ライフサイエンスコーパス: mucositis

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

2 s were detected between peri-implantitis and mucositis.

3 approach in chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis.

4 None had grade 3 to 4 mucositis.

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

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

7 diminished oxidative stress and less severe mucositis.

8 nflammasome activation in irinotecan-induced mucositis.

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

10 reatment of severe morbidity associated with mucositis.

11 al therapy to prevent radiation induced oral mucositis.

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

13 effective therapies to treat or prevent oral mucositis.

14 taxanes, which cause severe gastrointestinal mucositis.

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

16 d intestinal changes and potentially benefit mucositis.

17 mucosa and protecting from radiation-induced mucositis.

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

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

20 h significantly lower rates of infection and mucositis.

21 herence to chemotherapy regimens by reducing mucositis.

22 the same immunonutrient supplement on severe mucositis.

23 cycle reduced the incidence and severity of mucositis.

24 he most common toxicity during treatment was mucositis.

25 er and more standardized assessment of acute mucositis.

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

27 f implants showed peri-implantitis and 55.5% mucositis.

28 onses leading to gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis.

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

30 ver, were also identified for gingivitis and mucositis.

31 iseases, and chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis.

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

33 chlorhexidine mouthwash reduced peri-implant mucositis.

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

35 were determined as biomarkers for intestinal mucositis.

36 r cancer, does oral cryotherapy prevent oral mucositis?

37 lant diseases (79.4%), 34 implants presented mucositis (10.8%), and 24 implants exhibited peri-implan

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

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

40 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only).

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

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

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

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

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

46 %]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61 05 [<1%]), diarrhoea (113 [14%] vs 70 [9%]), mucositis (63 [8%] vs 10 [1%]), and infusion-related rea

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

63 e neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (1

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 ition of peri-implant health or peri-implant mucositis after complete regeneration for cases where co

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

72 Oral mucositis alters gene expression patterns, inhibits cell

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

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

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

76 Misdiagnosis of mucositis and angioedema may delay appropriate therapy.

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

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

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

80 he S100B/RAGE/NFkappaB pathway in intestinal mucositis and enteric neurotoxicity caused by 5-FU (450

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

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

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

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

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

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

87 ondary endpoints were radiation-induced oral mucositis and neck dermatitis, respectively.

88 tocols are typically associated with painful mucositis and neurotoxicity.

89 (n = 51), with an OR of 10.01(P = 0.005) for mucositis and OR 15.26 (P = 0.001) for peri-implantitis,

90 Furthermore, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis among the study cohort wa

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

92 PICF) of subjects with healthy, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis implants.

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

94 Furthermore, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was shown to be lower at

95 dels RESULTS: The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were 82.1% and 41.4% at t

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

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

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

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

100 s, and location of implants and peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

101 alences and risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

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

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

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

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

106 nce, and use of bone graft) for peri-implant mucositis and three predictors (smoking, absence of regu

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

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

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

110 (52 patients with peri-implantitis, 54 with mucositis, and 58 with healthy peri-implant tissues) wer

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

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

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

114 matologic AEs, such as infections, asthenia, mucositis, and diarrhea.

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

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

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

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

119 including grade 3 type 2 diabetes mellitus, mucositis, and neutropenic fever, were seen at the 2.2 m

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

121 nts were enrolled into healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis groups.

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

123 i-implant diseases into health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.

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

125 4 thrombosis, one reported grade 4 radiation mucositis, and two reported grade 4 pharyngolaryngeal pa

126 Mucositis, anorexia, and dizziness were more prevalent i

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

128 Mechanisms that account for mucositis are only partially known.

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

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

131 t whose main side effects include intestinal mucositis associated with intestinal motility alteration

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

133 The prevalence of mucositis at the implant level was 38.6% versus 14.2% at

134 were observed in the incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis between treatment groups, in the ITT, PP (172

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

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

137 Mucositis can be a serious complication of cancer treatm

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

139 Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and n

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

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

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

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

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

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

146 re was no axitinib-related grade 2 or higher mucositis, diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, or fatigue.

