high-dose versus low-dose methotrexate in the treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer. Am J Med. 1982; 73: 413419.
  • 207
    Vaughn CB, Chapman JL, Garland M, et al. The efficacy of 5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C, and methyl CCNU in advanced gastrointestinal malignancy. Oncology. 1981; 38: 129133.
  • 208
    Buechler M, Mukherji B, Chasin W, Nathanson L. High dose methotrexate with and without BCG therapy in advanced head and neck malignancy. Cancer. 1979; 43: 10951100.
  • 209
    Lissoni A, Gabriele A, Gorga G, et al. Cisplatin-, epirubicin- and paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy in uterine adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol. 1997; 8: 969972.
  • 210
    Younes A, Romaguera J, Mesina O, et al. Paclitaxel plus high-dose cyclophosphamide with G-CSF support in patients with relapsed and refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 1998; 103: 678683.
  • 211
    Blum JL, Dieras V, Lo Russo PM, et al. Multicenter, Phase II study of capecitabine in taxane-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Cancer. 2001; 92: 17591768.
  • 212
    Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 905914.
  • 213
    Garuffi C, Dogliotti L, D'Attino RM, et al. Irinotecan and chronomodulated infusion of 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma: a Phase I study. Cancer. 2001; 91: 712720.
  • 214
    Verschraegen CF, Levy T, Kudelka AP, et al. Phase II study of irinotecan in prior chemotherapy-treated squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15: 625631.
  • 215
    Markman M, Kennedy A, Webster K, Peterson G, Kulp B, Belinson J. Phase 2 trial of liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m) in platinum/paclitaxel-refractory ovarian and fallopian tube cancers and primary carcinoma of the peritoneum. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 78(3 Pt 1): 369372.
  • 216
    Gordon AN, Granai CO, Rose PG, et al. Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in platinum- and paclitaxel-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 30933100.
  • 217
    Ibrahim NK, Rahman Z, Valero V, et al. Phase II study of vinorelbine administered by 96-hour infusion in patients with advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999; 86: 12511257.
  • 218
    Colevas AD, Tishler R, Fried R, Read R, DeFusco P, Norris C. A Phase I/II study of outpatient docetaxel (Taxotere), cisplatin, 5-FU, and leucovorin (OP-TPFL) as induction chemotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) [abstract 1660]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 420a.
  • 219
    Hesketh PJ, Crowley JJ, Burris HA III, et al. Evaluation of docetaxel in previously untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Phase II trial. Cancer J Sci Am. 1999; 5: 237241.
  • 220
    Verweij J, Lee SM, Ruka W, et al. Randomized Phase II study of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in first- and second-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcomas in adults: a study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 20812086.
  • 221
    von Minckwitz G, Costa SD, Eiermann W, et al. Maximized reduction of primary breast tumor size using preoperative chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 19992005.
  • 222
    Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The 303 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 23412354.
  • 223
    Muggia FM, Hainsworth JD, Jeffers S, et al. Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in refractory ovarian cancer: antitumor activity and toxicity modification by liposomal encapsulation. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15: 987993.
  • 224
    Cardoso F, Ferreira Filho A, Crown J, et al. Doxorubicin followed by docetaxel versus docetaxel followed by doxorubicin in the adjuvant treatment of node positive breast cancer: results of a feasibility study. Anticancer Res. 2001; 21: 789796.
  • 225
    Kwasny W, Kornek G, Haider K, et al. Treatment of advanced, refractory breast cancer with alternating docetaxel and epirubicin/cyclophosphamide plus human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000; 63: 235241.
  • 226
    Bennouna J, Monnier A, Rivi A, et al. A Phase II study of docetaxel and vinorelbine combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 36: 11071112.
  • 227
    Di Leo A, Crown J, Nogaret JM, et al. A feasibility study evaluating docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2000; 11: 169175.
  • 228
    Pazdur R, Royce ME, Rodriguez GI, et al. Phase II trial of docetaxel for cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 1999; 22: 7881.
  • 229
    Valero V, Esteva FJ, Rosales MF, Esparza-Guerra LT, Sahin AA, Strom EA. Phase II trial of primary chemotherapy with docetaxel and doxorubicin in locally advanced breast cancer: clinical and pathological results [abstract 519]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 132a.
  • 230
    Kavanagh JJ, Kudelka AP, de Leon CG, et al. Phase II study of docetaxel in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma refractory to platinum. Clin Cancer Res. 1996; 2: 837842.
  • 231
    Couteau C, Chouaki N, Leyvraz S, et al. A Phase II study of docetaxel in patients with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Br J Cancer. 1999; 81: 457462.
  • 232
    Viens P, Roche H, Kerbrat P, Fumoleau P, Guastalla JP, Delozier T. Epirubicin-docetaxel combination in first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a dose-finding and efficacy study. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001; 24: 328335.
  • 233
    Alexandre J, Bleuzen P, Bonneterre J, et al. Factors predicting for efficacy and safety of docetaxel in a compassionate-use cohort of 825 heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 562573.
  • 234
    Iirillo A, Morabito A, Soraru' M, Palazzolo G, Errante D, Manente P. FOLFOX2 regimen in treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) [abstract 1099]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 281a.
  • 235
    Beuzeboc P, Mouret E, Vincent Salomon A, Jouve M, Girre V, Pierga J. High dosage (HD) FAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer (BC) presenting a high S-Phase fraction (SPF) [abstract 593]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 150a.
  • 236
    Picozzi VJ, Kozarek RE, Rieke JW, Cha CM, Boone-Hill NK, Jacobs AD. Adjuvant combined modality therapy for resected, high-risk adenocarcinoma of the pancreas using cisplatin (CDDP), 5 FU, and alpha-interferon (IFN) as radiosensitizing agents: update of a Phase II trial [abstract 1034]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 267a.
  • 237
    Mabro M, André T, Louvet C, Carola E, Beerblock K, Krulik M. Bimonthly leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil infusion and hydroxyurea followed by CPT-11 (FOLFIRI-2) in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer [abstract 1151]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 294a.
