ORAL MUCOSITIS PREVENTION BY LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY IN HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING CONCURRENT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY: A PHASE III RANDOMIZED STUDY

Purpose: Oral mucositis is a major complication of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in head-and-neck cancer patients. Low-level laser (LLL) therapy is a promising preventive therapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of LLL therapy to decrease severe oral mucositis and its effect on RT interruptions. Methods and Materials: In the present randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, patients received either gallium-aluminum-arsenide LLL therapy 2.5 J/cm(2) or placebo laser, before each radiation fraction. Eligible patients had to have been diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, or metastases to the neck with an unknown primary site. They were treated with adjuvant or definitive CRT, consisting of conventional RT 60-70 Gy (range, 1.8-2.0 Gy/d, 5 times/wk) and concurrent cisplatin. The primary endpoints were the oral mucositis severity in Weeks 2, 4, and 6 and the number of RT interruptions because of mucositis. The secondary endpoints included patient-reported pain scores. To detect a decrease in the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis from 80% to 50%, we planned to enroll 74 patients. Results: A total of 75 patients were included, and 37 patients received preventive LLL therapy. The mean delivered radiation dose was greater in the patients treated with LLL (69.4 vs. 67.9 Gy, p = .03). During CRT, the number of patients diagnosed with Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis treated with LLL vs. placebo was 4 vs. 5 (Week 2, p = 1.0), 4 vs. 12 (Week 4, p = .08), and 8 vs. 9 (Week 6, p = 1.0), respectively. More of the patients treated with placebo had RT interruptions because of mucositis (6 vs. 0, p = .02). No difference was detected between the treatment arms in the incidence of severe pain. Conclusions: LLL therapy was not effective in reducing severe oral mucositis, although a marginal benefit could not be excluded. It reduced RT interruptions in these head-and-neck cancer patients, which might translate into improved CRT efficacy. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Concurrent crack and powder cocaine users from Sao Paulo: Do they represent a different group?

Abstract Background Cocaine abuse is a serious and socially damaging illegal drug problem. Different routes of administration are associated with a specific progression of use, different degrees of abuse liability, propensity for dependence and treatment response. There have been relatively few studies comparing different cocaine users groups and no studies into the characterization of the group of individuals reporting concurrent use of powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Methods Six hundred and ninety-nine cocaine users were assessed during the period August 1997 to October 1998 in one outpatient and six inpatient clinics located in the São Paulo, Brazil. Patients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire schedule in Portuguese, designed specifically for the Brazilian population. The statistical analyses were performed using either ANOVA or a chi-squared test and focusing on their preferred form of use/route of administration and other variables. Results For 83% of the variables tested in this study, the Dual Users subgroup (using both powder and crack cocaine) demonstrated statistical differences from the single drug user subgroups. Those differences include the initiation of cocaine, the abuse of other illicit drugs, and rates of criminal history. Conclusion These data suggest cocaine-dependent individuals who report use of both powder and crack cocaine are an at least partially, distinct subgroup. However, further studies will be necessary to confirm this and to determine if they also show a different treatment response.