The Outcomes of Visualization and Acupuncture on the Quality of Life of Adult Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

Background: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to treat cancer patients has increased around the world, and its benefits have been described. These therapies represent an important theme in oncology and have been used in parallel with conventional therapies. Objective: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of using relaxation with visualization and acupuncture on the quality of life of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment and to compare these outcomes with patients who did not choose to receive the intervention. Methods: Participants chose to be in either the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). They completed the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 at the start and end of chemotherapy. The IG was chosen by 38 patients with different types of cancer who completed weekly relaxation with visualization and acupuncture sessions, whereas the CG was composed of 37 patients who did not receive the intervention. Results: Statistically significant results evidenced an increase in global health and emotional and social functions and a decrease in fatigue and loss of appetite for the IG, and an increase in global health for the CG (P <= .05). A highly significant difference was found when comparing the post-chemotherapy scores of the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 in the global health domain between the CG and the IG (P <= .001), indicating positive outcomes of the CAM intervention. Conclusion: Adults with cancer are able to choose between involvement or not with this kind of CAM intervention. Global health could be improved by participating in this type of intervention. Implications for Practice: Choosing whether to be involved may be assisted by knowing the positive outcomes for some patients.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer disease. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer currently ranks second in global cancer mortality. Most patients are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. Apart from supportive care and palliative radiation to localized (e.g. bone) metastasis, systemic chemotherapy is the only treatment option available in this situation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2009, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and national and international experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on systemic intravenous chemotherapy versus best supportive care, combination versus single agent chemotherapy and different combination chemotherapies in advanced gastric cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty five trials, with a total of 5726 patients, have been included in the meta-analysis of overall survival. The comparison of chemotherapy versus best supportive care consistently demonstrated a significant benefit in overall survival in favour of the group receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratios (HR) 0.37; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants). The comparison of combination versus single-agent chemotherapy provides evidence for a survival benefit in favour of combination chemotherapy (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90, 1914 participants). The price of this benefit is increased toxicity as a result of combination chemotherapy. When comparing 5-FU/cisplatin-containing combination therapy regimens with versus without anthracyclines (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, 501 participants) and 5-FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with versus without cisplatin (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, 1147 participants) there was a significant survival benefit for regimens including 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin. Both the comparison of irinotecan versus non-irinotecan (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02, 639 participants) and docetaxel versus non-docetaxel containing regimens (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, 805 participants) show non-significant overall survival benefits in favour of the irinotecan and docetaxel-containing regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy significantly improves survival in comparison to best supportive care. In addition, combination chemotherapy improves survival compared to single-agent 5-FU. All patients should be tested for their HER-2 status and trastuzumab should be added to a standard fluoropyrimidine/cisplatin regimen in patients with HER-2 positive tumours. Two and three-drug regimens including 5-FU, cisplatin, with or without an anthracycline, as well as irinotecan or docetaxel-containing regimens are reasonable treatment options for HER-2 negative patients.

Chemotherapy versus support cancer treatment in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy and support treatment in patients with advanced non-resectable gastric cancer in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that included a comparison of chemotherapy and support care treatment in patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma, regardless of their age, gender or place of treatment. The search strategy was based on the criteria of the Cochrane Base, using the following key words: 1) randomized clinical trials and antineoplastic combined therapy or gastrointestinal neoplasm, 2) stomach neoplasm and drug therapy, 3) clinical trial and multi-modality therapy, 4) stomach neoplasm and drug therapy or quality of life, 5) double-blind method or clinical trial. The search was carried out using the Cochrane, Medline and Lilacs databases. Five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, for a total of 390 participants, 208 (53%) receiving chemotherapy, 182 (47%) receiving support care treatment and 6 losses (1.6%). The 1-year survival rate was 8% for support care and 20% for chemotherapy (RR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.00-4.57, P = 0.05); 30% of the patients in the chemotherapy group and 12% in the support care group attained a 6-month symptom-free period (RR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.41-3.87, P < 0.01). Quality of life evaluated after 4 months was significantly better for the chemotherapy patients (34%; RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.31-3.28, P < 0.01) with tumor mass reduction (RR = 3.32, 95% CI = 0.77-14.24, P = 0.1). Chemotherapy increased the 1-year survival rate of the patients and provided a longer symptom-free period of 6 months and an improvement in quality of life.