  • 238
    Cvitkovic FB, Mefti F, Seitz JF, et al. Chronomodulated (CRM) bimonthly 48 hour (hr) 5-fluorouracil (FU), folinic acid (FA), oxaliplatin (OXA) “FOLFOX CRM” in FU-refractory (FUR) advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC) patients (Pts): Phase II study [abstract 1242]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 314a.
  • 239
    Di Lauro L, Carpano S, Morelli M, Della Giulia M, Arena M, Lopez M. Cisplatin, epirubicin and fluorouracil (PEF) for measurable advanced gastric carcinoma: evaluation of two different schedules [abstract 1064]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 273a.
  • 240
    Calvo E, Gonzalez-Cao M, Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Ordoñez JM, Brugarolas A. Combined irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-FU in patients (Pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC) [abstract 1008]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 259A.
  • 241
    Anchisi S, Delaloye B, Petite J, Laurencet F, Ambord C, Obrist R. Gemcitabine (GEM) and continuous infusional 5-FU (CIF) is active and well tolerated in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer [abstract 1280H]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 326a.
  • 242
    Afonso-Afonso FJ Sr., Sucre CE Sr., Perez JR. Induction chemotherapy (IC) with paclitaxel (P), cisplatinum (c) and 5FU followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced head and neck cancer (IAHNC) [abstract 1691]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 428a.
  • 243
    Tassinari D, Arcangeli V, Oliverio G, Panzini I, Drudi G, Milandri C. Infusional 5-FU and leucovorin plus mitomycin-C as second line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer [abstract 1084]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 278a.
  • 244
    Cascinu S, Labianca R, Santoro A, Barone C, Frontini L, Aitini E. Intensive weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin, epi-doxorubicin, leucovorin, 5 fluorouracil, gluthatione and lenograstim versus 5 fluorouracil/leucovorin combination as adjuvant treatment for high risk gastric cancer [abstract 1070]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 274a.
  • 245
    Vazquez S, Mel J, Sabin P, Alvarez E, Quintero G. Irinotecan (CPT-11) in combination with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/Fa) as a weekly schedule in previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) [abstract 1249]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 316a.
  • 246
    Aranda E, Carrato A, Cervantes A, Sastre J, Abad A, Rivera F. Irinotecan (CPT-11) in combination with high-dose infusional 5-FU (TtD schedule) in advanced colorectal cancer (CrC): preliminary results of a Phase I/II study [abstract 1280A]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 324a.
  • 247
    Guglielmi A, Caroti C, Aschele C, Labianca R, Frassineti GL, Testore F. Mitomycin-C added to schedule-specific biochemical modulation of 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) [abstract 1065]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 273a.
  • 248
    Ravaioli A, Tassinari D, Panzini I, Pasquini E, Milandri C, Arcangeli V. Modified Mayo Clinic bolus 5-FU and leucovorin plus oxaliplatin in advanced, pretreated colorectal cancer [abstract 1086]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 278a.
  • 249
    Maiello E, Labianca R, Gozza A, Di Costanzo F, Beretta G, Heouaine A. Multicenter trial of a simplified schedule of bi-monthly folinic acid (FA) and 5-fluorouracil (Fu) bolus and continuous infusion (C.I.) advanced colorectal cancer patients [abstract 1280C]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 324a.
  • 250
    Zaniboni A, Meriggi F, Aitini E, Rabbi C, Marzola M. Oxaliplatin (OX) and 5-day 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leuvocovorin (LV) as salvage treatment for advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) [abstract 1195]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 304a.
  • 251
    Mousseau M, Rebischung C, Garnier C, Chirpaz E, Provençal J, Papillon E. Phase I/II study in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (APA) and carcinoma if unknown primary (CUP): a combination of leucovorin (LV), 5 FU bolus and infusion, gemcitabine (GEM) and oxaliplatine (L.OHP) (FOLFU GEMOX regimen) [abstract 913]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 233a.
  • 252
    Droz JP, Muracciole X, Mottet N, Ouid Kaci M, Vannetzel JM, Albin N. Phase II randomized study of oxaliplatin (OXA), and its combination with 5-FU (OXA-FU) in hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients (Pts) [abstract 1415]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 359a.
  • 253
    Shulman KL, Kindler HL, Lad TE, Reilly K, Mani S, Vokes EE. Phase II study of gemcitabine (G) and continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a University of Chicago Phase II consortium study [abstract 1126]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 288a.
  • 254
    Pastorelli D, Pedrazzoli S, Sperti C, Vicario G. Phase II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced pancreatic cancer [abstract 1110]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 284a.
  • 255
    Tsalic M, Bar-Sela G, Beni A, Visel B, Vardi A, Haim N. Prospective analysis of severe toxicity associated with 5-FU and leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen) in colorectal cancer patients [abstract 1046]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 269a.
  • 256
    Adenis A, Douillard J, Lacroix H, et al. Randomized Phase II–III trial of oxaliplatin (OXA) with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) continuous infusion (CI) versus a control arm with either 5FU or irinotecan (CPT11) in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) patients (Pts) [abstract 1088]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 279a.
  • 257
    Ducreux M, Nordlinger B, Ychou Y, Milan C, Bouche O, Ducerf C. Resected gastric adenocarcinoma: randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5 FU-cisplatin (FUP). Final results of the FFCD 8801 trial [abstract 932]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 241a.
  • 258
    Blackstock AW Jr, Higgs V, Richards F, Lesser G, Case D. Schedule-selective biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer: 10 year results of a Phase II study [abstract 1149]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 294a.
  • 259
    Jabboury K, Wong A, Deutsch A, Garcia O, Cleary J, Oster W. Trimetrexate modulation of weekly 24-hour infusional fluorouracil/leucovorin: a Phase I/II study in advanced malignancies [abstract 870]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 223a.
