Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 4023–4033 | Cite as

The pathogenesis of mucositis: updated perspectives and emerging targets

  • J. BowenEmail author
  • N. Al-Dasooqi
  • P. Bossi
  • H. Wardill
  • Y. Van Sebille
  • A. Al-Azri
  • E. Bateman
  • M. E. Correa
  • J. Raber-Durlacher
  • A. Kandwal
  • B. Mayo
  • R. G. Nair
  • A. Stringer
  • K. ten Bohmer
  • D. Thorpe
  • R. V. Lalla
  • S. Sonis
  • K. Cheng
  • S. Elad
  • On behalf of The Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO)
Special Article


Mucositis research and treatment are a rapidly evolving field providing constant new avenues of research and potential therapies. The MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Study Group regularly assesses available literature relating to pathogenesis, mechanisms, and novel therapeutic approaches and distils this to summary perspectives and recommendations. Reviewers assessed 164 articles published between January 2011 and June 2016 to identify progress made since the last review and highlight new targets for further investigation. Findings were organized into sections including established and emerging mediators of toxicity, potential insights from technological advances in mucositis research, and perspective. Research momentum is accelerating for mucositis pathogenesis, and with this has come utilization of new models and interventions that target specific mechanisms of injury. Technological advances have the potential to revolutionize the field of mucositis research, although focused effort is needed to move rationally targeted interventions to the clinical setting.


Mucositis Pathogenesis Microbiome Permeability Technology Perspectives 


The MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Study Group periodically reviews the literature relating to mucositis pathogenesis, mechanisms, and novel therapeutic approaches and distils this to summary perspectives and recommendations for research. Continuing this tradition, in 2017, 164 articles published between January 2011 and June 2016 were identified by systematic review and critiqued by 15 reviewers in a bid to uncover progress made and highlight new targets for further investigation. Moreover, all findings have been assessed in the context of the current state of knowledge discussed in the previous reviews [1, 2, 3]. The approach differed slightly from the last update that reviewed 90 articles, in that each paper was critiqued by one reviewer compared to two previously due to the substantial increase in new literature that needed to be included, although all other aspects including the key search terms, databases mined, and the review form were unchanged (for further details see [1]).

In the previous review, a summary of the key mediators of mucosal toxicity was provided including a discussion of the role of tissue structure (including the extracellular matrix and epithelial tight-junctions [TJ]), inflammation, and the microbiome. In addition, discussion also focused on emerging understanding of the toxicities associated with targeted anti-cancer agents, toxicity clusters, biomarkers of mucosal injury, and risk prediction of mucosal injury. Collectively, this was an exhaustive summary of the state of the field when published. This update aimed to provide a perspective on advances and momentum shift since 2011 in regards to understanding the pathogenesis of mucositis (Table 1).
Table 1

Evolution of the pathogenesis of mucositis


2004 Sonis Perspectives [3]

2013 MSG Update [1]

2018 MSG Update

Mucosally-restricted mechanisms

Direct cytotoxicity (irreversible DNA-strand breaks in basal cell populations leading to apoptosis) during initiation phase; mucosal atrophy in oral cavity and crypt ablation/villous blunting in GIT; non-DNA injury initiated through ROS production

Tight junction defects and epithelial barrier dysfunction highlighted as important factor in exacerbating injury; appreciation for cellular kinetics of ECM e.g. cell cytostasis, ↓fibronectin/↑collagen deposits during primary damage response; AMP18 received attention for ability to rescue epithelia.

Key mechanisms outlined in 2004 & 2013 remain fundamental to initiation of injury. Functional appreciation for endotoxin and bacterial translocation through permeable tight junctions, with subsequent innate immune activation and mucositis severity.

Inflammatory-based mechanisms

NF-κB- and NRF2-dependent damage response resulting in pro-inflammatory cytokine production and MMP signaling. COX2, MAPK and tyrosine kinase production underpin tissue injury. Signal amplification results in worsened injury.

IL-6, IL-1β and TNF⍺ considered key inflammatory mediators; inverse role for anti-inflammatory cytokines suggested but only minimally investigated.

More complex understanding of inflammatory signaling. Successful targeting of downstream mediators (e.g. CXCLs, IL-1RA, IL-4) continues to support key role of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in mucositis. Upstream modulation of reactive oxygen species through scavengers highlights new target for mucositis prevention.

Host innate immune responses

Emerging role of TLRs in mediating mucosal injury indicated by genetic knockout studies; role in mucositis progression appear receptor- and drug class-specific. Concern for translation as TLR signaling is necessary for adequate anti-tumor response. Emergent role for innate lymphoid cells.

Microbial-mediated mechanisms and host-microbe interactions

Colonization during ulcerative phase; translocation predisposes to infectious complications.

Dysbiosis of host microbiome (oral and GI) following raft of anticancer therapies; conclusions remains correlative.

Host-microbe interactions at baseline critical for treatment efficacy and toxicity (key interest for risk stratification and prediction); dynamic changes in resident microbes (such as proteobacteria dominance in injury) continue to be characterized with increasingly sophisticated techniques including meta-genomics and use of germ-free mice. Conclusions largely remain correlative.

Neuroimmune signaling

Possible involvement of enteric glia and specific neuronal cell populations; more research urgently needed to characterize chronic intestinal dysfunction. GI motility following anti-cancer therapy remains poorly studied.


Non-epithelial factors considered important: endothelial dysfunction and apoptosis, platelet aggregation, submucosal connective tissue alterations including fibroblast apoptosis; ECM remodeling and MMP signaling critical in healing phase.

Importance of symptom clusters and mucosally-derived inflammation highlighted.

Mesenchymal stem cells assessed for therapeutic efficacy in prevention and treatment of mucositis. Emergence of sophisticated in vitro systems to supplement reliance on animal models, including 3D and complex multicellular models with/without fluid and microbial compartments; genetically manipulated organoid structures.

Established and emerging mediators of toxicity

Microbiome and host immune response

While shifts in oral microbial composition during development of oral mucositis have been long recognized [4] and targeted [5], the role for gastrointestinal (GI) flora in intestinal injury has only more recently been appreciated. Underpinning much of the new knowledge has been technical advancement in microbial species identification through genomic sequencing. What is emerging is a complex interaction between the baseline composition of diverse species, as well as dynamic changes as a result of cancer treatment as being important in both oral and intestinal mucositis. Recent patient studies have looked at overall diversity of oral flora and shifts during chemotherapy [6] to determine relationships with oral mucositis. In vitro models of oral keratinocytes have also been used to demonstrate how microbes impact healing [7, 8], as well as the functional changes to the microbes themselves during exposure to irradiation [9, 10]. The field has also been advancing rapidly in the area of intestinal mucositis, where microbial dysbiosis, measured in easily accessible fecal samples, has led researchers to postulate that gut microbiome composition can be used as a surrogate marker for changes leading to diarrhea [11]. Furthermore, there appears to be mechanistic linkages with altered microbial signatures during high-dose chemotherapy and ability to metabolize nutrients and xenobiotics [12]. The plausible relationships between microbiota and cancer chemotherapy outcomes have been extensively reviewed by Alexander et al. [13].

