ライフサイエンスコーパス: mucositis

1 ities (most often skin, respiratory, or oral mucositis).

2 onses leading to gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis.

3 pression of BAX in mice with IR-induced oral mucositis.

4 effective therapies to treat or prevent oral mucositis.

5 taxanes, which cause severe gastrointestinal mucositis.

6 ver, were also identified for gingivitis and mucositis.

7 lic dysfunction, the hand-foot syndrome, and mucositis.

8 d intestinal changes and potentially benefit mucositis.

9 mucosa and protecting from radiation-induced mucositis.

10 n) with tumor lysis, hyperbilirubinemia, and mucositis.

11 not with NHL, despite the increased risk of mucositis.

12 herence to chemotherapy regimens by reducing mucositis.

13 iseases, and chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis.

14 cycle reduced the incidence and severity of mucositis.

15 he most common toxicity during treatment was mucositis.

16 er and more standardized assessment of acute mucositis.

17 inases, anemia, leucopenia, neutropenia, and mucositis.

18 -implantitis, whereas 68.9% had peri-implant mucositis.

19 re fatigue, grade 4 neutropenia, and grade 3 mucositis.

20 t cycle of chemotherapy were neutropenia and mucositis.

21 be beneficial to patients with peri-implant mucositis.

22 ould be used in patients who are at risk for mucositis.

23 chlorhexidine mouthwash reduced peri-implant mucositis.

24 row failure, he had evidence of alopecia and mucositis.

25 were determined as biomarkers for intestinal mucositis.

26 s were detected between peri-implantitis and mucositis.

27 approach in chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis.

28 a history of oral GVHD and a history of oral mucositis.

29 None had grade 3 to 4 mucositis.

30 parent regimen (100%), without grade 3 to 4 mucositis.

31 cell growth in the tongues of mice with oral mucositis.

32 diminished oxidative stress and less severe mucositis.

33 nflammasome activation in irinotecan-induced mucositis.

34 increased levels of RANK and cathepsin-K in mucositis.

35 reatment of severe morbidity associated with mucositis.

36 r cancer, does oral cryotherapy prevent oral mucositis?

37 ocytopenia (24%), febrile neutropenia (14%), mucositis (11%), and rash (5%).

38 e 3 or worse adverse events included grade 3 mucositis (12 patients), grade 3 dermatitis (five patien

39 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only).

40 s), diarrhoea (13 [5.4%]), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5.4%]), compared with neutropenia (30 [26

41 percentage points) and severe (grade 3 or 4) mucositis (13% vs. 51%; P = 0.002; difference, -38 perce

42 allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%

43 acneiform rash (48 [10%] vs one [<1%]), oral mucositis (16 [3%] vs none), and fatigue (13 [3%] vs fou

44 e most common grade 3 adverse event (AE) was mucositis (17%); the only grade 4 AE was leukopenia (3%)

45 %]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] an

46 implants/teeth (58 implants [19 healthy, 20 mucositis, 19 peri-implantitis] and 39 natural teeth [19

47 reductions in the incidence of grade 4 oral mucositis (20 percent vs. 62 percent, P<0.001), patient-

48 or 4 neutropenia 100%, thrombocytopenia 66%, mucositis 21%, and infection 68%).

49 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (32%), mucositis (22%), neutropenia (22%), and anemia (18%).

50 ea (31%); fatigue (26%); pruritus (23%); and mucositis (23%).

51 ties included transient transaminitis (50%), mucositis (24%), hand-foot syndrome (13%), transient hyp

52 ase levels (21%); the incidence of grade 3/4 mucositis (3%) or sepsis (24%) was relatively low.

53 included neutropenia (37 [58%] vs 23 [35%]), mucositis (34 [53%] vs 23 [35%]), nausea (47 [73%] vs 34

54 s (22%), grade 3 diarrhea (10%), and grade 3 mucositis (4%).

55 spectively); and more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (43.2% v. 33.3%, respectively), rash, fatigue,

56 ce of moderate to severe (grade 2 or higher) mucositis (44% vs. 88%; P < 0.001; difference, -44 perce

57 ; during CRT (both arms combined), they were mucositis (49%), dermatitis (21%), and leukopenia (18%).