  • 260
    Gray J, Hainsworth JD, Burris HA, Morrissey LH, Gualtieri R, Joseph G. Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and topotecan in the treatment of small cell lung cancer: a Phase II trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network [abstract 1931]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 494a.
  • 261
    Rana F, Younus J, Latif N, Siddiqui KS. A prospective randomized trial evaluating response rate and toxicities of CAF vs CMF in locally advanced breast cancer patients, in a neo-adjuvant setting [abstract 571]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 144a.
  • 262
    Shamash J, Joel SP, Liu SM, Irwin H, Steele JP, Asterling S. GAMEC: a novel protocol for patients with germ cell tumours (GCT) relapsing following conventional treatment or with de novo IGCCCG poor prognosis [abstract 1466]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 371a.
  • 263
    Tumolo S, Toffoli G, Sorio R, LoRe G, Buonadonna A, Saracchini S. Sequential oral methotrexate (OMTX) and carboplatin (CBDCA) in advanced ovarian cancer (OC): a Phase II study [abstract 1611]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 407a.
  • 264
    Lopez A, Scott S, Lee M, Lawless G, Ford J, Fridman M. Comparisons of CMF to AC in the practice of treating early stage breast cancer [abstract 558]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 141a.
  • 265
    Von Minckwitz G, Souchon R, Kleeberg UR, Marschner N, Becker M, Merckle KH. Bendamustin, MTX, 5-FU (BMF) vs. cyclophosphamide, MTX, 5-FU (CMF) as first line therapy of metastatic breast cancer. A safety interim analysis [abstract 465]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 120a.
  • 266
    Kroger N, Zabelina T, Kruger W, Renges H, Holstein K, Fiedler W. De-escalating study of VP-16 with fixed doses of busulfan plus cyclophosphamide as conditioning regimen in patients with AML undergoing stem cell transplantation [abstract 39]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 12a.
  • 267
    Biganzonli L, Cufer T, Bruning P, Coleman R, Calvert H, Gamucci T. Doxorubicin (A)/taxol (T) versus doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (C) as first line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a Phase III study [abstract 282]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 73a.
  • 268
    Cohen BJ, Hedrick E, Moskowitz C, Straus DJ, Zelenetz AD. The cyclophosphamide/fludarabine (CF) regimen in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) [abstract 50]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 15a.
  • 269
    Jones V, Finucane D, Rodriguez R, Saleh F, Espinoza M, Gutheil JC. Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel (Taxol) and liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer [abstract 451]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 116a.
  • 270
    Tirelli U, Sparano JA, Hopkins U, Spina M, Vaccher E. Pilot trial of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) plus the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) [abstract 170]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 44a.
  • 271
    Maluf FC, Hilton S, Nanus DM, Herr H, Mazumdar M, Higgins G. Sequential doxorubicin/gemcitabine (AG) and ifosfamide, paclitaxel, and cisplatin (ITP) chemotherapy (AG-ITP) in patients (pts) with metastatic or locally advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium (TCC) [abstract 1344]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 342a.
  • 272
    Doyle T, Devine P, Rosenthal DI, Hershock W, Levin W, Metz J. A Phase I/II trial of accelerated radiotherapy plus concurrent 96-hour paclitaxel infusion for unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) [abstract 1676]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 424a.
  • 273
    Campos S, Penson RT, Matulonis UA, et al. A Phase II and pharmacokinetic/dynamic study of doxil and weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy for recurrent Mullerian tumors [abstract 1623]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 401a.
  • 274
    Manzione L, D'Aprille M, Cioffi R, Ianniello GP, Frontini L, Barzelloni M. Carboplatin + paclitaxel in the treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC). A multicenter Phase II study [abstract 1928]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 493a.
  • 275
    Bouillet T, Morere J, Despreaux G, Herman D, Corne A, Agranat P. Concurrent radiotherapy and paclitaxel (P) twice a week as a radiosensitizer in Stage III–IV head and neck carcinoma [abstract 1670]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 423a.
  • 276
    Eckhardt A, Wildfang I, Rades D, Kuettner C, Dammer R, Hofele C. Multicenter Phase II study of preoperative concurrent paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiotherapy in Stage III/IV resectable cancer of the oropharynx and oral cavity: an interim analysis [abstract 1658]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 420a.
  • 277
    Lastra E, Muñoz A, Rubio I, Fernandez R, Mañe JM, Lopez-Argumedo G. Paclitaxel, carboplatin and oral etoposide in the treatment of patients (PTS) with cancer of unknown primary site (CUPS) [abstract 2279C]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 579a.
  • 278
    Perez EA, Shaikh BS, Hillman DW, Loprinzi CL, Veeder MH, Hauge MD. Phase II study of oral etoposide with intravenous paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial [abstract 440]. Prog/Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 114a.
  • 279
    Bahri S, Agarwala SS, Cano E, Johnson J, Myers E, Jeong J. Phase II study of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel concurrent with radiation therapy (RT) in patients (Pts) with locally advanced, inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) [abstract 1667]. Prog/Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 422a.
  • 280
    Feher O, Martins SJ, Lima CA, Salvajoli JV, Kowalski LP. Pilot trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with paclitaxel and conventional fractionated irradiation in advanced unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [abstract 1694J]. Prog/Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 431a.
  • 281
    Wang R, Iganej S, Cosmatos H, Latino F, Kagan R. Pilot trial of concurrent low-dose weekly paclitaxel and radiotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) [abstract 1685]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 426a.
  • 282
    Onat H, Basaran M, Güllü I, Demirelli F, Sakar B, Bavbek SE. Preliminary results of a Phase II study of paclitaxel (P) and cisplatin (C) in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) [abstract 1694D]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 429a.
  • 283
    D'Aiuto G, Frasci G, Carreca P, Comella P, Thomas R, Capasso I. Weekly cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel (PET) with G-CSF support in advanced breast cancer. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) [abstract 490]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 126a.
  • 284
    Baltali E, Ozisik Y, Guler N, Tekuzman G, Altundag K. Combination of docetaxel (T) as a first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 468]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 121a.