Although it would be presumptuous to directly compare microbial composition in humans to animal models of mucositis, there has been some evidence of overlapping features that are commonly seen and could be used for comparative studies. This includes the observation of a general decrease in microbial diversity seen following cancer treatment [14, 15, 16], and a shift towards increased relative proportions of proteobacteria which include facultative anaerobes such as E. coli and Salmonella spp. [15, 16, 17, 18]. Given these overlaps, it encourages exploring the relationship between microbiome shifts and mucositis further in animal models.

Opportunities for targeting microbial-mucosal interactions have been elegantly demonstrated with the emergence of genetic knock out models of mucositis. The toll-like receptors (TLRs) have been a major area of focus due to their direct interface between microbial ligands and signaling cascades through epithelial, neural and immune cells [19]. In the context of irinotecan-induced intestinal mucositis, germ-line deletion of TLR4 is protective [20], as is MYD88 [21] which is the main adapter protein for the TLR signaling pathway. However, protective effects of TLR deletion can be receptor and drug class-specific. For example, methotrexate-induced intestinal mucositis is exacerbated in TLR2 knock out mice, a phenotype that is corrected when the co-receptor MD2 is also deleted [22]; yet, TLR2 knock out is protective against irinotecan-induced mucositis [21]. In contrast, TLR2 deletion and TLR9 antagonism are protective against doxorubicin-induced intestinal mucositis [23]. Importantly, TLRs are also able to signal non-microbe related cellular danger signals (damage-associated molecular patterns) [24]. As such, more work is needed to interpret the role of pathogen verses non-pathogen related activation of TLR signaling in the development of mucositis.

Evidence for a direct contribution of the intestinal microbes was demonstrated in germ-free mice which were protected against irinotecan-induced GI mucositis, but lost protection when colonized with a diverse microbiome [25]. Furthermore, the contribution of B-glucuronidase-producing microbes was shown to be associated with the development of mucositis, but not wholly responsible [25]. This is in contrast to studies that have found no clear protection against oral mucositis with antibiotic treatment designed to ablate the oral microbial load [5].

TLR agonism may also be protective in some settings. The TLR5 agonist, CBLB502, was shown to reduce radiation-induced oral mucositis [26], while the natural ligand, flagellin, protects against radiation-induced intestinal injury [27]. A TLR9 agonist could protect against lethal doses of whole body and abdominal radiation in mice [28]. Finally, addition of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the cogent TLR4 agonist, prior to abdominal radiation has previously been shown to reduce radiotherapy-induced mucosal barrier injury via a cyclooxygenase-dependent manner [29]. Whether TLR agonism confers direct protection to the epithelium or via resident microbes is still to be shown. However, this does support recent evidence that consumption of probiotics can dampen mucosal injury following cancer treatment [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]. The evidence for probiotics is strongest in the setting of pelvic radiation [38, 39], and this suggests that the protective effects in rodent models of radiation-induced mucositis may be translated to the clinic. The potential mechanisms may relate to TLR agonism by gram-positive species such as Lactobacillus. However, given the variability in outcomes of probiotic clinical trials, much more exploratory work is needed to fully understand the microbial-mucosal interactions specific to mucositis pathogenesis.

In contrast to intestinal microbiota, there was a lack of research articles exploring relationships between oral microbial composition and development of oral mucositis published during the review period. Although generally agreed that the oral microbiome plays a role in the susceptibility to, and infectious consequences of ulcerative mucositis, as well as being altered by cancer treatments, there is a lack of mechanistic understanding [40]. Two studies explored changes in oral microbial composition during treatment and identified potential species important for mucositis pathogenesis [6, 41], although these included different cohorts and detection methods. As such, further work is required to unravel the complexities regarding the oral microflora and mucositis, particularly in the setting of baseline composition linked to mucositis susceptibility, given the lack of effectiveness of broad spectrum antibiotic treatment.

The emerging potential to manipulate the microbiome with new treatments beyond the current concept of probiotics and prebiotics also delineates a clear path forward. As such, we should now consider the role of the microbiome in all phases of mucositis pathogenesis (Fig. 1), rather than viewing it as a passive contributor of the ulcerative phase.
Fig. 1

Impact of microbiota on all phases of mucositis, including pre-therapy risk. Example shows interaction of intestinal microbes in mucositis pathogenesis; however, oral microbes will also play a similar role in oral mucositis development, although the mechanisms have been less studied to date relative to GI mucositis. Bacterial ligands can regulate immune responses to both radiation and chemotherapy to modify ROS generation and downstream signaling through NF-κB leading to production of proinflammatory cytokines. Microbes also play a role in mucosal healing, with restoration of a diverse flora a key aspect for mucosal health

Sophisticated targeting of inflammation

The previous review identified inflammation as central to mucositis pathogenesis and expanded on the role of pro-inflammatory cytokines and NF-κB signaling [1]. Although based on a sound scientific rationale, the approach to inhibition of these pathways, such as with pentoxifylline and celecoxib, has thus far poorly translated from the preclinical [42, 43, 44] to clinical setting [45, 46]. Newer studies have continued to investigate the potential for use of anti-inflammatory agents for mucositis management in preclinical models, although focused on broader outcome measures to link effectiveness with mechanisms. Since the last pathogenesis update, there have been two preclinical studies testing IL-1ra, the naturally occurring IL-1 antagonist [47, 48, 49]. Both studies found protection against chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis and crypt destruction in the small intestine which was attributed to apoptosis prevention. Work using transgenic mice expressing nuclear protein Smad7 in keratinocytes has shown that antagonizing TGF-β1 and NF-κB effectively prevents radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis [50]. Furthermore, Smad7 delivered as a local therapy also prevented oral mucositis with similar effectiveness to palifermin and was able to significantly reduce epithelial apoptosis. Production of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and oxidative stress are well-characterized upstream mediators of NF-κB activation as well as inflammasomes [51, 52]. Oxygen radical scavengers and antioxidant enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase, have shown promise as anti-mucotoxic agents [53, 54, 55]. As such, there remains a clear benefit to targeting NF-κB-mediated inflammatory signaling, including upstream and downstream regulators, for prevention of oral and intestinal mucositis. However, more research is needed to confirm if protection is mediated via a NF-κB-specific effect, or part of shared signaling cascades.