Variation in the use of chemotherapy in lung cancer

Factors influencing the use of chemotherapy for the initial (6 months) treatment of lung cancer in South East England were investigated. The variables explored as possibly influencing the use of chemotherapy were sex, age, the year of diagnosis, the type of lung cancer, the stage, the index of multiple deprivation and the cancer network of residence. Chi2 analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of each of the variables on the use of chemotherapy. The results showed a highly significant trend in use of chemotherapy over time; the adjusted proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy increasing from 13.6% in 1994 to 29.3% in 2003. However, age, cancer network and type of lung cancer had the strongest influence on the use of chemotherapy. This finding is important when we consider that the NHS Cancer Plan aims at improving inequalities in cancer care in the UK.

Factors influencing the use of antitumoral chemotherapy in the South East of England

Influences on the use of chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer within the South East region of England for patients diagnosed with colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer were investigated. The variables investigated as possibly influencing the selection of chemotherapy were the sex of the patients, their age, the year of diagnosis, the cancer site, the cancer stage, the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and the cancer network of residence. Logistic regression used to adjust the proportion receiving chemotherapy in relation to other variables considered showed significant differences in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy between different cancer sites and different networks. There was also a highly significant trend seen in use of chemotherapy over time; the adjusted proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy increasing from 10.6% in 1993 to 24.3% in 2002. Age, stage and cancer site seemed to have the most influence on the use of chemotherapy.

Adjuvant chemotherapy followed by goserelin compared with either modality alone: the impact on amenorrhea, hot flashes, and quality of life in premenopausal patients--the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VIII

The purpose of this article is to compare quality of life (QOL) and menopausal symptoms among premenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, goserelin, or their sequential combination, and to investigate differential effects by age.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF); and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Important current guidelines recommend the use of colony stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20% but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of G-CSF or GM-CSF with antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy with respect to preventing fever, febrile neutropenia, infection, infection-related mortality, early mortality and improving quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to 2007). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus antibiotics in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy or bone marrow or stem cell transplantation were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two eligible randomised controlled trials with 195 patients. Due to differences in the outcomes reported, the trials could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Both trials showed non-significant results favouring antibiotics for the prevention of fever or hospitalisation for febrile neutropenia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for or against antibiotics compared to G(M)-CSFs for the prevention of infections in cancer patients.

Outcomes associated with chemotherapy in elderly patients with early stage operable breast cancer

Background. Various clinical trials have proved the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with breast cancer. Chemotherapy efficacy and guidelines for its use differ by stage of tumor and age of the patient with no clear recommendations for patients aged 70 and above. Objective. To examine the clinical and economic outcomes associated with chemotherapy use in and to examine the disparities in treatment and survival in elderly patients with early stage operable breast cancer by age and axillary node status. Methods. We studied a cohort of 23,110 node positive and 31,572 node negative women aged 65 and over diagnosed with incident American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I, II or IIIa breast cancer between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2002 using SEER-Medicare data. Total patient costs were estimated using the phase of care approach and adjusted cost estimates were obtained from regression analysis using a 3% discount rate. Cox proportional hazard ratio of mortality was used to determine the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Propensity score approach was also used to minimize the bias associated with receipt of chemotherapy. To assess disparity in treatment, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relative odds of receiving surgery, chemotherapy and radiation after BCS for African Americans compared to Whites. Results. Regression adjusted cost estimates for all node positive patients receiving chemotherapy was approximately $2,300 and was significantly higher (p<0.05) than for patients not receiving chemotherapy. Mortality was significantly lower in node positive and node negative women aged 65-74 years receiving chemotherapy. There was a significant difference between African American and White women in receiving BCS and radiation after BCS; however this difference was explained by patient demographics, tumor characteristics and socioeconomic status (SES). African American node positive women were 21% less likely to receive chemotherapy than White women (OR, 0.79; CI, 0.68-0.92) in multivariate analysis. Conclusion. Chemotherapy is associated with increased survival in patients aged 65-74 and total costs attributable to chemotherapy differ by phase and age of the patient. Underutilization of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy in African American women requires attention and may serve as potential areas for appropriate intervention.^

Adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and post-treatment surveillance in a large community-based cohort of patients with colon cancer