  • 285
    Deplanque G, Dufour P, Essner C, Duclos B, Besançon A, Eichler F. ATN (Adriamycin-Taxotere-Navelbine): a Phase I–II multicentre study in first line therapy of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 401]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 104a.
  • 286
    Budach W, Hehr T, Belka C, Bamberg M. Alternating chemo-radiation with docetaxel (D)/cisplatin (C) and involved field radiotherapy for recurrent, inoperable, and previously irradiated head and neck cancer (HNC) [abstract 1649]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 418a.
  • 287
    Denes AE, Needles BM, Schmidt A, White LA, Greco AO, Eckhardt JR. A comparison of two schedules of docetaxel (D) in combination with gemcitabine(G) given every other week [abstract 828]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 212a.
  • 288
    Gennari A, Salvadori B, Conte P. A pilot study of docetaxel (D) plus paclitaxel (P) in anthracycline/taxane pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 456]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 118a.
  • 289
    Estevez LG, Domine M, Martin L, Casado V, Robies L, Leon A. Docetaxel (T) in combination with epirubicin (E) as treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 462]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 199a.
  • 290
    Constenla M, Lorenzo I, Carrete N, Campos B, Garcia-Arroyo P, Palacios P. Docetaxel (TXT) monotherapy and G-CSF for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in elderly patients (EP) [abstract 425]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 110a.
  • 291
    Gomez A, Cruz JJ, Garcia-Palomo A, Arizcun A, Pujol E, Diz P. Docetaxel and vinorebine every 14 days in patients with metastatic breast cancer after using anthracyclines. Final results [abstract 418]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 108a.
  • 292
    Teston L, Cooper B, Silverman P, Overmoyer B, Schnur G, Shenk R. Dose-dense chemotherapy with sequential doxorubicin (D) and docetaxel (Dt) for initial treatment of operable and inoperable Stage II–IIIb breast cancer [abstract 524]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 134a.
  • 293
    Chodkiewicz C, Wasserheit C, Downey A, Sorich J, Liebes L, Phillips Z. Doxil (D) and docetaxel (Taxotere, T): pharmacokinetic (PK) results at the recommended Phase II dose (RPTD) [abstract 825]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 212a.
  • 294
    Tubiana-Mathieu N, Genet D, Cupissol D, Calais G, Bontemps P, Burgeois H. Final results of Phase II study of patients (Pts) with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated with docetaxel (D) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) [abstract 1656]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 419a.
  • 295
    Lara F, De la Garza J, Ramirez T, Perez V, Salas E, Alvarado A. High pathological complete response (PCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer [abstract 492]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 126a.
  • 296
    Martinelli G, Cinieri S, Ferrucci P, Vaccari D, Scalamonga R, Cocorocchio E. Multiple high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with docetaxel (T), epirubicin (E) and cyclophosphamide (C), (HD-TEC) for high risk breast cancer (HRBC). Clinical results of a Phase II study [abstract 218]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 57a.
  • 297
    Rein D, Kurbacher CM, Breidbenbach M, Schmidt T, Janat MM, Blohmer J. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin (C) and docetaxel (D) in locally advanced primary (LACC) and recurrent cervical cancer (RCC) [abstract 1606]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 405a.
  • 298
    Philip PA, Pernick NL, Vashampayan U, Simon MS, LoRusso P, Chaplen R. Phase II study of doxorubicin, docetaxel, and 5-fluorouracil (FAT) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer [abstract 510]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 130a.
  • 299
    Molitor J, Louvet C, Deniaud E, Lotz J, Carola E, Bachmeyer C. Phase II trial of a sequential docetaxel-cisplatin-epirubicin regimen as first-line chemotherapy (CT1) in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC): safety and surgical responses [abstract 1574]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 398a.
  • 300
    Vorobiof DA, Chasen MR, Abratt RP, Rapoport BL, Cronje N, Fourie LS. Phase II trial of single agent Taxotere (T) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) [abstract 2277]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 578a.
  • 301
    Malik U, Sparano JA, Manalo J, Rajdev L, Sarta C, Hopkins U. Phase II trial of weekly docetaxel (Taxotere) alone or in combination with trastuzumab (Herceptin) in patients with metastatic breast cancer [abstract 586]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 148a.
  • 302
    Petrylak DP, Shelton GB, England-Owen C, Pfaff C, Bagliella E, Diuleo R. Response and preliminary survival results of a Phase II study of docetaxel (D) + estramustine (E) in patients (Pts) with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPCA) [abstract 1312]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 334a.
  • 303
    Barroso SV, Passos MJ, Costa FO. Retrospective study of docetaxel (TXT) in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (Pts): response and toxicity [abstract 570]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 144a.
  • 304
    Spiridonidis CH, Laufman LR, Carman L, Moore T, Blair S, Jones J. Second-line chemotherapy with weekly gemcitabine (GEM) and monthly docetaxel (DOC) in patients (PTS) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a Phase II study. [abstract 1968]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 503a.
  • 305
    Brugnatelli S, Danova M, Tamburo De Bella M, Sciortino G, Riccardi A, Palmer S. Weekly schedule of gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) in refractory advanced breast cancer (BC): a dose-finding study [abstract 609I]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 156a.
  • 306
    Paccagnella A, Oniga F, Mione CA, Fila G, Gatti C, Fasan S. Alternating chemo-radiotherapy treatment of advanced head and neck cancer [abstract 1680]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 425a.
  • 307
    Brancaccio L, Curcio C, Iaffaioli R, Veltri E, Cigolari S, Gebbia V. Carboplatin + epirubicin + VP-16 + lenograstim (CEV-L) followed by thoracic radiotherapy + daily carboplatin (RT-C) as radiosensitizer in limited small cell lung cancer (SCLC). A multicenter Phase II study [abstract 2133]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 541a.