Other protein-based anti-inflammatory therapies have included antibodies against chemokines, CXCL4 [56] and CXCL9 [57], indicating a more sophisticated knowledge of the immune contributors to mucositis pathogenesis and how it could be more precisely targeted. Downstream of TLR activation is the well-characterized upregulation of NF-κB-dependent cytokine production; targeting these downstream mediators, for instance by knocking out IL-4 [58], is protective in rodent models of intestinal mucositis. This might emerge as the preferred technique when translating to the clinic since it has been recently suggested that intact TLR signaling is necessary for adequate anti-tumor responses to chemotherapy and immunotherapy [59].

Cell-based approaches to established inflammation management have recently emerged and present a paradigm shift from the traditional protein and pharmaceutical compound mode of mucositis therapy. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has been investigated in autologous transplant to pigs and rats with radiation-induced proctitis [60, 61]; transplant of human umbilical cord MSCs to mice with radiation-induced intestinal mucositis [62], and guinea pigs with radiation-induced oral mucositis [63]; and adipose-derived MSCs have shown effectiveness for resolving radiation-induced colonic inflammation [64]. The utility of MSCs to prevent oral mucositis induced by fractionated radiotherapy has also shown promising results in mice; interestingly, the positive modulation was dependent on the timing of MSC transplantation [65]. Collectively, this provides some early evidence for MSC therapy in the setting of radiation-induced inflammation and with either bone marrow derived or peripheral sources of stem cells. However, while promising results thus far in some preclinical models of established inflammation, translation to the clinic will require longer term safety and further efficacy studies. Finally, a new subset of immune cells, the innate lymphoid cells, have recently been suggested to play a role in protection against oral mucositis following hematologic stem cell transplant [66]. This underscores the importance of continuing to explore immune responses, both innate and cellular, in the pathogenesis of mucositis.

Altered functional physiology

Diarrhea occurs when there is unmatched absorptive and secretory capacity of the intestines, often due to enhanced motility or presence of osmotically active or inflammatory luminal contents. Clinical anti-diarrheal agents target secretory process and motility, yet there is a lack of attention in preclinical models on these as outcome measures [67, 68]. Models capable of assessing absorption of nutrients have been recently developed [69, 70, 71], and the role of secretory processes has been extensively profiled in models of inflammatory bowel disease [72]. However, there is a dearth of papers that have directly examined changes in motility in response to cancer therapy, both in preclinical models and the clinic. Some papers have recently assessed changes in enteric neuron populations following chemotherapy [73, 74] and provide mechanistic insight to the underlying functional changes. Furthermore, neural support cells, enteric glia, have been shown in vitro to mitigate altered permeability following exposure to inflammatory cytokines [75]. Collectively, the role of motility and particularly enteric neurons in the pathogenesis of mucositis is an under-researched field that has the potential to uncover new therapeutic targets aimed at underlying functional changes in the intestines during mucositis.

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have been known to alter TJs and increase intestinal permeability for decades [76]. However, there have been recent advances in our understanding of the role specific TJs play and how intestinal permeability leads to not only microbiome translocation and subsequent activation of immune responses to mediate mucositis pathogenesis, but also may also be essential for systemic anti-tumor responses [13]. At the time of the last update, it was unknown to what extent TJ alterations contribute directly to clinical symptoms of mucositis. There was a single study showing an association between protection against oral mucositis and retention of TJ properties following radiation [77]. Wardill and colleagues showed a relationship between endotoxin levels and diarrhea, which was linked to changes in TJs and FITC-dextran translocation [20, 78]. Further studies exploring the specific relationship between altered permeability and mucositis have been conducted by Biju et al., who used a surrogate maker for endotoxemia during radiotherapy in mice [79]; Russo et al., who evaluated blood and urine markers of mucosal barrier injury in patients [80]; and Beutheu et al., who showed that amino acid supplemented feed was protective against chemotherapy induced mucosal barrier injury in rats by preventing FITC-dextran translocation [81]. Given that TJ loss is the preceding lesion to increased intestinal permeability, future research should measure the ability of mucositis interventions to stabilize these proteins as a routine outcome measure.

Potential insights from technological advances in mucositis research

Efforts to replicate the complexities of the mucosa has led to the emergence of novel in vitro models of mucositis. Gut-on-a-chip and other microfluidic-style technology [82] provides opportunities to ask more sophisticated questions in a physiologically relevant environment consisting of multiple cell types that differentiate into mature intestinal structures over long term culture. Human cell, three-dimensional, tissue models of oral mucosa [83, 84, 85, 86], and the role of co-culturing with microbial biofilm [7] provide a more comprehensive interaction of factors related to radiation-induced oral mucositis pathogenesis. Finally, intestinal organoids; crypt structures formed by stem cells from either human or mice, can be genetically manipulated for expression of factors important in mucositis pathogenesis [87, 88, 89]. It is expected that these approaches will overcome the reliance on monoculture models and rodents which been used in the past and provide an incomplete view of dynamic interactions between tissues during mucositis development, or lack translatability between animal and human settings, respectively. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that despite the gaps noted above, the predictive value of animal models in guiding clinical development has been demonstrated by correlative pre-clinical and clinical studies [90, 91, 92, 93].

The study of the mechanistic aspects of mucositis has been largely characterized by approaches that have been derived and framed around an approach which favors evaluating molecular, cellular, and tissue changes in the context of specific elements such as cells, pathways, or genes. This reductionist approach has been an important component of biomedical research for years and has been an effective tool to understand many fundamental phenomenon. But while it has value, it also has significant limitations, especially in its ability to accurately define complex diseases or phenotypes such as mucositis in which there are multiple cellular elements, dynamic cross-talk, a trajectory in which biology changes over time and which may well be subject to external influences such as the microbiome. Consequently, one of the major opportunities going forward is to begin to assess the impact of multiple mechanistic variables—genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, microbiomics—simultaneously in a systems biology and medicine approach.

While in vitro and organotypic models offer tools to answer specific fundamental questions about mucositis, their limited utility in defining complex processes is clear. Finally, it has become increasingly clear that mechanistic learnings from diseases with similar clinical endpoints such as Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea may well be informative as we try to better understand mucositis. In a reciprocal way, given the kinetics of mucosal regimen-related injury, studies that determine how mucosal injury is elicited by chemotherapy or radiation may provide fundamental knowledge about the pathogenesis of chronic diseases.