58 ever (10%) and during XPE, grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis (54%) and hypomagnesemia (39%).

59 red with EC patients, had more grade 3 and 4 mucositis (6% v 2%, respectively; P = .0006) and grade 3

60 a (3% v 11%); hand-foot syndrome (2% v 20%); mucositis (6% v 5%); vomiting (both, 5%); and myalgia (4

61 asthenia (13%), myalgia (8%), and stomatitis/mucositis (6%).

62 05 [<1%]), diarrhoea (113 [14%] vs 70 [9%]), mucositis (63 [8%] vs 10 [1%]), and infusion-related rea

63 of all grades were maculopapular rash (76%), mucositis (70%), asthenia (50%), and nausea (43%).

64 us-related adverse events of all grades were mucositis (70%), maculopapular rash (51%), and nausea (4

65 Toxicities of TFHX consisted of grade 3 or 4 mucositis (74% and 2%) and dermatitis (47% and 14%).

66 chemoradiotherapy consisted of grade 3 or 4 mucositis (79%) and neutropenia (51%).

67 fusion), leucopenia (34%, grade 3 to 4), and mucositis (84%, grade 3 to 4).

68 y important grade 3 or 4 adverse events were mucositis (9%), leukopenia (7%), hyperglycemia (7%), som

69 during IC were febrile neutropenia (11%) and mucositis (9%); during CRT (both arms combined), they we

70 tigue (10.8%/5.4%), stomatitis (12.6%/1.8%), mucositis (9.0%/0%), asthenia (7.2%/0%), and hypertensio

71 iation or chemotherapy, many of whom develop mucositis, a debilitating condition involving painful an

72 The ablation resulted in mucositis, a destructive gut mucosal inflammation, which

73 er, were resistant to radiation-induced oral mucositis, a painful oral ulceration.

74 in reduced the duration and severity of oral mucositis after intensive chemotherapy and radiotherapy

75 ients with acute mucositis and two with late mucositis; all grade 3) and was not reported in the 4 Gy

76 Oral mucositis alters gene expression patterns, inhibits cell

77 lant mucositis, suggesting that peri-implant mucositis an important early transitional phase during t

78 lthy individuals, 40% of the implants showed mucositis and 10% peri-implantitis.

79 decreased susceptibility to therapy-induced mucositis and acute GVHD.

80 Misdiagnosis of mucositis and angioedema may delay appropriate therapy.

81 correlation between biomarkers of intestinal mucositis and BDG levels was observed.

82 Acute toxicity included grade 3 mucositis and dermatitis in 81% and 44% of patients.

83 e preclinical studies on therapies targeting mucositis and discuss the clinical trials that have resu

84 te toxicity was respectively 72% and 25% for mucositis and gastrointestinal toxicity.

85 In the pathogenesis of intestinal mucositis and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), these cy

86 he IL-1 pathway can significantly ameliorate mucositis and GVHD.

87 Dose-limiting toxicities were mucositis and hand-foot syndrome, and 12.0 mg/m2/d for 5

88 Comparisons between mucositis and healthy peri-implant tissues showed signif

89 atic transaminases, the incidences of severe mucositis and infections were low compared with what mig

90 n a model of chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis and may have therapeutic application in gastro

91 tocols are typically associated with painful mucositis and neurotoxicity.

92 ce, etiology, and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis by periodontists in the U

93 reported that the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in their practices is up

94 e peri-implant diseases, namely peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, have been extensively st

95 ts with treated GAgP are more susceptible to mucositis and peri-implantitis, with lower implant survi

96 cterially driven oral diseases: peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

97 peri-implant diseases, such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

98 osseous dental implants include peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

99 lant therapy (SIT) for managing peri-implant mucositis and preventing development of peri-implantitis

100 ment were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis and probing depths, and improving attachment l

101 ation by caspase-3 following IR-induced oral mucositis and subsequently promotes the expression of th

102 cribe the current preclinical models of oral mucositis and their contribution to the understanding of

103 in the 24 Gy group (two patients with acute mucositis and two with late mucositis; all grade 3) and

104 All had neutropenic fever with symptoms of mucositis and/or enteritis.

105 of 26.4% (including diarrhea, vomiting, and mucositis), and grade 3 neurosensory toxicity 3.9%.