  • 308
    Rueda A, Ribelles N, Mons E, Sevilla I, Contreras J, Marquez A. Neoadjuvant (NEO) chemotherapy (CT) followed by radiochemotherapy (RTC) in advanced head and neck carcinoma (CHN) [abstract 1694E. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 430a.
  • 309
    Morelle AM, Paganotto E, Krieger D, Barrios C. Phase II study of low dose daily cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy for locally advanced inoperable head and neck cancer (HNC) [abstract 1692]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 428a.
  • 310
    Van Cutsem E, Sorensen J, Cassidy J, Daniel F, Harper P, Bailey N. International Phase III study of oral eniluracil (EU) plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) versus intravenous (IV) 5-FU plus leucovorin (LV) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) [abstract 522]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 131a.
  • 311
    Stuart N, McIllmurray M, Price C, Johnston S, O'Reilley S, Joffe J. Phase II study of vinorelbine and continuous infusion 5-fluourouracil in metastatic breast cancer following anthracyclines [abstract 1923]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 44b.
  • 312
    Sobrero A, Zaniboni A, Frontini L, Guglielmi A, Puglisi F, Grossi F. Methotrexate [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 5-fluorouracil + ocaliplatin: a new adjunct to an old regimen for advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 2232]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 120b.
  • 313
    Philip PA, Shields A, Zalupski M, El-Rayes B, Adsay V, Heilburn L. Gemcitabine, cisplatin and 5-flurouracil in advanced pancreas cancer [abstract 2341]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 148b.
  • 314
    Ostellino O, Castiglione F, Porcile G, et al. Interim results of a Phase II trial of raltitrexed (RAL) + protracted-venous-infusion-5-fluorouracil (PVI-5-FU) in advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 2233]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20: 1216.
  • 315
    Bazarbashi S, Raja M, Rabal M, El Weshi A, Pai C, El Foudeh M. High response rate to combination cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil and interferon alpha in the treatment of advanced esophageal carcinoma: a confirmatory Phase II trial [abstract 637]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 160a.
  • 316
    González S, Trigo J, Albanell J, Porta R, Santome LM, Del Campo J. Five-day continuous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) plus vinorelbine (VNR) as third line therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 1965]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 54b.
  • 317
    Calvo E, Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Rebollo J, Matrtin-Algarra S, Garcia-Foncillas J. Irinotecan, oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 542]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 136a.
  • 318
    Lim EH, Lim RS, Wong JE, Lim HL, Wu TS, Kong HL. Oxaliplatin (Ox)/5-fluourouracil (5FU)/leucovorin (LV)-folfox 4 is an effective chemotherapy combination for advanced colorectal carcinoma (CRC) in an Asian population [abstract 2205]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 114b.
  • 319
    Ryan DP, Kulke MH, Fuchs CS, Earle CC, Enzinger PC, Catarius KJ. Biweekly oxaliplatin in combination with a modified de Gramont 5-FU/leucovorin regimen in previously treated patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma (ACRC) [abstract 560]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 141a.
  • 320
    Bruckner H, Barzdins A, Homel P, Robin A, Rajagopalan V, Frager D. Irinotecan combined with gemcitabine, 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), LV (leucovorin), and cisplatin (G-FLIP) is an effective and non-crossresistant regimen for refractory metastatic adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas (MPAC) [abstract 615]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 155a.
  • 321
    Goubely-Brewer YP, Serin D, Krischer S, Berger C, Felix-Faire C. Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) with paclitaxel (TAXOL) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) followed by 5-FU-epirubicine-cyclophosphamide (FEC) and surgery in patients (Pts) with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) [abstract 1815]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 176.
  • 322
    Machiavelli MR, Salum G, Perez JE, Oritz EH, Romero AO, Bologna F. Phase-II trial of trimetrexate (TMTX), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) in patients (Pts) with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCC) [abstract 2202]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 113b.
  • 323
    Lin CC, Hsu C, Cheng A, Chen Y, Chen J, Pu Y. Weekly cisplatin plus 24-hour infusion of high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (P-HDFL), a low-toxic and moderately active regimen, for advanced transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) [abstract 3128]. Available from URL: http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-0022640-00_19-003128,00.asp [accessed March 5, 2004].
  • 324
    Destefanis M, Dalla Mola A, Ostellino O, Castiglione F, Franchini M, Galliano M. 5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a Phase II study [abstract 2227]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 119b.
  • 325
    Goldstein D, Michael M, Mitchell P, Smith J, Clarke S. Improving patient convenience: a modified schedule of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin combined with 5FU) with high activity and tolerability in untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) [abstract 578]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 145a.
  • 326
    Arcuri C, Sorio R, Lucenti A, et al. A Phase II study of doxil/caelyx (D) in relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) patients [abstract 2511]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 190b.
  • 327
    Leyvraz S, Jurdt G, Lissoni A, et al. High-dose ifosfamide (IFO) and doxorubicin (DOX) for the treatment of gynecological sarcomas. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20: 362a.
  • 328
    Woll PJ, Carmichael J, Calvert AH, Ranson M, Howell A, Miles D. Doxil/caelyx (D) plus paclitaxel (T) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBCa): update of a Phase II efficacy and safety study [abstract 2017]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 67b.
  • 329
    Zambetti M, Mariani G, Verderio P, Valagussa P, Tomasic G, Bonadonna G. Sequential primary chemotherapy with doxorubicin-Taxol (AT), fluorouracil-vinorelbine (FU-VNB) and cyclophosphamide (CTX) in locally advanced breast cancer [abstract 1942]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 49b.
  • 330
    Cortesi E, Giuliani R, Mancuso A, Bezzi M, Massidda B, Accettura C. A feasibility study of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) with continuous infusion (CI) of oxaliplatin in patients with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) [abstract 2217]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 117b.
  • 331
    Alonso V, Herrero A, Zorrilla M, et al. Salvage treatment with oxaliplatin (LOHP)-based chemotherapy (CT) in heavily pretreated colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [abstract 2189]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 110b.