Of the papers reviewed, there was a dominance of work carried out in rodents; with a modest reliance on clinical-sample-derived research; and a paucity of human in vitro evidence which likely reflects the difficulty in conducting mucositis research outside of interventional clinical trials. While we have evolved over the years from the separation of oral mucositis and GI mucositis to alimentary mucositis in terms of underlying pathobiology, the two are still overwhelming investigated in “silos”. While there is proven overlap in the downstream inflammatory signaling cascades including NF-κB and proinflammatory cytokine production, upstream microbe-receptor interactions are region-specific due to the inherent compositional differences of the oral verses intestinal microbiome. Understanding of the role of the extracellular matrix in alimentary mucositis in the panel’s opinion has not been significantly advanced since the last update and thus indicates a missed opportunity for new targets that promote healing. Models continue to be developed for investigation of single modality cancer treatments which no longer reflects current clinical practice. It would be of assistance to the field if future research incorporated combination of classes of agents when investigating both mechanisms of injury and new interventions. In addition, in vitro and animal models should, where possible, incorporate measures that are relevant for both oral and GI mucositis knowledge creation. Investigation of natural agents and plant derivatives [94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104] has shown promise through protection from oxidative stress pathways in oral and GI mucositis models. Yet, the isolated active components and specific mechanisms of protection require further elucidation. Finally, while not addressed in this review, the issue of personalized medicine and mucositis risk prediction is still vital and needs urgent attention. Concurrently, knowledge gained can also be applied to the recently appreciated area of predicting response to mucositis interventions.

Take home messages

  • Research momentum is accelerating for mucositis pathogenesis, reflected by the increased publications reviewed in this update compared to the previous effort. With this has come utilization of new models and interventions that target more specific mechanisms of injury. Technological advances have the potential to revolutionize the field of mucositis research.

  • More effort is needed to establish transdisciplinary research teams to promote discovery as well as translation to the clinic of mucositis interventions that are mechanistically targeted, and tailored to those who are at risk as well as likely to respond.

  • Clear selection of outcome measures in animal models that reflect changes in clinical settings are needed to confirm effectiveness of new interventions. In particular, the non-invasive and dynamic measurement of intestinal changes, with peripheral and fecal compounds such as citrulline, FITC-dextran, and calprotectin, should be included as standard. This will improve the ability to identify the most capable agents for translation to clinical trials.

  • It will be vital to keep up with the emergence of novel regimens in the clinic (including immunotherapy) and understanding of increased complexity of mucositis pathogenesis related to combinations of traditional drugs, radiation, and targeted agents.



We would like to acknowledge the expert assistance of our research librarians during the development of the database search terms and paper retrieval; Lorraine Porcello (Bibby Dental Library, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA) and Daniel A. Castillo (Edward G. Miner Library, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA). Additionally, we would like to thank Vinisha Ranna, DDS, and Anusha Vaddi, BDS, for their assistance with retrieving the papers.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors that report no conflict of interest: JB, NA, HW, YVS, AA, JRD, EB, MEC, JRD, AK, BM, RN, AS, KTB, DT, KC, SE.

PB has served an advisory role for AstraZeneca, Helsinn, and Kyowa Kyrin and received grants from Merck, Kyowa Kyrin, and Roche. RVL has served as a consultant for Colgate Oral Pharmaceuticals, Galera Therapeutics, Ingalfarma SA, Monopar Therapeutics, Mundipharma, and Sucampo Pharma; has received research support to his institution from Galera Therapeutics, Novartis, Oragenics, and Sucampo Pharma, and has received stock in Logic Biosciences. SS is an employee at Biomodels LLC and a partner at Primary Endpoint Solutions.