The objective of this dissertation was to determine the initiation and completion rates of adjuvant chemotherapy, its toxicity and the compliance rates of post-treatment surveillance for elderly patients with colon cancer using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results – Medicare database.^ The first study assessed the initiation and completion rate of 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy and its relationship with patient characteristics. Of the 12,265 patients diagnosed with stage III colon adenocarcinoma in 1991-2005, 64.4% received adjuvant chemotherapy within 3-months after tumor resection and 40% of them completed the treatment. Age, marital status, and comorbidity score were significant predictors for chemotherapy initiation and completion.^ The second study estimated the incidence rate of toxicity-related endpoints among stage III colon adenocarcinoma patients treated with chemotherapy in 1991-2005. Of the 12,099 patients, 63.9% underwent chemotherapy and had volume depletion disorder (3-month cumulative incidence rate [CIR]=9.1%), agranulocytosis (CIR=3.4%), diarrhea (CIR=2.4%), nausea and vomiting (CIR=2.3%). Cox regression analysis confirmed such association (HR=2.76; 95% CI=2.42-3.15). The risk of ischemic heart diseases was slightly associated with chemotherapy (HR=1.08), but significantly among patients aged <75 with no comorbidity (HR=1.70). ^ The third study determined the adherence rate of follow-up cares among patients diagnosed with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma in 2000 - June 2002. We identified 7,348 patients with a median follow-up of 59 months. The adherence rate was 83.9% for office visits, 29.4% for CEA tests, and 74.3% for colonoscopy. Overall, 25.2% met the recommended post-treatment care. Younger age at diagnosis, white race, married, advanced stage, fewer comorbidities, and chemotherapy use were significantly associated with guideline adherence.^ In conclusions, not all colon cancer patients received chemotherapy. Receiving chemotherapy was associated with increased risk of developing gastrointestinal, hematological and cardiac toxicities. Patients were more likely to comply with the schedule for office visits and colonoscopy but failed in CEA tests. ^

Experiences of patients undergoing chemotherapy - a qualitative study of adults attending Uganda Cancer Institute

Background: Cancer is a global public health challenge and how patients in countries with poor healthcare infrastructure experience cancer treatment is largely unknown. Purpose: The objective of this study was to describe adult Ugandan cancer patients’ experiences of undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Methodology: Using a qualitative descriptive design, seven in-patients with varying cancer diagnoses at the Uganda Cancer Institute were interviewed about their experiences of undergoing chemotherapy treatment; the interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: The analysis resulted in nine subthemes, which were categorized under three main themes: ‘experiences related to the body’, with the subthemes dry and sensitive skin, changes in eating and bowel habits, fever and feelings of abnormal body sensation; ‘thoughts and feelings’, with four subthemes reflecting the psychosocial impact of chemotherapy; and ‘actively dealing with discomfort’, with three subthemes describing how patients dealt with side effects, such as by sticking to a diet. Conclusion: Receiving chemotherapy treatment is difficult, and the side effects negatively influenced patients’ bodies and moods. Dealing actively with discomfort and accepting negative impacts in hope of a cure helped the participants manage the acute complications related to the treatment. We recommend the development of interventions to ease discomfort due to chemotherapy.

Severity of Oral Mucositis in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and an Oral Laser Phototherapy Protocol: A Survey of 30 Patients

Background Data and Objective: Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the worst cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and it causes severe morbidity. Laser phototherapy has been considered as an alternative therapy for prevention and treatment of OM. The aim of this study was to describe the incidence and severity of OM in HCT patients subjected to laser phototherapy, and to discuss its effect on the oral mucosa. Patients and Methods: Information concerning patient age and gender, type of basic disease, conditioning regimen, type of transplant, absence or presence of pain related to the oral cavity, OM grade, and adverse reactions or unusual events were collected from 30 patients undergoing HCT (allogeneic or autologous). These patients were given oral laser phototherapy with a InGaAIP laser (660 nm and 40 mW) daily. The data were tabulated and their frequency expressed as percentages. Results: In the analysis of those with OM, it was observed that 33.4% exhibited grade I, 40% grade II, 23.3% grade III, and 3.3% grade IV disease. On the most critical post-HCT days (D+5 and D+8), it was observed that 63.3% of patients had grade I and 33.3% had grade II disease; no patients had grade III or IV disease in this period. This severity of OM was similar to that seen in other studies of laser phototherapy and OM. Conclusion: The low grades of OM observed in this survey show the beneficial effects of laser phototherapy, but randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm these findings.