  • 332
    Villalon AH, Cristal-Luna G, Lu-Lim J, et al. The safety and efficacy of three-hour paclitaxel (Anzatax) infusion as salvage chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer [abstract 1931]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 46b.
  • 333
    Reid R, Asmar L, Khan M, Barrera D, Ruxer R, Carter D. Concurrent carboplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol), and hyperfractionated radiotherapy in unresectable head and neck cancer [abstract 2563]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 203b.
  • 334
    Maoleekoonpairoj S, Promratanapongse P, Arpornwirat W, Seetalarom K, Swangslip T, Tesavibul C. Phase II study: concomitant chemotherapy (CRT) with paclitaxel and cisplatin as primary therapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) [abstract 2532]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 195b.
  • 335
    Juturi JV, Adelstein DJ, Rice TW, DeCamp MM, Murthy S, Larto MA. Intracavitary paclitaxel in the multimodality management of malignant pleural mesothelioma [abstract 1460]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 366a.
  • 336
    Wong AS, Loh K, Lim EH, Khoo C, Chua E, Shakespeare T. Intensified concurrent chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, paclitaxel and hydroxyurea and conventional radiotherapy (FTHX) is feasible in locally advanced undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) [abstract 2543]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 198b.
  • 337
    Chougule PB, Ready N, Akhtar M, Sambandam ST, Nigri P, Joyce D. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced inoperable head and neck cancer: a three-year follow-up [abstract 927]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 232a.
  • 338
    Gonzalez-Cortijo L, Hitt R, Castellano D, Ciruelos E, Peña C, Lozano E. High dose daily cisplatin (C) and radiotherapy (RT) in poor-prognostic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) [abstract 2561]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 203b.
  • 339
    Brierley JD, Oza AM, Swallow C, Siu LL, Moore MM, Hedley D. A Phase II study of preoperative concurrent chemotherapy and escalating dose radiotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum [abstract 2184]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 108b.
  • 340
    Altundag ÖÖ, Altundag MK, Güllü Y, et al. Induction cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (CIF) is active and well tolerated in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer [abstract 2572]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 205b.
  • 341
    Leelasiri A, Phromratanapongse P, Buddhanuparp S. Concurrent chemoradiation in advanced stage nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) [abstract 2540]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20: 197b.
  • 342
    Rischin D, Peters L, Smith J, Stewart J, Corry J, Hughes P. A Phase II trial of epirubicin, cisplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy and concurrent cisplatin in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer [abstract 904]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 227a.
  • 343
    Meluch A, Greco F, Burris H, Gray J, Thomas M, Johnson V. Preoperative paclitaxel, carboplatin, 5-FU and radiation therapy for localized esophageal cancer; final results of a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network Phase II trial [abstract 636]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 160a.
  • 344
    Darby AJ, Richardson L, Nokes L, Harvey M, Hassan A, Iveson T. Phase II study of single agent docetaxel in carcinoma of unknown primary site [abstract 2151]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 100b.
  • 345
    Schrijvers DL, Vroman P, Dyck J, Van Laer C, Van den Brande J, Wilmes P. Weekly docetaxel in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer [abstract 2544]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 198b.
  • 346
    Pescia V, Bordenave R, Foglia S, Litvachky A, Wul F, Beloqui D. Updated analysis of the combination of docetaxel (Taxotere) (T) and cisplatin (P) in anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast cancer (ABC) [abstract 1934]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 47b.
  • 347
    Gomez-Bernal A, Rodriguez C, Fonseca E, de la Torre A, Martin G, Sanchez P. Docetaxel and vinorebine, in a biweekly regimen with G-CSF, in advanced and metastatic breast cancer after using anthracyclines. Preliminary results. [abstract 1957]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 52b.
  • 348
    Borrega P, Milla A, Morales S, Burillo M, Machenes I, Janariz J. A Phase II study of high-dose epirubicin plus docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer (BC) [abstract 1878]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 33b.
  • 349
    Tonkin K, Scarfe AG, Koski S, Bodnar D, Smylie M, Au H. Preliminary results of a Phase I/II study of weekly docetaxel (Taxotere) combined with intermittent capecitabine (Xeloda) for patients with anthracycline pre-treated metastatic breast cancer [abstract 2016]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 67b.
  • 350
    Pribylova O, Petruzelka L, Honova H, Verdralova J, Suk J, Burianek J. Epirubicin (E) and docetaxel (T) as first-line therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) [abstract 2010]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 65b.
  • 351
    Firvida J, Amenedo M, Rodriguez R, Gonzalez A, Mata JG, Ramos M. A Phase II study of docetaxel and cisplatin as first line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract 2827]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 269b.
  • 352
    Jagiello-Geuszfield AI, Pienkowski TJ, Foszcynska-Kloda M, Zaluski J, Utracka-Hutka B. Doxorubicin and docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. A multicenter nonrandomized study [abstract 1916]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 42b.
  • 353
    Lizon J, Feliu J, Morales S, Dorta J, Belon J. A Phase II study of gemcitabine plus docetaxel as first line treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An Oncopaz and Associated Hospitals study [abstract 2833]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 270b.
  • 354
    Tishler R, Colevas AD, Norris CM, Lamb C, Nixon A, Lake-Willcutt B. A Phase I/II trial of concurrent docetaxel (T) and once daily radiation following induction chemotherapy in squamous cell cancer of the head and neck [abstract 930]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 233a.
  • 355
    Neis KJ, Preiss JH, Wagner J, Maurer-Philippi M. Phase II study of weekly docetaxel (Doc) and epirubicin (Epi) as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 1929]. Prog/Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 45b.
  • 356
    Menendez P, Gomez RG, Mendez M, Ballesteros P, Cerezuela P, Lopez P. A Phase II study of a combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine in a weekly schedule as first line treatment in Stages IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Goti Study Group [abstract 2777]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 256b.
  • 357
    Perez Manga G, Quiben R, Sancho J, Palomero M, Mendez M, Enrech S. A Phase II study of sequential treatment with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin as first line treatment in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 2007]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 65b.