  1. 1.
    Al-Dasooqi N, Sonis ST, Bowen JM, Bateman E, Blijlevens N, Gibson RJ, Logan RM, Nair RG, Stringer AM, Yazbeck R, Elad S, Lalla RV, Mucositis Study Group of Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral O (2013) Emerging evidence on the pathobiology of mucositis. Support Care Cancer 21:2075–2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony L, Bowen J, Garden A, Hewson I, Sonis S (2006) New thoughts on the pathobiology of regimen-related mucosal injury. Support Care Cancer 14:516–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sonis ST, Elting LS, Keefe D, Peterson DE, Schubert M, Hauer-Jensen M, Bekele BN, Raber-Durlacher J, Donnelly JP, Rubenstein EB, Mucositis Study Section of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in C, and International Society for Oral O (2004) Perspectives on cancer therapy-induced mucosal injury: pathogenesis, measurement, epidemiology, and consequences for patients. Cancer 100:1995–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sixou JL, de Medeiros-Batista O, Bonnaure-Mallet M (1996) Modifications of the microflora of the oral cavity arising during immunosuppressive chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol 32B:306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donnelly JP, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, Sonis ST, Symonds RP (2003) Antimicrobial therapy to prevent or treat oral mucositis. Lancet Infect Dis 3:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ye Y, Carlsson G, Agholme MB, Wilson JA, Roos A, Henriques-Normark B, Engstrand L, Modeer T, Putsep K (2013) Oral bacterial community dynamics in paediatric patients with malignancies in relation to chemotherapy-related oral mucositis: a prospective study. Clin Microbiol Infect 19:E559–E567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Ryck T, Grootaert C, Jaspaert L, Kerckhof FM, Van Gele M, De Schrijver J, Van den Abbeele P, Swift S, Bracke M, Van de Wiele T, Vanhoecke B (2014) Development of an oral mucosa model to study host-microbiome interactions during wound healing. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:6831–6846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Ryck T, Van Impe A, Vanhoecke BW, Heyerick A, Vakaet L, De Neve W, Muller D, Schmidt M, Dorr W, Bracke ME (2015) 8-prenylnaringenin and tamoxifen inhibit the shedding of irradiated epithelial cells and increase the latency period of radiation-induced oral mucositis : cell culture and murine model. Strahlenther Onkol 191:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vanhoecke BW, De Ryck TR, De boel K, Wiles S, Boterberg T, Van de Wiele T, Swift S (2016) Low-dose irradiation affects the functional behavior of oral microbiota in the context of mucositis. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 241:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vanlancker E, Vanhoecke B, Smet R, Props R, Van de Wiele T (2016) 5-fluorouracil sensitivity varies among oral micro-organisms. J Med Microbiol 65:775–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang A, Ling Z, Yang Z, Kiela PR, Wang T, Wang C, Cao L, Geng F, Shen M, Ran X, Su Y, Cheng T, Wang J (2015) Gut microbial dysbiosis may predict diarrhea and fatigue in patients undergoing pelvic cancer radiotherapy: a pilot study. PLoS One 10:e0126312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montassier E, Gastinne T, Vangay P, Al-Ghalith GA, Bruley des Varannes S, Massart S, Moreau P, Potel G, de La Cochetiere MF, Batard E, Knights D (2015) Chemotherapy-driven dysbiosis in the intestinal microbiome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 42:515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alexander JL, Wilson ID, Teare J, Marchesi JR, Nicholson JK, Kinross JM (2017) Gut microbiota modulation of chemotherapy efficacy and toxicity. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:356–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pontoppidan PE, Shen RL, Cilieborg MS, Jiang P, Kissow H, Petersen BL, Thymann T, Heilmann C, Muller K, Sangild PT (2015) Bovine colostrum modulates Myeloablative chemotherapy-induced gut toxicity in piglets. J Nutr 145:1472–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin XB, Dieleman LA, Ketabi A, Bibova I, Sawyer MB, Xue H, Field CJ, Baracos VE, Ganzle MG (2012) Irinotecan (CPT-11) chemotherapy alters intestinal microbiota in tumour bearing rats. PLoS One 7:e39764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nam YD, Kim HJ, Seo JG, Kang SW, Bae JW (2013) Impact of pelvic radiotherapy on gut microbiota of gynecological cancer patients revealed by massive pyrosequencing. PLoS One 8:e82659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stringer AM, Al-Dasooqi N, Bowen JM, Tan TH, Radzuan M, Logan RM, Mayo B, Keefe DM, Gibson RJ (2013) Biomarkers of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea: a clinical study of intestinal microbiome alterations, inflammation and circulating matrix metalloproteinases. Support Care Cancer 21:1843–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montassier E, Batard E, Massart S, Gastinne T, Carton T, Caillon J, Le Fresne S, Caroff N, Hardouin JB, Moreau P, Potel G, Le Vacon F, de La Cochetiere MF (2014) 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing reveals shift in patient faecal microbiota during high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning regimen for bone marrow transplantation. Microb Ecol 67:690–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cario E (2016) Toll-like receptors in the pathogenesis of chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 10:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wardill HR, Gibson RJ, Van Sebille YZ, Secombe KR, Coller JK, White IA, Manavis J, Hutchinson MR, Staikopoulos V, Logan RM, Bowen JM (2016) Irinotecan-induced gastrointestinal dysfunction and pain are mediated by common TLR4-dependent mechanisms. Mol Cancer Ther 15:1376–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wong DV, Lima-Junior RC, Carvalho CB, Borges VF, Wanderley CW, Bem AX, Leite CA, Teixeira MA, Batista GL, Silva RL, Cunha TM, Brito GA, Almeida PR, Cunha FQ, Ribeiro RA (2015) The adaptor protein Myd88 is a key signaling molecule in the pathogenesis of irinotecan-induced intestinal mucositis. PLoS One 10:e0139985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frank M, Hennenberg EM, Eyking A, Runzi M, Gerken G, Scott P, Parkhill J, Walker AW, Cario E (2015) TLR signaling modulates side effects of anticancer therapy in the small intestine. J Immunol 194:1983–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaczmarek A, Brinkman BM, Heyndrickx L, Vandenabeele P, Krysko DV (2012) Severity of doxorubicin-induced small intestinal mucositis is regulated by the TLR-2 and TLR-9 pathways. J Pathol 226:598–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Piccinini AM, Midwood KS (2010) DAMPening inflammation by modulating TLR signalling. Mediat Inflamm 2010Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pedroso SH, Vieira AT, Bastos RW, Oliveira JS, Cartelle CT, Arantes RM, Soares PM, Generoso SV, Cardoso VN, Teixeira MM, Nicoli JR, Martins FS (2015) Evaluation of mucositis induced by irinotecan after microbial colonization in germ-free mice. Microbiology 161:1950–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burdelya LG, Gleiberman AS, Toshkov I, Aygun-Sunar S, Bapardekar M, Manderscheid-Kern P, Bellnier D, Krivokrysenko VI, Feinstein E, Gudkov AV (2012) Toll-like receptor 5 agonist protects mice from dermatitis and oral mucositis caused by local radiation: implications for head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones RM, Sloane VM, Wu H, Luo L, Kumar A, Kumar MV, Gewirtz AT, Neish AS (2011) Flagellin administration protects gut mucosal tissue from irradiation-induced apoptosis via MKP-7 activity. Gut 60:648–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saha S, Bhanja P, Liu L, Alfieri AA, Yu D, Kandimalla