Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia: A systematic review

Nyssa F. Fox, Christopher Xiao, Amit J. Sood, Tiffany L. Lovelace, Shaun A. Nguyen, Anand Sharma, Terry A. Day

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective Radiation-induced xerostomia is one of the most common morbidities of radiation therapy in patients with head and neck cancer. However, in spite of its high rate of occurrence, there are few effective therapies available for its management. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen on the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia and xerostomia-related quality of life. Study Design PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched for retrospective or prospective trials assessing subjective xerostomia, objective xerostomia, or xerostomia-related quality of life. To be included, patients had to have received radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, but not hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). Results The systematic review initially identified 293 potential articles. Seven studies, comprising 246 patients, qualified for inclusion. Of the included studies, 6 of 7 were prospective in nature, and 1 was a retrospective study; and 2 of the 7 were controlled studies. Conclusions HBOT may have utility for treating radiation-induced xerostomia refractory to other therapies. Additionally, HBOT may induce long-term improvement in subjective assessments of xerostomia, whereas other therapies currently available only provide short-term relief. The strength of these conclusions is limited by the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)22-28
Number of pages7
JournalOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
Volume120
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this