  • 358
    Bergmann L, Manegold A, Heil G, Ganser A, Einsele H, Knop S. Mitoxantrone, topotecan, and cytosine-arabinoside (MTC) in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or chronic myeloid leukemia in blast crisis—interim results [abstract 1205]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 302a.
  • 359
    Fernandez-Rodriguez R, Ferreiro J, Rubio I, Abon G, Fuente N, Mane J. Topotecan (TPT) as second-line treatment in small cell lung cancer [abstract 2883]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 283b.
  • 360
    Buddharaju L, Bolaños-Meade J, Mookerjee B, Tidwell ML, Karp JE. A Novel induction therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia over the age of 60: times sequential therapy using topotecan, ara-C and mitoxantrone at University of Maryland Greenbaum Cancer Center [abstract 1206]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 302a.
  • 361
    Berretta M, Buonadonna A, Rupolo M, Frustaci S, Bearz A, Sorio R. Comparison between elderly and non-elderly patients (Pts), of efficacy and tolerability of FOLFOX2 schedule in advanced colorectal cancer (COL) [abstract 2195]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 111b.
  • 362
    Tsuji A, Morita S, Horimi T, Takahashi I, Shirasaka T. Chemotherapy with continuous 5-FU and low-dose consecutive CDDP for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 2349]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 150b.
  • 363
    Ravaioli A, Amadori D, Cruciani G, De giorgi U, Fabbri P, Gianni L. 5-FU. folinic acid and oxaliplatin as first line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 2234]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 121b.
  • 364
    Salgado M, Vazquez S, Grande C, Ramos M, Garcia-Gomez J, Quintero G. A Phase II study of bi-weekly oxaliplatin, fluorouracil 4 hour infusion and folinic acid in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) [abstract 2206]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 114b.
  • 365
    Innes H, Ferns H, Myint S, O'Reilly S, Marshall E, Gribbon R. Phase I/II trial of fortnightly irinotecan and protracted venous infusion 5FU in patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 2176]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 107b.
  • 366
    Collichio FA, Fogleman J, Griggs J, Amamoo M, Graham M. A Phase II study of first-line low dose weekly infusional 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and every two week paclitaxel (T) in metastatic breast cancer (BrCa) [abstract 2033]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 71b.
  • 367
    Grothey A, Deschler B, Kroening H, Ridweiski K, Reichardt P, Kretschmar A. Bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) (Mayo) vs. weekly high-dose 24H 5-FU infusion/FA + oxaliplatin (OXA) in advanced colorectal cancer [abstract 496]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 125a.
  • 368
    Mehta VK, Fisher G, Cho C, Poen J, Bastidas A, Oberhelman H. Phase II trial of preoperative radiotherapy, protracted venous infusion 5-fluorouracil and weekly CPT-11, followed by surgery for ultrasound staged T3/T4 rectal cancer [abstract 589]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 148a.
  • 369
    Caro RB, Salvador J, Reina J, et al. Biweekly schedule of irinotecan (CPT-11) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) as first line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20: 109b.
  • 370
    Artu P, André T, Tigaud J, Douillard J, Gamelin E, Brunet R. Oxaliplatin (OXA), 5-fluoro-uracil (FU) and folinic acid (FA) (FOLFOX6 6) in advanced/metastatic gastric carcinoma (A/MGC) patients (Pts): final results of a multicenter Phase II study [abstract 654]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 164a.
  • 371
    Andre T, Hammel P, Selle F, Louvet C, Deniaux-Alexandre E, Landi B. Multicentric gercor feasibility study of bimonthly combination of leucovorin-5FU and gemcitabine (6 cycles) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with 5FU for locally advanced non metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPA) [abstract 616]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 155a.
  • 372
    Kuhn R, Ridwelski K, Eichelmann K, Fahlke J, Hribaschek A, Lippert H. Outpatient combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients (Pts) with cancer of the biliary system [abstract 2272]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 130b.
  • 373
    Kinoshita A, Fukuda M, Oka M, Fukuda M, Nakano R, Nagashima S. Second line docetaxel and carboplatin in patients (Pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A Phase I study [abstract 2814]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 266b.
  • 374
    Lopez-Vivanco G, Muñoz A, Abon G, Fuente N, Rubio I, Ferreiro J. Second line chemotherapy with docetaxel (D) and vinorelbine (V) for non-small-cell cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy [abstract 2822]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 268b.
  • 375
    Brandi M, Giotta F, Vici P, Valerio MR, Vinciarelli G, Gebbia V. Salvage chemotherapy with docetaxel (TXT) and gemcitabine (GEM) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): preliminary results of a multicenter Phase II trial of GOIM (Gruppo Oncologico dell'Italia Meridionale) [abstract 1956]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 52b.
  • 376
    Gonzalez de Sande L, Oramas J, Castellano D, Virizulea JA, Murias A, Ciruelos E. Analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of caelyx in the treatment of heavily pretreated patients with recurrent advanced ovarian cancer: a Phase II study [abstract 881]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 221a.
  • 377
    Park JW, Stauffer P, Diederich C, Colbern G, Lozner A, Kirpotin D. Hyperthermia (HT) + doxil significantly enhances drug delivery and efficacy in metastatic breast cancer of the chest wall (CW): a Phase I/II study [abstract 184]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 47a.
  • 378
    Ferrari VD, Caprioli A, Simoncini E, Bozzola G, Rangoni G, Sereni D. A Phase II study of sequential (GEP-GT) chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): preliminary report [abstract 2787]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 259b.
  • 379
    Chen Y, Perng RP, Lee YC, Shih JF, Lee CS, Tsai CM. A Phase II randomized trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) or paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG) in inoperable, chemonaïve non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract 1358]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 340a.
  • 380
    Sanchez Rovira P, Jaen J, Dueñas R, Porras I, Carrasco E, Dueñas B. Primary chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer (BC) with gemcitabine, Adriamycin and paclitaxel (GAT). A Phase II trial and predictive value of Erb2 [abstract 1872]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 31b.
  • 381
    Merlano MC, Numico G, Pellissero A, Villani G, Occelli M, Garrone O. Toxicity and activity of alternating paclitaxel (T), cisplatin (C), fluorouracil (F) and radiotherapy (RT) in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [abstract 2535]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 196b.
  • 382
    Rosen FR, Haraf D, Brockstein B, Kies M, Chung T, Stenson K. Multicenter randomized Phase II study of 1 hour (H) infusion paclitaxel (T), fluorouracil (F) and hydroxyurea (H) with concomitant hyperfractionated radiotherapy (2XRT) with or without erythropoietin (EPO) for advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) [abstract 902]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 226a.
  • 383
    Battelli N, Pilone A, Massacesi C, Manzione L, Dinota A, Cobelli S. Epirubicin and paclitaxel (ET) followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in the treatment of high risk breast cancer (HRBC) [abstract 1855]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 27b.
  • 384
    Hartmann JT, Schleucher N, Metzner B, Koehne C, Gerl A, Schleicher J. Phase I/II study of sequential high dose VIP plus paclitaxel (T) in patients (pts) with “poor prognosis” germ cell tumor (GCT) [abstract 691]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20: 173a.
  • 385
    Bretti S, Manzin E, Loddo C, Bombaci S, Vellani G, Zai S. Multimodality treatment in pleural malignant mesothelioma patients: a multicentre Phase II study [abstract 2746]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 52b.
  • 386
    Adelstein DJ, Saxton JP, Lavertu P, et al. Maximizing local control and organ preservation in advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer (SCHNC) with hyperfractionated radiation (HRT) and concurrent chemotherapy [abstract 893]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 224a.
  • 387
    Mantovani G, Maccio A, Massa E, Mudu M, Manca G, Mulas C. Dose-intense Phase II study of weekly cisplatin and epidoxorubicin plus medroxyprogesterone acetate and recombinant interleukin 2 in Stage IIIb-IV non-small-cell lung cancer [abstract 2701]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 237b.
  • 388
    Reece DE, Hale GA, Howard DS, Munn RK, Reed E, Phillips GL. Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in patients (PTS) with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) using high-dose (HD) melphalan (MEL) followed by busulfan (BU) [abstract 57]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 15a.
  • 389
    Giles FJ, Cortes JE, Andreeff M, Talpaz M, Yazji S, Bivins C. Troxacitabine is active in heavily pretreated patients with blastic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-BP) [abstract 1147]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 287a.
  • 390
    Azzoli CG, Krug LM, Miller VA, Ng KK, Oettgen HF, Ginsberg M. Phase II study of 10-propargyl-10-deazaaminopterin (PDX) in previously-treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract 1321]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 331a.
  • 391
    Murad AM, Aragao BC, Guimaraes RC. Phase II trial of the use of raltitrexed (R) and mitomycin-C (MMC) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC) after 5-FU failure: final results [abstract 2188]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 109b.
  • 392
    Domenech G, Perez A, Vogel C. Vinorelbine/capecitabine (VINOCAP) combination remission induction therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract 1939]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 2): 48b.
  • 393
    Cortes JE, Kantarjian H, Garcia-Manero G, Thomas D, Yazji S, Bivins C. A Phase II study of troxacitabine, a novel nucleoside analog, in patients with leukemia [abstract 1212]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 304a.
  • 394
    Wang LS, Chi KH, Hu MH, Fahn HJ, Huang MH. Management for patients with advanced T4 epidermoid carcinoma of the esophagus. J Surg Oncol. 1996; 62: 2229.
  • 395
    Afonso-Afonso J, Curcio E, Perez J, Palacios E. Induction 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin (CP) followed by combined external beam radiation therapy (XRT) and chemotherapy in locally advanced anal canal cancer. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 301a.
  • 396
    Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Glisson BS, Khuri FR, Lippman SM, Ginsberg LE, Diaz EM. Phase II study of induction chemotherapy with paclitaxel (T), ifosfamide (I), and carboplatin (C) in patients (PTS) with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [abstract 1659]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 420a.
  • 397
    Benasso M, Corvo R, Sanguineti G, et al. Alternating chemo-radiotherapy versus partly accelerated radiotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: results of a Phase III randomized trial [abstract 1631]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19: 413a.
  • 398
    Kozuch P, Areneo M, Homel P, Robin A, Firoozi K, Mortazavi F. Biweekly sequential gemcitabine, 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), LV (leucourvin), and cisplatin (GFP): a highly active novel combination for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas (MPAC) [abstract 617]. Prog Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001; 20(Pt 1): 155a.
  • 399
    Fyles A, Keane TJ, Barton M, Simm J. The effect of treatment duration in the local control of cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol. 1992; 25: 273279.
  • 400
    Yeoh E, Horowitz M, Russo A, et al. Effect of pelvic irradiation on gastrointestinal function: a prospective longitudinal study. Am J Med. 1993; 95: 397406.
  • 401
    Yeoh E, Sun WM, Russo A, Ibanez L, Horowitz M. A retrospective study of the effects of pelvic irradiation for gynecological cancer on anorectal function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996; 35: 10031010.
  • 402
    Husebye E, Skar V, Hoverstad T, Iversen T, Melby K. Abnormal intestinal motor patterns explain enteric colonization with gram-negative bacilli in late radiation enteropathy. Gastroenterology. 1995; 109: 10781089.
  • 403
    Husebye E, Hauer-Jensen M, Kjorstad K, Skar V. Severe late radiation enteropathy is characterized by impaired motility of proximal small intestine. Digest Dis Sci. 1994; 39: 23412349.
  • 404
    Hauer-Jensen M, Skjonsberg G, Moen E, Clausen O. Intestinal morphology and cytokinectics in pancreatic insufficiency: an experimental study in the rat. Digest Dis Sci. 1995; 40: 21702176.