ER, Agrawal S, Guha C (2012) TLR9 agonist protects mice from radiation-induced gastrointestinal syndrome. PLoS One 7:e29357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riehl T, Cohn S, Tessner T, Schloemann S, Stenson WF (2000) Lipopolysaccharide is radioprotective in the mouse intestine through a prostaglandin-mediated mechanism. Gastroenterology 118:1106–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bastos RW, Pedroso SH, Vieira AT, Moreira LM, Franca CS, Cartelle CT, Arantes RM, Generoso SV, Cardoso VN, Neves MJ, Nicoli JR, Martins FS (2016) Saccharomyces cerevisiae UFMG A-905 treatment reduces intestinal damage in a murine model of irinotecan-induced mucositis. Benef Microbes 7:549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ciorba MA, Riehl TE, Rao MS, Moon C, Ee X, Nava GM, Walker MR, Marinshaw JM, Stappenbeck TS, Stenson WF (2012) Lactobacillus probiotic protects intestinal epithelium from radiation injury in a TLR-2/cyclo-oxygenase-2-dependent manner. Gut 61:829–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Justino PF, Melo LF, Nogueira AF, Costa JV, Silva LM, Santos CM, Mendes WO, Costa MR, Franco AX, Lima AA, Ribeiro RA, Souza MH, Soares PM (2014) Treatment with Saccharomyces boulardii reduces the inflammation and dysfunction of the gastrointestinal tract in 5-fluorouracil-induced intestinal mucositis in mice. Br J Nutr 111:1611–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tang Y, Wu Y, Huang Z, Dong W, Deng Y, Wang F, Li M, Yuan J (2016) Administration of probiotic mixture DM#1 ameliorated 5-fluorouracil-induced intestinal mucositis and dysbiosis in rats. NutritionGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xie JH, Fan ST, Nie SP, Yu Q, Xiong T, Gong D, Xie MY (2016) Lactobacillus plantarum NCU116 attenuates cyclophosphamide-induced intestinal mucosal injury, metabolism and intestinal microbiota disorders in mice. Food Funct 7:1584–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yeung CY, Chan WT, Jiang CB, Cheng ML, Liu CY, Chang SW, Chiang Chiau JS, Lee HC (2015) Amelioration of chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis by orally administered probiotics in a mouse model. PLoS One 10:e0138746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yuan KT, Yu HL, Feng WD, Chong P, Yang T, Xue CL, Yu M, Shi HP (2015) Bifidobacterium infantis has a beneficial effect on 5-fluorouracil-induced intestinal mucositis in rats. Benefic Microbes 6:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang H, Brook CL, Whittaker AL, Lawrence A, Yazbeck R, Howarth GS (2013) Effects of Streptococcus thermophilus TH-4 in a rat model of doxorubicin-induced mucositis. Scand J Gastroenterol 48:959–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gibson RJ, Keefe DM, Lalla RV, Bateman E, Blijlevens N, Fijlstra M, King EE, Stringer AM, van der Velden WJ, Yazbeck R, Elad S, Bowen JM, Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral O (2013) Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 21:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lalla RV, Bowen J, Barasch A, Elting L, Epstein J, Keefe DM, McGuire DB, Migliorati C, Nicolatou-Galitis O, Peterson DE, Raber-Durlacher JE, Sonis ST, Elad S, Mucositis guidelines leadership Group of the Multinational Association of supportive Care in C, and International Society of Oral O (2014) MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. Cancer 120:1453–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vanhoecke B, De Ryck T, Stringer A, Van de Wiele T, Keefe D (2015) Microbiota and their role in the pathogenesis of oral mucositis. Oral Dis 21:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Laheij AM, de Soet JJ, von dem Borne PA, Kuijper EJ, Kraneveld EA, van Loveren C, Raber-Durlacher JE (2012) Oral bacteria and yeasts in relationship to oral ulcerations in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Support Care Cancer 20:3231–3240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frings K, Gruber S, Kuess P, Kleiter M, Dorr W (2016) Modulation of radiation-induced oral mucositis by thalidomide : preclinical studies. Strahlenther Onkol 192:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gruber S, Hamedinger D, Bozsaky E, Schmidt M, Wolfram K, Haagen J, Habelt B, Puttrich M, Dorr W (2015) Local hypoxia in oral mucosa (mouse) during daily fractionated irradiation - effect of pentoxifylline. Radiother Oncol 116:404–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gruber S, Schmidt M, Bozsaky E, Wolfram K, Haagen J, Habelt B, Puttrich M, Dorr W (2015) Modulation of radiation-induced oral mucositis by pentoxifylline: preclinical studies. Strahlenther Onkol 191:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lalla RV, Choquette LE, Curley KF, Dowsett RJ, Feinn RS, Hegde UP, Pilbeam CC, Salner AL, Sonis ST, Peterson DE (2014) Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of celecoxib for oral mucositis in patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 50:1098–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jensen SB, Jarvis V, Zadik Y, Barasch A, Ariyawardana A, Hovan A, Yarom N, Lalla RV, Bowen J, Elad S, Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral O (2013) Systematic review of miscellaneous agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 21:3223–3232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wu Z, Han X, Qin S, Zheng Q, Wang Z, Xiang D, Zhang J, Lu H, Wu M, Zhu S, Yu Y, Wang Y, Han W (2011) Interleukin 1 receptor antagonist reduces lethality and intestinal toxicity of 5-fluorouracil in a mouse mucositis model. Biomed Pharmacother 65:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wu ZQ, Han XD, Wang Y, Yuan KL, Jin ZM, Di JZ, Yan J, Pan Y, Zhang P, Huang XY, Wang ZG, Zheng Q (2011) Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist reduced apoptosis and attenuated intestinal mucositis in a 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy model in mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 68:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xiang D, Guo Y, Zhang J, Gao J, Lu H, Zhu S, Wu M, Yu Y, Han W (2011) Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist attenuates cyclophosphamide-induced mucositis in a murine model. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 67:1445–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Han G, Bian L, Li F, Cotrim A, Wang D, Lu J, Deng Y, Bird G, Sowers A, Mitchell JB, Gutkind JS, Zhao R, Raben D, ten Dijke P, Refaeli Y, Zhang Q, Wang XJ (2013) Preventive and therapeutic effects of Smad7 on radiation-induced oral mucositis. Nat Med 19:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Al-Asmari AK, Khan AQ, Al-Qasim AM, Al-Yousef Y (2015) Ascorbic acid attenuates antineoplastic drug 5-fluorouracil induced gastrointestinal toxicity in rats by modulating the expression of inflammatory mediators. Toxicol Rep 2:908–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ortiz F, Acuna-Castroviejo D, Doerrier C, Dayoub JC, Lopez LC, Venegas C, Garcia JA, Lopez A, Volt H, Luna-Sanchez M, Escames G (2015) Melatonin blunts the mitochondrial/NLRP3 connection and protects against radiation-induced oral mucositis. J Pineal Res 58:34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Arifa RD, Madeira MF, de Paula TP, Lima RL, Tavares LD, Menezes-Garcia Z, Fagundes CT, Rachid MA, Ryffel B, Zamboni DS, Teixeira MM, Souza DG (2014) Inflammasome activation is reactive oxygen species dependent and mediates irinotecan-induced mucositis through IL-1beta and IL-18 in mice. Am J Pathol 184:2023–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Arifa RDN, Paula TP, Madeira MFM, Lima RL, Garcia ZM, Yvila TV, Pinho V, Barcelos LS, Pinheiro MVB, Ladeira LO, Krambrock K, Teixeira MM, Souza DG (2016) The reduction of oxidative stress by nanocomposite Fullerol decreases mucositis severity and reverts leukopenia induced by irinotecan. Pharmacol Res 107:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ashcraft KA, Boss MK, Tovmasyan A, Roy Choudhury K, Fontanella AN, Young KH, Palmer GM, Birer SR, Landon CD, Park W, Das SK, Weitner T, Sheng H, Warner DS, Brizel DM, Spasojevic I, Batinic-Haberle I, Dewhirst MW (2015) Novel manganese-porphyrin superoxide dismutase-mimetic widens the therapeutic margin in a preclinical head and neck Cancer model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 93:892–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gao J, Gao J, Qian L, Wang X, Wu M, Zhang Y, Ye H, Zhu S, Yu Y, Han W (2014) Activation of p38-MAPK by CXCL4/CXCR3 axis contributes to p53-dependent intestinal apoptosis initiated by 5-fluorouracil. Cancer Biol Ther 15:982–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lu H, Liu H, Wang J, Shen J, Weng S, Han L, Sun T, Qian L, Wu M, Zhu S, Yu Y, Han W, Zhu J, Moldenhauer A (2015) The chemokine CXCL9 exacerbates chemotherapy-induced acute intestinal damage through inhibition of mucosal restitution. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 141:983–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Soares PM, Mota JM, Souza EP, Justino PF, Franco AX, Cunha FQ, Ribeiro RA, Souza MH (2013) Inflammatory intestinal damage induced by 5-fluorouracil requires IL-4. Cytokine 61:46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Li K, Qu S, Chen X, Wu Q, Shi M (2017) Promising targets for Cancer immunotherapy: TLRs, RLRs, and STING-mediated innate immune pathways. Int J Mol Sci 18Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Linard C, Busson E, Holler V, Strup-Perrot C, Lacave-Lapalun JV, Lhomme B, Prat M, Devauchelle P, Sabourin JC, Simon JM, Bonneau M, Lataillade JJ, Benderitter M (2013) Repeated autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell injections improve radiation-induced proctitis in pigs. Stem Cells Transl Med 2:916–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Linard C, Strup-Perrot C, Lacave-Lapalun JV, Benderitter M (2016) Flagellin preconditioning enhances the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in an irradiation-induced proctitis model. J Leukoc Biol 100:569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wang R, Yuan W, Zhao Q, Song P, Yue J, Lin SD, Zhao TB (2013) An experimental study of preventing and treating acute radioactive enteritis with human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells. Asian Pac J Trop Med 6:968–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Duan HG, Ji F, Zheng CQ, Wang CH, Li J (2015) Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells alleviate nasal mucosa radiation damage in a guinea pig model. J Cell Biochem 116:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bessout R, Demarquay C, Moussa L, Rene A, Doix B, Benderitter M, Semont A, Mathieu N (2015) TH17 predominant T-cell responses in radiation-induced bowel disease are modulated by treatment with adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. J Pathol 237:435–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schmidt M, Haagen J, Noack R, Siegemund A, Gabriel P, Dorr W (2014) Effects of bone marrow or mesenchymal stem cell transplantation on oral mucositis (mouse) induced by fractionated irradiation. Strahlenther Onkol 190:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Munneke JM, Bjorklund AT, Mjosberg JM, Garming-Legert K, Bernink JH, Blom B, Huisman C, van Oers MH, Spits H, Malmberg KJ, Hazenberg MD (2014) Activated innate lymphoid cells are associated with a reduced susceptibility to graft-versus-host disease. Blood 124:812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Grover S, Lim RM, Blumberg RS, Syngal S (2016) Oncogastroenterology. J Clin Oncol 34:1154–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sanchez-Lara K, Ugalde-Morales E, Motola-Kuba D, Green D (2013) Gastrointestinal symptoms and weight loss in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Br J Nutr 109:894–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fijlstra M, Ferdous M, Koning AM, Rings EH, Harmsen HJ, Tissing WJ (2015) Substantial decreases in the number and diversity of microbiota during chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal mucositis in a rat model. Support Care Cancer 23:1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fijlstra M, Rings EH, van Dijk TH, Plosch T, Verkade HJ, Tissing WJ (2013) Continuous enteral administration can overcome the limited capacity to absorb glucose in rats with methotrexate-induced gastrointestinal mucositis. Support Care Cancer 21:863–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fijlstra M, Rings EH, Verkade HJ, van Dijk TH, Kamps WA, Tissing WJ (2011) Lactose maldigestion during methotrexate-induced gastrointestinal mucositis in a rat model. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 300:G283–G291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gareau MG, Barrett KE (2013) Fluid and electrolyte secretion in the inflamed gut: novel targets for treatment of inflammation-induced diarrhea. Curr Opin Pharmacol 13:895–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    McQuade RM, Stojanovska V, Donald E, Abalo R, Bornstein JC, Nurgali K (2016) Gastrointestinal dysfunction and enteric neurotoxicity following treatment with anticancer chemotherapeutic agent 5-fluorouracil. Neurogastroenterol Motil 28:1861–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Robinson AM, Stojanovska V, Rahman AA, McQuade RM, Senior PV, Nurgali K (2016) Effects of Oxaliplatin treatment on the enteric glial cells and neurons in the mouse ileum. J Histochem Cytochem 64:530–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Cheadle GA, Costantini TW, Lopez N, Bansal V, Eliceiri BP, Coimbra R (2013) Enteric glia cells attenuate cytomix-induced intestinal epithelial barrier breakdown. PLoS One 8:e69042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Melichar B, Dvorak J, Hyspler R, Zadak Z (2005) Intestinal permeability in the assessment of intestinal toxicity of cytotoxic agents. Chemotherapy 51:336–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chen P, Lingen M, Sonis ST, Walsh-Reitz MM, Toback FG (2011) Role of AMP-18 in oral mucositis. Oral Oncol 47:831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wardill HR, Bowen JM, Al-Dasooqi N, Sultani M, Bateman E, Stansborough R, Shirren J, Gibson RJ (2014) Irinotecan disrupts tight junction proteins within the gut : implications for chemotherapy-induced gut toxicity. Cancer Biol Ther 15:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Biju PG, Garg S, Wang W, Choudhry MA, Kovacs EJ, Fink LM, Hauer-Jensen M (2012) Procalcitonin as a predictive biomarker for total body irradiation-induced bacterial load and lethality in mice. Shock 38:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Russo F, Linsalata M, Clemente C, D'Attoma B, Orlando A, Campanella G, Giotta F, Riezzo G (2013) The effects of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC60) on the intestinal barrier function and gut peptides in breast cancer patients: an observational study. BMC Cancer 13:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Beutheu S, Ouelaa W, Guerin C, Belmonte L, Aziz M, Tennoune N, Bole-Feysot C, Galas L, Dechelotte P, Coeffier M (2014) Glutamine supplementation, but not combined glutamine and arginine supplementation, improves gut barrier function during chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis in rats. Clin Nutr 33:694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kim HJ, Lee J, Choi JH, Bahinski A, Ingber DE (2016) Co-culture of living microbiome with microengineered human intestinal villi in a gut-on-a-Chip microfluidic device. J Vis ExpGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Colley HE, Eves PC, Pinnock A, Thornhill MH, Murdoch C (2013) Tissue-engineered oral mucosa to study radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Int J Radiat Biol 89:907–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lambros MP, DeSalvo MK, Moreno