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

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

149 fection and 22 (4%) and 55 (10%) experienced mucositis during the induction or postinduction phases o

150 one may confer a benefit from infections and mucositis during treatment of childhood ALL.

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

152 0 patients), fatigue (eight [20%]), and oral mucositis (eight [20%]).

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

154 (30.5% v 21.2%, respectively; P < .001), and mucositis/esophagitis (18.6% v 14.4%, respectively; P =

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

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

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

158 oped as a topical treatment to mitigate oral mucositis following radiation.

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

160 (11 [28%]), anorexia (nine [23%]), and oral mucositis (four [10%]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

168 patients who did not develop ulcerative oral mucositis had a more resilient microbial ecosystem.

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

170 Mucositis has long been viewed as an unavoidable consequ

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

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

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

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

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

176 detected in 36.9% (n = 31) of implants, and mucositis in 60.7% (n = 51), with an OR of 10.01(P = 0.0

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

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

179 lation to the development of ulcerative oral mucositis in autologous SCT (autoSCT) recipients.

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

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

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

183 Mucositis in mice was induced by irinotecan injection in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

191 was strongly related to the severity of oral mucositis in the head and neck cancer patients under RT,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

199 Oral mucositis is a significant problem in cancer patients tr

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

201 f molecularly targeted drugs and devices for mucositis management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

212 Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication of stem cell t

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

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

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

216 Oral mucositis (OM) remains a common, debilitating toxicity o

217 Oral mucositis (OM), a common debilitating toxicity associate

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

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

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

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

222 P = 0.090), in particular with peri-implant mucositis (OR = 2.43; P = 0.082) when compared to good a

223 howed a higher association with peri-implant mucositis (OR = 4.33) and peri-implantitis (OR = 9.00).

224 o significant effect on the severity of oral mucositis (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.05, 1.67; P = 0.169).

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

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

227 he postmenopausal women developed ulcerative mucositis (p = 0.769), more often with lymphoma than MM

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

229 thwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administra

230 Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.

231 The primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the

232 tive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10

233 ositis pain and preclinical modeling of oral mucositis pain.

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

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

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

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

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

239 hy peri-implant condition (HI), peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PIMP) by assessing

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

241 patients, to compare the incidence of acute mucositis (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and WHO scal

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

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

244 Mucositis rarely occurred after topotecan cycles (9.7%)

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

246 Oral mucositis refers to lesions of the oral mucosa observed

247 take of antioxidants on rates of infections, mucositis, relapse, and disease-free survival during ind

248 , doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain.

249 Intestinal mucositis represents the most common complication of int

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

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

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

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

254 -implantitis in comparison with peri-implant mucositis sites (P = 0.011, P = 0.020, respectively).

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

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

257 34.3%), asthenia and skin disorders (31.4%), mucositis/stomatitis (25.7%), fever/chills (20%), and na

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

259 7%), febrile neutropenia (22%), anemia (6%), mucositis/stomatitis (6%), constipation (6%), and skin r

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

261 s a large unmet medical need to prevent oral mucositis that can occur with radiation either alone or

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

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

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

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

266 8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%]

267 d the presence or absence of ulcerative oral mucositis (UOM) was scored (WHO scale).

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

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

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

271 The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 20.2% and 10.2% for patients and implants,

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

273 Mucositis was affected by history of periodontitis and m

274 Oral mucositis was evaluated daily for 28 days after transpla

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

276 Using the 2017 criteria, peri-implant mucositis was found in 35.3% of the implants and 52.2% o

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

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

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

280 Grade 2-3 mucositis was observed in 77 (74%) of 104 patients in th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

291 No differences in toxicities other than mucositis were noted.

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

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

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

295 Oncologists frequently encounter oral mucositis, which can cause unplanned breaks in radiother

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

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

298 alth with a reduced support, 2) peri-implant mucositis with a reduced support, and 3) recurrent/refra

299 ssociated with reduced rates of infection or mucositis, with no increased risk of relapse or reduced

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