106 iratory tract infection, one sepsis, and one mucositis), and no grade 4 or 5 infections occurred.

107 (52 patients with peri-implantitis, 54 with mucositis, and 58 with healthy peri-implant tissues) wer

108 plant failure, a three times greater risk of mucositis, and a 14 times greater risk of peri-implantit

109 e 3 palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE), mucositis, and AST, ALT, and lipase elevations and grade

110 bacteremia were presumed gut translocation, mucositis, and catheter-related infection.

111 alignancies, chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis, and GVHD, and speculate on possibilities of t

112 Grades 3 to 4 diarrhea, mucositis, and hand-and-foot syndrome were significantly

113 Side effects were myelosuppression, mucositis, and hearing deficits; neurotoxicity was insig

114 common, particularly in subjects with severe mucositis, and is associated with an increased risk of h

115 effects were associated with RT (xerostomia, mucositis, and local skin toxicity).

116 g MDRs experienced more grade 3/4 infection, mucositis, and neuropathy.

117 fects--specifically, the hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, and neutropenia.

118 ation of mRNA turnover and apoptosis in oral mucositis, and our data suggest that blocking the cleava

119 ies, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, skin rashes, mucositis, and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesias.

120 jects with peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.

121 atment-related toxicity such as neutropenia, mucositis, and steroid-induced immunosuppression; and (4

122 DLTs were typhlitis, diarrhea, and mucositis, and the MTD was 2.4 mg/m(2)/d for 9 days in t

123 4 thrombosis, one reported grade 4 radiation mucositis, and two reported grade 4 pharyngolaryngeal pa

124 Mucositis, anorexia, and dizziness were more prevalent i

125 In both smokers and nonsmokers, peri-implant mucositis appears to be a pivotal event in disease progr

126 Mechanisms that account for mucositis are only partially known.

127 virus association and drug-induced lichenoid mucositis are topics that are addressed.

128 ed the incidence and duration of severe oral mucositis, as assessed by both clinicians and patients.

129 as less severe in the Tac/Sir arm (peak Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale score 0.70 vs 0.96, P < .001)

130 sufficient to treat and reduce peri-implant mucositis at 1 and 3 months after treatment.

131 s of chlorhexidine treatment on peri-implant mucositis at 1 and 3 months as determined by the modifie

132 duced diarrhea, developing severe and lethal mucositis at much lower CPT-11 doses, a result of the pr

133 o1 to be a potent therapeutic agent for oral mucositis by enhancing basal layer epithelial regenerati

134 Oral assessment of mucositis by using World Health Organization (WHO) oral

135 Mucositis can be a serious complication of cancer treatm

136 There were no occurrences of severe mucositis, cardiotoxicity, or treatment-related deaths.

137 in stage III clinical trials to prevent oral mucositis caused by radiation or chemo-therapy.

138 ssion, the patient had suffered from painful mucositis causing severe dysphagia and bleeding, which w

139 plant microflora in healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions between FES and PES, with the latte

140 In healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions, PES harbor a potentially more path

141 condition's characteristic high fever, rash, mucositis, conjunctivitis, lymphadenopathy, and extremit

142 tients completed a daily questionnaire (Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire [OMDQ]) evaluating MTS sev

143 Comparisons between peri-implantitis and mucositis demonstrated significantly higher values of sc

144 re group in relation to the symptoms of oral mucositis, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, pain, fatigue

145 grade 3 or greater toxic effects, including mucositis, did not differ significantly between the two

146 cal treatment for patients with peri-implant mucositis during a 6-month follow-up period.

147 onary toxicity (P <.01) during induction and mucositis during intensification (P =.12).

148 Local toxicities including mucositis, dysphagia, and skin reactions were severe but

149 Palifermin appeared to reduce mucositis, dysphagia, and xerostomia during hyperfractio

150 0 patients), fatigue (eight [20%]), and oral mucositis (eight [20%]).

151 GI toxicity (mucositis, enteritis, and diarrhea) appears to be the ma

152 (30.5% v 21.2%, respectively; P < .001), and mucositis/esophagitis (18.6% v 14.4%, respectively; P =

153 ged by the oral immune system in response to mucositis, facilitating their translation into novel the

154 inal events (diarrhoea, vomiting, dysgeusia, mucositis), fatigue, and hyponatraemia in 11 of 18 evalu

155 onsidered at greater risk of developing oral mucositis following HCT.

156 rvals) for peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis for cement- versus screw-retained restorations

157 oradiotherapy were dysphagia (four [9%]) and mucositis (four [9%]).

158 =15), hyperglycaemia (11), infections (six), mucositis (four), and increased activity of liver enzyme

159 apy dose modifications, most commonly due to mucositis from doxorubicin.

160 trated that the average daily scores between mucositis grade and subjective (MTS) instruments were si

161 ale (grades 0 to 4), with moderate to severe mucositis (grades 2 to 4) as the main outcomes; patient-

162 nificantly higher in the gingivitis than the mucositis group (P = 0.004).

163 nema denticola (Td) levels were lower in the mucositis group than the gingivitis group (P <0.05).

164 While oral mucositis has been well-described, its pathophysiology i

165 Mucositis has long been viewed as an unavoidable consequ

166 health professionals treating patients with mucositis have almost no effective therapies to treat or

167 mild and/or reversible myelosuppression and mucositis; however, four patients developed pneumonitis.

168 one [0.4%]; intravenous methotrexate-related mucositis in 11 [4.1%] vs three [1.1%] and methotrexate-

169 ia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (11%).

170 that of a placebo on the development of oral mucositis in 212 patients with hematologic cancers; 106

171 m2 and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 based on prolonged mucositis in 29% of patients.

172 Toxicity was significant, with grade 3 to 4 mucositis in 98%, dysphagia in 88%, and skin reaction in

173 rapy is effective for the prevention of oral mucositis in adults receiving fluorouracil-based chemoth

174 ncers, and for the prevention of severe oral mucositis in adults receiving high-dose melphalan-based

175 Palifermin is recommended to decrease severe mucositis in autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT)

176 al tight junction dysfunction and alleviates mucositis in beta-TrCP-deficient mice.

177 , prevention of radiation therapy-associated mucositis in head and neck cancer, or prevention of esop

178 Mucositis in mice was induced by irinotecan injection in

179 R inhibition with rapamycin protects against mucositis in mice, suggesting potential treatment strate

180 herapeutic effects on radiation-induced oral mucositis in mice.

181 iate tissue injury during irinotecan-induced mucositis in mice.

182 with reduced incidence and mean severity of mucositis in patients conditioned with Cy/TBI but not Bu

183 ferentiation of mucosal epithelium to reduce mucositis in patients receiving intensive therapy for he

184 ng chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in several mouse models.

185 mplantitis did not differ significantly from mucositis in species richness or evenness.

186 tration also substantially alleviated tongue mucositis in the oral cavity of mice receiving concomita

187 Seven of the 8 patients who had severe mucositis in the placebo group received open-label palif

188 ed in severe chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis in the proximal jejunum with villous atrophy,

189 None of these patients had severe mucositis in the subsequent cycles (a total of 17) with

190 ly greater (infection, myelosuppression, and mucositis) in the six-drug arm.

191 MTX toxicity measures included the oral mucositis index (OMI), speed of engraftment (platelet an

192 ed examiner every 2 to 3 days using the Oral Mucositis Index (OMI).

193 e analysis of plasma vitamin concentrations, mucositis, infections in the first 30 d, and herpes zost

194 Although integration of mucositis into the paradigm is at an early stage, recent

195 Oral mucositis is a complication of intensive chemotherapy an

196 Acute mucositis is a dose-limiting toxicity of concurrent chem

197 Oral mucositis is a frequent and potentially severe complicat

198 Oral mucositis is a nearly universal and often severe complic

199 Oral mucositis is a significant problem in cancer patients tr

200 Oral mucositis is associated with significantly worse clinica

201 Intestinal mucositis is one of the major troublesome side effects o

202 f molecularly targeted drugs and devices for mucositis management.

203 Because peri-implant mucositis may progress to peri-implantitis, effective tr

204 a-analyses were done separately for healthy, mucositis (MU), and PP outcomes.

205 DLTs included diarrhea (n = 1), mucositis (n = 1), and elevation of ALT (n = 1) at 6.5 m

206 CCRT were neutropenia (n = 20) and in-field mucositis (n = 59) and dermatitis (n = 23), respectively

207 i of healthy implants (n = 10), peri-implant mucositis (n = 8) and peri-implantitis (n = 6) sites usi

208 e clustered into modules in the peri-implant mucositis network.

209 thromboembolism (39%), and nausea, vomiting, mucositis, neuropathy, and febrile neutropenia less than

210 (five [13%] vs six [15%] vs six [15%]), oral mucositis (none vs four [10%] vs one [3%]), and thromboe

211 Acute grade 4 mucositis occurred in 4.4%, and the worst late grade 3 t

212 ce of mucositis, the median duration of oral mucositis of WHO grade 3 or 4 was 3 days (range, 0 to 22

213 The incidence of oral mucositis of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or

214 Oral mucositis (OM) is a debilitating toxicity of chemoradiot

215 Oral mucositis (OM) is a serious and acute side effect in pat

216 Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during radiothe

217 Oral mucositis (OM) is among the most common, painful, and de

218 n and treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM).

219 DLTs were HFS, rash, and mucositis on the troxacitabine plus idarubicin combinati

220 DLTs were diarrhea, rash, and mucositis on the troxacitabine plus topotecan combinatio

221 Peri-implant mucositis, on the contrary, correlated positively with c

222 Two other grade 3 events were reported: mucositis (one [4%]) and fatigue (one [4%]).

223 ausea and vomiting (two courses), perirectal mucositis (one course), transaminase elevation (one cour

224 pithelial-derived IL-1beta as the culprit of mucositis onset, inducing mucosal barrier breach.

225 and thus at risk of developing peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis.

226 her clinical health, gingivitis/peri-implant mucositis, or chronic periodontitis/peri-implantitis.

227 ey experienced significantly less stomatitis/mucositis (P <.001) and myelosuppression, resulting in f

228 (P = .004) and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 mucositis (P = .03).

229 escribe the proposed pathophysiology of oral mucositis pain and preclinical modeling of oral mucositi

230 ositis pain and preclinical modeling of oral mucositis pain.

231 For patients with oral mucositis, pain is the most distressing symptom, leading

232 tigue (200 mg twice per day; n = 1); grade 3 mucositis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and hypoka

233 ed new molecular mechanisms involved in oral mucositis pathogenesis, and our data suggest an alternat

234 d their contribution to the understanding of mucositis pathophysiology, (2) explore preclinical studi

235 ctive study is to evaluate the prevalence of mucositis, peri-implantitis, implant success, and surviv

236 Non-DLTs included infusional reaction, rash, mucositis, proteinuria, and lymphopenia.

237 n grade 3 to 4 adverse events were radiation mucositis, radiation dermatitis, lymphopenia, and neutro

238 uded 37 patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis, randomly assigned into test group (basic peri

239 Mucositis rarely occurred after topotecan cycles (9.7%)

240 Patients who had severe mucositis received open-label palifermin in subsequent c

241 Intestinal mucositis represents the most common complication of int

242 okers, by contrast, the shift from health to mucositis resembled primary ecological succession, with

243 The maximum mucositis score was higher in the B-BEAM arm (0.72) comp

244 Investigators reported lower mucositis scores and patients reported less severe sympt

245 tudy was to evaluate factors predicting oral mucositis severity among 133 patients undergoing allogen

246 serve as an alternative tool to assess oral mucositis severity in clinical trials.

247 amin supplementation before HCT could reduce mucositis severity.

248 Mucositis should be added to the list of conditions in w

249 nts of oral pain and clinical assessments of mucositis showed good correlation (Kendall's tau = 0.75)

250 wer and included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, mucositis, skin reactions, liver test abnormalities, and

251 cidence of hand-foot syndrome (24% v 0%) and mucositis/stomatitis (12% v 1%) were observed in the PLD

252 34.3%), asthenia and skin disorders (31.4%), mucositis/stomatitis (25.7%), fever/chills (20%), and na

253 neuropathy (39.3%) in the patupilone arm and mucositis/stomatitis (43%) and hand-foot syndrome (41.8%

254 7%), febrile neutropenia (22%), anemia (6%), mucositis/stomatitis (6%), constipation (6%), and skin r

255 moderate relative abundance in peri-implant mucositis, suggesting that peri-implant mucositis an imp

256 factor KGF had a lower rate of grade 2 to 4 mucositis than did patients treated with placebo.

257 AST, ALT, and lipase elevations and grade 2 mucositis that resulted in dose interruption and reducti

258 re rapid engraftment, and less oropharyngeal mucositis, the combination of Tac/Sir is an acceptable a

259 e 3 or 4 toxic effects (febrile neutropenia, mucositis, the hand-foot syndrome, infection, and hypert

260 Among patients with this degree of mucositis, the median duration of mucositis was 6 days (

261 ll patients, regardless of the occurrence of mucositis, the median duration of oral mucositis of WHO

262 ed significantly more hand-foot syndrome and mucositis; the gemcitabine group experienced significant

263 del of human chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis using duodenal biopsies by demonstrating that

264 ompared with clinicians' assessments of oral mucositis using the objective scales.

265 ea, rash, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, mucositis, vomiting, and stomatitis.

266 The frequency of grade 2 to 4 mucositis was 43% in patients treated with KGF, compared

267 degree of mucositis, the median duration of mucositis was 6 days (range, 1 to 22) in the palifermin

268 The median duration of grade >or= 2 mucositis was 6.5 and 8.1 weeks in the palifermin and pl

269 The severity of mucositis was a strong predictor of low plasma retinol o

270 Mucositis was affected by history of periodontitis and m

271 Oral mucositis was assessed by examination on days 1, 4, 8, 1

272 Oral mucositis was evaluated daily for 28 days after transpla

273 Peri-implant mucositis was found in 33% of the implants and 48% of th

274 Oropharyngeal mucositis was less severe in the Tac/Sir arm (peak Oral

275 Oral mucositis was measured by a trained examiner every 2 to

276 Acute grade 3 mucositis was more prevalent with combined therapy, 84%

277 Nevertheless, mucositis was not found to be statistically associated w

278 Grade 3 or 4 mucositis was observed after 4%, infection after 3%, neu

279 cisplatin arm and 14% in the docetaxel arm; mucositis was observed in 56% and 54%, respectively.

280 Grade 3 or 4 in-field mucositis was observed in 77% and 9%, respectively.

281 antage of these liposomes was that only mild mucositis was observed in dose-limiting precancerous tis

282 In GAgP patients, mucositis was present in 56% and peri-implantitis in 26%

283 The frequency of mucositis was significantly higher in patients treated w

284 Mucositis was the most common event in the 24 Gy group (

285 Grade 2 to 3 oral mucositis was the predominant nonhematopoietic toxicity,

286 3 or 4 renal toxicity, neutropenic fever, or mucositis) was observed in 9.3% of patients receiving GC

287 a with fever, severe diarrhea, and/or severe mucositis, was experienced during course 1 by six of nin

288 vation, which is known to contribute to oral mucositis, we found activated transforming growth factor

289 estimates for the frequency of peri-implant mucositis were 63.4% of participants and 30.7% of implan

290 Shifts from health to mucositis were accompanied by loss of several health-ass

291 Hand-foot syndrome and mucositis were less frequent with trabectedin/PLD than w

292 No differences in toxicities other than mucositis were noted.

293 hagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly worse in patients who had c

294 rhea, nausea, malaise/fatigue, vomiting, and mucositis were the most common treatment-related nonhema

295 prior to chemotherapy and the development of mucositis were the only predictive factors for severe re

296 Fatigue, infection, and mucositis were the predominant nonhematologic toxicities

297 Palifermin reduces mucositis when given in multiple doses to patients under

298 Irinotecan treatment is associated with mucositis, which clearly limits the use of the drug.

299 izing radiation (IR) therapy and disposed to mucositis, which creates painful inflammation and ulcera

300 th 3 DLTs across all schedules (grade 3 oral mucositis x 2; grade 4 sepsis x 1).