J, Mulamalla HC, Kondapalli L (2015) Transcriptional profiling of radiation damage and preventive treatments in a 3-dimensional (3D) human cell culture model of oral mucositis. Genom Data 6:40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lambros MP, DeSalvo MK, Mulamalla HC, Moreno J, Kondapalli L (2016) Genome wide expression after different doses of irradiation of a three-dimensional (3D) model of oral mucosal. Genom Data 7:137–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lambros MP, Kondapalli L, Parsa C, Mulamalla HC, Orlando R, Pon D, Huang Y, Chow MS (2015) Molecular signatures in the prevention of radiation damage by the synergistic effect of N-acetyl cysteine and qingre liyan decoction, a traditional chinese medicine, using a 3-dimensional cell culture model of oral mucositis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2015:425760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chang PY, Jin X, Jiang YY, Wang LX, Liu YJ, Wang J (2016) Mensenchymal stem cells can delay radiation-induced crypt death: impact on intestinal CD44(+) fragments. Cell Tissue Res 364:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Grabinger T, Delgado E, Brunner T (2016) Analysis of cell death induction in intestinal organoids in vitro. Methods Mol Biol 1419:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Liu F, Huang J, Ning B, Liu Z, Chen S, Zhao W (2016) Drug discovery via human-derived stem cell organoids. Front Pharmacol 7:334Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Farrell CL, Bready JV, Rex KL, Chen JN, DiPalma CR, Whitcomb KL, Yin S, Hill DC, Wiemann B, Starnes CO, Havill AM, Lu ZN, Aukerman SL, Pierce GF, Thomason A, Potten CS, Ulich TR, Lacey DL (1998) Keratinocyte growth factor protects mice from chemotherapy and radiation-induced gastrointestinal injury and mortality. Cancer Res 58:933–939Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rosen LS, Abdi E, Davis ID, Gutheil J, Schnell FM, Zalcberg J, Cesano A, Gayko U, Chen MG, Clarke S (2006) Palifermin reduces the incidence of oral mucositis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 24:5194–5200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Limaye SA, Haddad RI, Cilli F, Sonis ST, Colevas AD, Brennan MT, Hu KS, Murphy BA (2013) Phase 1b, multicenter, single blinded, placebo-controlled, sequential dose escalation study to assess the safety and tolerability of topically applied AG013 in subjects with locally advanced head and neck cancer receiving induction chemotherapy. Cancer 119:4268–4276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Caluwaerts S, Vandenbroucke K, Steidler L, Neirynck S, Vanhoenacker P, Corveleyn S, Watkins B, Sonis S, Coulie B, Rottiers P (2010) AG013, a mouth rinse formulation of Lactococcus lactis secreting human trefoil factor 1, provides a safe and efficacious therapeutic tool for treating oral mucositis. Oral Oncol 46:564–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Cheah KY, Howarth GS, Bastian SE (2014) Grape seed extract dose-responsively decreases disease severity in a rat model of mucositis; concomitantly enhancing chemotherapeutic effectiveness in colon cancer cells. PLoS One 9:e85184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Davarmanesh M, Miri R, Haghnegahdar S, Tadbir AA, Tanideh N, Saghiri MA, Garcia-Godoy F, Asatourian A (2013) Protective effect of bilberry extract as a pretreatment on induced oral mucositis in hamsters. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    de Freitas Cuba L, Braga Filho A, Cherubini K, Salum FG, Figueiredo MA (2016) Topical application of Aloe vera and vitamin E on induced ulcers on the tongue of rats subjected to radiation: clinical and histological evaluation. Support Care Cancer 24:2557–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Koohi-Hosseinabadi O, Andisheh-Tadbir A, Bahadori P, Sepehrimanesh M, Mardani M, Tanideh N (2015) Comparison of the therapeutic effects of the dietary and topical forms of Zizyphus jujuba extract on oral mucositis induced by 5-fluorouracil: a golden hamster model. J Clin Exp Dent 7:e304–e309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sezer A, Usta U, Kocak Z, Yagci MA (2011) The effect of a flavonoid fractions diosmin + hesperidin on radiation-induced acute proctitis in a rat model. J Cancer Res Ther 7:152–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Shi CJ, Wen XS, Gao HF, Liu ZH, Xu XK, Li LF, Shen T, Xian CJ (2016) Steamed root of Rehmannia glutinosa Libosch (Plantaginaceae) alleviates methotrexate-induced intestinal mucositis in rats. J Ethnopharmacol 183:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shin YS, Shin HA, Kang SU, Kim JH, Oh YT, Park KH, Kim CH (2013) Effect of epicatechin against radiation-induced oral mucositis: in vitro and in vivo study. PLoS One 8:e69151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Tang Q, Zuo T, Lu S, Wu J, Wang J, Zheng R, Chen S, Xue C (2014) Dietary squid ink polysaccharides ameliorated the intestinal microflora dysfunction in mice undergoing chemotherapy. Food Funct 5:2529–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tanideh N, Namazi F, Andisheh Tadbir A, Ebrahimi H, Koohi-Hosseinabadi O (2014) Comparative assessment of the therapeutic effects of the topical and systemic forms of Hypericum perforatum extract on induced oral mucositis in golden hamsters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:1286–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Younes-Sakr L, Senesse P, Laurent C, Rouanet JM, Rugani N, Cristol JP, Gaillet S (2012) Validation of a surgical technique for rat intestinal irradiation: potential side effects prevention by dietary grape phenolics. Dig Dis Sci 57:2562–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zuo T, Li X, Chang Y, Duan G, Yu L, Zheng R, Xue C, Tang Q (2015) Dietary fucoidan of Acaudina molpadioides and its enzymatically degraded fragments could prevent intestinal mucositis induced by chemotherapy in mice. Food Funct 6:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bowen
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. Al-Dasooqi
    • 1
  • P. Bossi
    • 2
  • H. Wardill
    • 1
  • Y. Van Sebille
    • 3
  • A. Al-Azri
    • 4
  • E. Bateman
    • 1
  • M. E. Correa
    • 5
  • J. Raber-Durlacher
    • 6
  • A. Kandwal
    • 7
  • B. Mayo
    • 3
  • R. G. Nair
    • 8
  • A. Stringer
    • 3
  • K. ten Bohmer
    • 9
  • D. Thorpe
    • 3
  • R. V. Lalla
    • 10
  • S. Sonis
    • 11
  • K. Cheng
    • 12
  • S. Elad
    • 13
  • On behalf of The Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO)
  1. 1.Adelaide Medical SchoolThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health - Medical OncologyUniversity of Brescia, ASST-Spedali CiviliBresciaItaly
  3. 3.Division of Health SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Dental and OMFS Department, Oral Pathology and Medicine, Al-Nahdha Hospital, Ministry of HealthMuscatOman
  5. 5.Hematology and Blood Transfusion Center, University of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  6. 6.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, and Department of Oral Medicine, Academic Center for Dentistry AmsterdamUniversity of Amsterdam and VU UniversityAmsterdamNetherlands
  7. 7.Cancer Research Institute, Himalayan Institute of Medical SciencesSwami Rama Himalayn UniversityDehradunIndia
  8. 8.Oral Medicine, Oral Oncology, Oral Pathology and Human DiseasesGriffith University, Hematology and Oncology, Gold Coast University HospitalSouthportAustralia
  9. 9.Oral medicine, Academic Centre Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
  10. 10.Section of Oral MedicineUniversity of Connecticut HealthFarmingtonUSA
  11. 11.Harvard School of Dental MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  12. 12.Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  13. 13.Department of Oral Medicine, Eastman Institute for Oral HealthUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations