
==== Front
J Clin Invest
J Clin Invest
J Clin Invest
The Journal of Clinical Investigation
0021-9738
1558-8238
American Society for Clinical Investigation

182661
10.1172/JCI182661
Review
Cancer therapy–related salivary dysfunction
Paz Cristina cpaz@wisc.edu
1
Glassey Annemarie aeglassey5@gmail.com
1
Frick Abigail agfrick@wisc.edu
1
Sattar Sarah sarah.sattar@ndus.edu
1
Zaorsky Nicholas G. Nicholas.Zaorsky@UHhospitals.org
23
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3178-3004
Blitzer Grace C. gblitzer@humonc.wisc.edu
14
Kimple Randall J. rkimple@humonc.wisc.edu
14
1 Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
2 University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
3 Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
4 University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Address correspondence to: Randall J. Kimple, Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3107 WIMR, 1111 Highland Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53705, USA. Email: rkimple@humonc.wisc.edu.
3 9 2024
3 9 2024
3 9 2024
134 17 e182661© 2024 Paz et al.
2024
Paz et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article is available online at https://www.jci.org/articles/view/182661
Salivary gland dysfunction is a common side effect of cancer treatments. Salivary function plays key roles in critical daily activities. Consequently, changes in salivary function can profoundly impair quality of life for cancer patients. We discuss salivary gland anatomy and physiology to understand how anticancer therapies such as chemotherapy, bone marrow transplantation, immunotherapy, and radiation therapy impair salivary function. We discuss approaches to quantify xerostomia in the clinic, including the advantages and limitations of validated quality-of-life instruments and approaches to directly measuring salivary function. Current and emerging approaches to treat cancer therapy–induced dry mouth are presented using radiation-induced salivary dysfunction as a model. Limitations of current sialagogues and salivary analogues are presented. Emerging approaches, including cellular and gene therapy and novel pharmacologic approaches, are described.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Xerostomia, the subjective feeling of dry mouth typically accompanied by hyposalivation (1–3), is a common but often overlooked condition that can profoundly impair an individual’s quality of life. Xerostomia mainly presents as decreased production of saliva (hyposalivation) by major salivary glands. However, patients may experience xerostomia with no notable decrease in saliva production, but display changes in saliva composition (sialochemistry dysfunction) (1–3). Xerostomia can be caused by multiple etiologies. It can occur naturally in the elderly (4, 5), as a result of autoimmune disorders (6), as a side effect of some medications (7), after nerve damage to the head and neck (8), or as a consequence of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy (9–14). Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are among the most likely to develop xerostomia (15). Most oncologists, and many physicians, lack comprehensive training in oral health, resulting in a disconnect between patient experiences of xerostomia and provider understanding of the challenges patients endure. An opportunity to improve the multidisciplinary care of many cancer patients exists.

Saliva is a critical component of healthy oral function and plays an important role in maintaining oral cavity homeostasis. Saliva lubricates the oral mucosa, prevents tooth demineralization, has antimicrobial properties, maintains mouth pH, initiates starch digestion, and is critical for mastication, swallowing, and speech (16, 17). Damage to the major salivary glands leads to a plethora of adverse side effects due to the functions of saliva in normal health (Figure 1). This can include difficulty eating, taste disorders (i.e., dysgeusia), painful tongue, swallowing and chewing difficulties, increased dental caries, speech impairments, pain or burning in the mouth, ulcers of the oral mucosa and tongue, and increased susceptibility to oral infections (10, 16, 18). These effects substantially impact the quality of life of patients with xerostomia (19). The current treatment strategy for xerostomia is primarily palliative and there are few effective long-term treatments. Understanding the pathophysiology underlying xerostomia caused by cancer treatments is critical to developing better treatments that address the root causes of xerostomia rather than just addressing symptoms.

In this Review, we aim to briefly describe salivary gland anatomy and physiology and to summarize the currently available research related to the pathophysiology of xerostomia in cancer patients. The majority of studies investigating the pathophysiology of cancer therapy–induced xerostomia focus on the effects of radiation. Thus, we will use radiation-induced xerostomia (RIX) as a model for cancer therapy–related salivary dysfunction, while identifying what is known about how other cancer therapies impact salivary tissue. Finally, we will address the currently published preclinical and clinical studies related to developing novel therapies for xerostomia. Current treatments for xerostomia such as sialagogues or salivary analogues (see reviews by Jasmer et al., ref. 20; Kapourani et al., ref. 21; and Spirk et al., ref. 22) are briefly discussed.

Salivary gland anatomy and physiology

In humans there are three pairs of major salivary glands — sublingual, submandibular, and parotid — that secrete saliva through a system of salivary ducts (Figure 2). An additional salivary gland, the tubarial gland that lies within the nasopharynx, has recently been described; while tubarial glands share histology with salivary glands, their physiologic function remains uncertain (23–25). The lining of the mouth and throat is also populated by hundreds of minor salivary glands that are located submucosally and secrete saliva directly into the mouth/throat.

Saliva is a complex biofluid that is composed of 99% water and 1% other components such as ions, proteins such as enzymes and growth factors, microorganisms, and some immune cells. Acini are the secretory units of the salivary gland. Serous acini produce a watery, serous saliva that is rich in proteins such as amylase that provides enzymatic activity important to starch digestion (26, 27). Mucinous acini produce a viscoelastic solution rich in mucins that plays an important role in lubrication and hydration of surfaces (28–30). The relative abundance of serous versus mucinous acini dictates the type of saliva produced (i.e., serous, mucinous, or seromucinous) (31). Among the three major salivary glands, the parotid gland produces more serous saliva, the sublingual gland produces more mucinous saliva, and the submandibular gland produces a mixed seromucinous solution. The type of saliva produced is dependent on the relative abundance of the different acinar cells present (32, 33).

In addition to the major salivary glands, minor salivary glands are critical to maintaining basal moisture within the oral mucosa. Most minor salivary glands are mucinous. A small area near the circumvallate papillae contains minor salivary glands producing serous saliva called von Ebner glands, which are believed to be critical to taste perception (31, 34).

Saliva produced in the acini is carried to the oral cavity via a series of ducts. The saliva produced in the acinar cells initially enters the acinar lumen. This lumen is continuous with the lumen of the intercalated ducts, which house cells secreting lysozyme and lactoferrin, proteins with bacteriolytic activity that play an important role in defense against pathogens (26, 35–38). The saliva solution empties from the intercalated ducts into the striated ducts, which are responsible for salt reabsorption and secretion of electrolytes into saliva. The striated duct cells are impermeable to water and reabsorb sodium and chloride and secrete potassium and bicarbonate, making the saliva hypotonic. Striated cells also secrete kallikrein (important for leukocyte attraction) and epidermal growth factor (39, 33). After leaving the striated duct, the salivary solution travels into interlobular/excretory ducts, which terminate in the oral cavity (31, 33). The final saliva solution that enters the oral cavity is hypotonic, which allows for the tasting of salts in food (31).

Salivary secretion is regulated by the autonomic nervous system, with parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves that supply acinar and ductal cells and a large supply of arterioles surrounding the ducts and acini (16, 31, 33, 32, 40). Saliva secretion rates vary according to the level of stimulation, time of day, sex of the organism, and environmental temperature (31, 33, 41). In the first stage of saliva formation, ribosomal proteins in acinar cells synthesize salivary proteins, such as amylase and mucins, which are then packaged and released into the lumen via exocytosis or vesicular transport (33). Sympathetic neurons regulate protein secretion and parasympathetic innervation regulates the transport of water in the salivary gland via muscarinic signaling (M1 and M3 receptors) (31, 42, 43). The final concentration of saliva is regulated by the transport of ions through the activity of the sodium/potassium ATPase and chloride channels (TREM16A) in the apical membrane of acinar cells. The movement of salt into the acinar lumen leads to the movement of water via osmosis through aquaporin channels, namely aquaporin 5 (AQP5) in the apical membrane (31). The primary saliva solution secreted from the acinar cells is a pH-neutral isotonic fluid. The pH has been shown to decrease both during and two years after radiation treatment (44, 45).

Saliva also plays a role in maintaining a healthy oral microbiome (46). Head and neck radiation has been linked to an increased abundance of Lactobacillus and a decrease in the overall α diversity of the microbiome up to five years after therapy (47–50). These findings suggest that radiotherapy may result in chronic microbiome changes in patients and highlights the importance of considering microbiome changes in future studies examining the late toxicity of cancer therapy.

Quantification of xerostomia in the clinic

There are two primary ways to quantify salivary dysfunction in patients: patient-reported outcomes and direct measurement of salivary production.

Several validated quality-of-life (QoL) instruments are used to assess xerostomia. The three most common QoL questionnaires include the University of Michigan Xerostomia-Related Quality of Life Scale (XeQOLS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) (51, 52). These scales are designed to detect QoL changes in xerostomia and associated symptoms, including dysphagia, in patients undergoing active treatment. An important limitation of QoL instruments is that while they are sensitive to acute changes in salivary function, as patients adapt to their “new normal,” they can lose sensitivity to minor changes in salivary function in the years following radiation (53).

Salivary dysfunction can be quantified by direct measurement of saliva production (reviewed in ref. 54). Radiation often results in a decrease in salivary flow rate, beginning shortly after radiation therapy and continuing for several years (52, 55). The amount of saliva is likely not the only contributing factor to xerostomia, as differences in salivary composition are associated with more severe xerostomia regardless of the amount of saliva produced (28). Evaluating protein content in collected saliva, measuring pH levels of saliva, and assessing the oral microbiome are also good methods to distinguish changes in sialochemistry, providing more information than just rates of saliva production, and are metrics in some studies evaluating saliva from HNC patients after radiation (28, 50, 56, 57). While quantification of timed salivary production is methodologically straightforward, even within healthy control patients test-retest reliability can show significant differences (58).

Imaging is a less common way of quantifying salivary gland dysfunction (59, 60). Several imaging approaches have been used to assess salivary dysfunction but are primarily of investigational interest at this time. Ultrasound imaging, including acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging, is an effective method to determine both the size and stiffness of salivary glands (61, 62). ARFI uses acoustic compression to determine the shear wave velocity (SWV) of the gland. SWV is a measurement of stiffness, a surrogate for fibrosis that provides a noninvasive approach to monitor fibrosis in irradiated salivary glands of patients with HNC (62, 63). Salivary gland size can also be determined by cross-sectional imaging such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Diffusion-weighted MRI can be used to quantify cellular changes through computation of apparent diffusion coefficient values (64). MRI may also be useful to differentiate etiologies of xerostomia through assessment of ductal deformities, fat deposition, and sialography (65). Sialoscintigraphy is a noninvasive, objective approach to evaluate salivary dysfunction. This method is a nuclear diagnostic imaging technique that uses technetium-99m pertechnetate (99mTcO4–) to measure uptake and excretion in the salivary gland (66, 67). Most recently, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scans have been used to identify secretory cell loss in salivary glands (68), but how this correlates with salivary function remains unclear.

Finally, mucosal biopsies and other functional tests are used to evaluate xerostomia in other clinical contexts, like Sjogren syndrome (69), but are not part of the clinical recommendations to evaluate xerostomia in cancer patients (70). A “wafer test” has been used as a screening test for identifying xerostomia in patients with connective tissue disease (71), but has not been used in cancer patients. Together, these methods allow clinicians and researchers to monitor the development of xerostomia in patients and determine strategies to provide relief to their patients.

Effects of cancer therapy on the salivary glands

Chemotherapy.

Most research on salivary dysfunction in cancer patients is focused on patients with HNC. However, many cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for cancers outside the head and neck region also experience oral sequelae, including mucositis, xerostomia, and dysgeusia. In a prospective cross-sectional study of 155 patients, those receiving chemotherapeutic regimens, including fluorouracil (5-FU), reported xerostomia in 56%–69% of cases, while those receiving taxanes reported xerostomia in 56% of cases (72). Overall, data on effects of chemotherapy, including the duration of changes in salivary function, is lacking, particularly in randomized studies (Table 1). Heterogeneity in data collection and the numerous types of chemotherapy involved make broad statements challenging. Some published studies (reviewed in refs. 9, 73) suggest decreased saliva production and xerostomia in patients during and after chemotherapy for adult and childhood cancers (74, 75), while others have not identified differences (76, 77). In pediatric patients, oral sequelae (not precisely defined, but including xerostomia) is seen in over 50% of patients, with a high incidence in those who received myeloablative therapy prior to bone marrow transplantation (78, 79). This is comparable to the prevalence of xerostomia reported in adults undergoing bone marrow transplantation (reviewed in ref. 9). Patients receiving high-dose radioactive iodine treatment develop xerostomia in approximately 33% of cases (reviewed in ref. 9). Unfortunately, many trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of chemotherapeutic regimens do not include xerostomia in their measurements of adverse effects (Table 1). The lack of data collection is a considerable limitation to understanding the true impact of these therapies on xerostomia. In addition, most studies of xerostomia in patients receiving chemotherapy report data on its incidence only during active therapy, with no long-term data available (72, 73, 78, 79).

Immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors can induce persistent immune-related adverse events. Between 5% and 20% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are reported to have developed xerostomia (80, 11). Xerostomia related to checkpoint inhibition can become a chronic issue impacting quality of life, but often does not start until 3–4 months after the initiation of therapy (81). In one cross-sectional study, xerostomia was seen in 7.4% of patients up to one year and 8.6% of patients more than one year after discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (82). Lymphocytic infiltration of CD3+ T cells, acinar atrophy, and fibrosis have been described in patients with xerostomia following immune checkpoint therapy, and a response to steroids in these patients suggests that inflammation may also play a role (81, 83). Better reporting of oral adverse events from immunotherapy to quantify the incidence and severity as well as additional work to understand the mechanisms underlying immunotherapy related salivary dysfunction are needed.

Radiotherapy.

External beam radiation to the salivary glands results in a decrease in salivary flow rate and differences in salivary composition, both shortly after radiation and several years later (52, 55, 84). In addition to the radiation dose to the major salivary glands, the presence of minor salivary glands throughout the oral cavity explains the importance of the radiation dose received by the oral cavity in the development of radiation-induced xerostomia (85, 86). Both mucin and amylase decrease after radiation (35, 52). While total protein is associated with an inflammatory state and has been found to increase transiently after radiation, it tends to return to normal ranges in 2 years (44, 45, 87). Salivary pH decreases both during and after radiation treatment (44, 45). Although the short-term analysis of saliva during and after radiation has been investigated, few studies have investigated the late effects of radiation therapy in patients with HNC, with limited studies investigating salivary characteristics five or more years after radiation therapy (88).

Advances in the technical delivery of radiation therapy have greatly improved the ability of a radiation oncologist to specifically target areas of interest while avoiding or minimizing radiation exposure to normal tissues such as the salivary glands. However, due to the anatomy of the head and neck region, the proximity of tumors to salivary tissues makes it challenging to fully avoid delivering radiation to all saliva-producing tissues. With older radiation techniques, 50%–70% of patients receiving radiation therapy to the head and neck developed xerostomia (89, 90). Modern radiation delivery can decrease the incidence to around 30%, depending on the disease stage (91, 92). Recovery of salivary function after radiation depends largely on the dose of radiation delivered to the salivary glands (93, 94). In the best cases, salivary impairment resulting from radiation therapy will only persist for a few months after treatment. However, in many cases this condition is irreversible and patients remain in need of an effective solution. There is a critical need for studies investigating long-term effects of modern radiation.

PSMA-targeted radionuclide therapy can also induce xerostomia due to high expression of PSMA on salivary tissue. Estimates of xerostomia incidence in patients treated with [225Ac]AC-PSMA-617 range from 30% to 75% (95–97). In several studies, xerostomia was the dose-limiting toxicity (98). This is similar to data reported from [177Lu]LU-PSMA therapy, in which the incidence and severity of xerostomia becomes more common with repetitive dosing (99–101).

Patients with RIX demonstrate sialochemistry dysfunction and hyposalivation (20, 93). The pathophysiology of RIX includes acinar cell atrophy and chronic inflammation within the salivary glands. These result in alterations in salivary volume, pH, and viscoelasticity (i.e., stickiness) (90). Acinar cells have a slow turnover rate and are highly differentiated, suggesting that they would be resistant to the effects of radiation, but based on early changes in salivary composition and flow, salivary glands are in fact functionally radiosensitive (102). Initial theories of this loss of function were attributed to apoptosis, lysis, or leakage of granules (103); however, there is no evidence supporting these theories.

Salivary gland dysfunction because of radiation exposure typically occurs in two phases, acute and chronic (Figure 3). For some patients, xerostomia resolves after the acute phase. However, many patients suffer from chronic xerostomia and continue to experience symptoms well after therapy ends. Early changes in salivary function during radiation treatment are attributed to damage to the plasma membrane of secretory cells. This damage interferes with water secretion and is responsible for the relatively rapid thickening of saliva experienced by patients. In many, but not all patients, almost immediately after radiation exposure (hours to days) there is a 50%–60% decrease in the amount of saliva produced, a loss of acinar cells, shrinkage of the gland, and changes in the composition of saliva (104, 105, 20). Saliva from damaged glands has higher concentrations of mucins, a change in pH from neutral to acidic, altered viscoelasticity, and increased osmolarity (106). Chronically affected individuals continue to have significant decreases in saliva volume, changes in salivary composition that can lead to mucositis, and sustained reductions in the size of the acinar compartments due to death of acinar stem cells (20, 105, 107). The surrounding environmental damage evidenced by fibrosis and inflammation produces an environment that is suboptimal for proper function (107). Parasympathetic and sympathetic innervation of salivary glands are also impaired by radiation exposure and can contribute to reduced functionality of salivary glands (42, 43, 108, 31). Parasympathetic signaling can support the regeneration of salivary gland tissue. In mice, administration of neurturin, a neurotrophic factor that reduces parasympathetic nerve apoptosis, led to improved regeneration of salivary epithelial tissues (109). Finally, although not well described, some groups have reported changes in the immune landscape of the gland (20, 105, 107, 110).

Treatment of xerostomia

Current treatments for xerostomia focus on either prevention of xerostomia through reducing damage to the salivary glands or increasing the volume of functional saliva using manufactured substitutes. Modern radiation techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) deliver lower radiation doses to the glands than older techniques and result in lower rates of xerostomia (111). Approaches to move the salivary glands out of the radiation field have also been used in patients with HNC (112–117). Sialagogues (i.e., drugs that increase the flow of saliva) and salivary analogues can provide temporary relief for patients, but do not change the underlying glandular dysfunction. Additional approaches such as acupuncture and hyperbaric oxygen treatments have limited data supporting their efficacy (118, 119). Current strategies to prevent or treat salivary dysfunction are summarized in Table 2.

Emerging approaches to treat xerostomia

Gene therapy.

Many groups are investigating the utility of gene therapy in the treatment of RIX. These studies focus on increasing expression of water channels in salivary cells to facilitate fluid transport and hopefully increase saliva production. The water channel gene AQP1 (aquaporin 1) encodes a constitutively active water channel that facilitates fluid secretion along an osmotic gradient. AQP1 is expressed in the myoepithelial and endothelial cells of humans and mouse salivary glands and is limited to endothelial cells in rat submandibular gland (SMG) (120). This section addresses both in vitro and in vivo studies that aim to increase expression of AQP1.

An in vitro study explored artificial induction of AQP1 expression in established salivary gland cell lines and primary human salivary progenitor cells via two different methods: artificial transcriptional complexes and epigenetic alterations. Wang et al. introduced an artificial transcriptional complex at the AQP1 gene and saw increased expression of AQP1 in cell lines after delivery of guide RNAs targeting the promoter region (121). This group also explored the impact of epigenetic modification on AQP1 expression, in which they performed chemical demethylation of A253 cells (derived from human SMG tumor) and saw increased expression of AQP1 through demethylation alone (121). These data support other literature that suggested methylation was the primary method for AQP1 gene silencing (122). This in vitro study suggests that epigenetic editing can hold potential for inducing AQP1 expression in salivary cells.

The adenoviral delivery of human AQP1 (AdhAQP1) utilizes an adenovirus-derived vector to deliver the AQP1 gene into infected salivary cells. Many groups use this method to investigate AQP1 gene delivery in in vitro and in vivo models. One study observed a two- to three-fold increase in salivary fluid secretion compared with control animals after AdAQP1 delivery to rat SMG 3–4 months after radiation (17.5 or 21 Gy in a single fraction) (123). Another group delivered AdhAQP1 to the minipig parotid gland and showed improved saliva secretory volume, but not changes in salivary composition, within 8 weeks after administration (124). The minipig is a highly translational model animal, useful for evaluating novel therapies to prevent or reverse RIX in humans. AdhAQP1 has shown clinical promise in a phase I clinical trial in patients with RIX (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00372320). Researchers evaluating late responses to the therapy found that AdhAQP1 resulted in both short- and long-term improvement of parotid salivary flow and sustained symptomatic relief for 2–3 years (125). This approach is being further developed in a recently completed phase I study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02446249) and an ongoing randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05926765).

Stem cell therapy.

There is substantial interest in modulating salivary gland stem cells to improve salivary function. Studies in mice and humans have demonstrated that there are regions with high stem cell density within the parotid gland, and damage to these regions is a good predictor of salivary dysfunction after radiation (126). A double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed to determine the impact of dose reduction in these regions on salivary flow from the parotid gland. Salivary flow was reduced 16.8% and 8.5%, and patient-reported xerostomia was 50.0% and 45.9% in the standard IMRT versus high stem cell density–sparing IMRT groups, respectively. Unfortunately, in this trial, salivary flow and perceived xerostomia were not significantly improved (127).

Salivary stem cell populations are only beginning to be defined in recent years, as prior to this there was not a consensus definition of what constitutes the salivary stem cell population. Researchers identified a population of SOX2+ adult human salivary gland progenitor cells in the three major salivary glands that could potentially differentiate into acinar cells (128). Emmerson et al. demonstrated that SOX2 was essential for salivary gland regeneration following a single dose of 10 Gy to the murine sublingual gland (128). Using an ex vivo model, SOX2+ cells could repopulate the irradiated murine sublingual gland. It is possible that the presence of senescent cells, as a consequence of radiation, can enhance the self-renewal potential of the remaining, nonsenescent salivary gland stem cells, like these SOX2+ progenitor cells (126). Several groups have also been utilizing induced pluripotent stem cells to establish salivary tissue for in vitro and in vivo modeling (129–131). These models appear to recapitulate the stem cell populations seen in the developing gland and may serve as important models for future translational research.

There are two populations of stem cells identified in the ductal regions of the gland that have demonstrated the ability to regenerate ductal tissue after radiation exposure; these populations are marked by cytokeratin 14 (KRT14) and Kit, respectively (132, 133). Both KRT14+ and Kit+ cells demonstrated the ability to regenerate salivary tissue through distinct mechanisms. KRT14+ cells are fast-cycling cells that maintain a K14+ cell population in granulated ducts under homeostasis and also expand in response to radiation or severe injury and divide to produce cells in the larger granulated ducts, Aqp5+ acinar cells, and Kit+ intercalated duct cells (132–135). KRT14+ cells are now considered to be a bona fide salivary stem cell marker, as researchers have demonstrated the capacity of KRT14+ cells to replenish injured glands on many occasions; however, most studies show that KRT14+ cells replenish cells in the ductal compartment and do not contribute to acinar regeneration (132, 134–136).

Early work in identifying these salivary stem cell types used 3D salispheres generated from murine SMGs to study the expansion of potential salivary gland stem cells. Lombaert et al. generated salispheres from murine SMG tissue, and within these populations they identified cells expressing the stem cell markers Sca-1, Kit, and Musashi-1 (137). They demonstrated histologically that the isolated spheres initially expressed mostly ductal marker and were eventually capable of producing mucins and amylase. These data indicate that the spheres they isolated were of ductal origin, and with time, differentiated into cells with an acinar phenotype. After characterization, the spheroids were transplanted into irradiated murine salivary glands and the group saw improvement in glandular structure and increased proliferation compared with controls. They used fluorescence-activatedcell sorting (FACS) to enrich for Kit+ stem cells to further characterize the salivary stem cells present in the spheroid cultures. Kit+ cells were then transplanted into the salivary glands of irradiated female mice, while controls received Kit– populations. After 90 days, transplantation of Kit+ cells resulted in glands showing a similar morphology to nonirradiated glands, including restored acinar cell populations and increased saliva production in 69% of animals (137). The Kit– transplantation only resulted in minor responses. This led researchers to investigate whether this Kit+ population of spheroids are responsible for acinar regeneration in damaged tissues. Nanduri et al. isolated Kit+ spheroids from mice and injected them into irradiated murine salivary glands, and this resulted in improved gland architecture and improved saliva production compared with controls. They continued to study these Kit+ spheres and the impact of spheres coexpressing other salivary stem cell markers like CD24 and CD49f on irradiated salivary tissues, with positive results (138, 139). This approach has also been used to isolate human Kit+ cells from salivary tissue and implant them in murine salivary glands; results demonstrated restoration of salivary gland function after irradiation in a xenotransplantation approach (140).

However, the identification of a Kit+ stem cell in the salivary gland has been disputed by other studies, including those from the Ghazizadeh group (135, 136). While this group also identified distinct Kit+ and KRT14+ cells in the salivary gland, they used lineage tracing studies to show that the KRT14+ population is the major source of regeneration (132, 135). A different study by Nanduri et al. also discovered that whether or not a spheroid is Kit+ is not critical to their effectiveness at regenerating tissue. They identified a population of CD24hiCD29hi spheroids that produced the best regenerative response to radiation regardless of Kit positivity, indicating this Kit+ cell population does not further enrich for stem cells (141). Kwak et al. concluded that Kit is not a reliable marker for salivary stem cells, and suggest that a better marker when considering clinical implications is KRT14 (136). Ninche et al. also identified KRT14+ cells as a reliable salivary stem cell marker (135). Interestingly, in their study, they demonstrated that acinar regeneration relies on methods independent of KRT14+ ductal stem cells. Their group found that in severe injury (ligation) models, KRT14+ cells contribute to generation of granular ductal cells, Kit+ intercalated duct cells, and Aqp5+ acinar cells. Using lineage tracing experiments, they showed that most of the acinar replenishment in the severe injury model is contributed by dedifferentiated KRT14+SMA+ myoepithelial cells. Upon injury, the myoepithelial cells transdifferentiate into a bipotent progenitor state capable of producing acinar cells and Kit+ intercalated duct cells. They also found that Kit+ intercalated duct cells are capable of transdifferentiation into a bipotent progenitor cell type as well, capable of producing both acinar cells and more Kit+ intercalated duct cells. These data indicate that Kit+ cells in the intercalated duct can act as a reservoir of acinar progenitors in the case of injury, but are not the main contributor (135). Despite the confounding opinions of what is and is not a salivary stem cell, these data suggest that the salivary gland maintains mechanisms capable of regeneration. Use of salivary organoids, and specifically stem cell–derived three-dimensional models, is being studied in an ongoing clinical trial, as an autologous source of transplantable material by a group in the Netherlands (140, 142).

We, and others, have utilized mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to improve salivary function after radiation (143–146). MSCs are most commonly isolated from adipose tissue or bone marrow. When injected into the irradiated salivary glands of mice, they improve salivary function (147–149). This approach is being tested in ongoing clinical studies run by several groups (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489732, NCT04776538, NCT03876197, NCT03874572, and NCT03743155). The MESRIX study conducted by Rigshospitalet in Denmark looked at the effects of injecting autologous adipose-derived MSCs, or MSC(A), into the SMGs of patients. In this blinded randomized controlled trial, HNC patients with xerostomia had MSC(A) isolated, expanded, and injected into the submandibular gland. The delivery of MSC(A) was shown to be safe and demonstrated a significant increase in salivary flow at one and four months. Compared with baseline, symptoms of xerostomia were significantly reduced, and there was increased serous tissue in the glands (143, 145, 150). The team conducting the MESRIX study then completed a trial investigating the safety of allogeneic MSC(A) (151), which led to their opening a randomized phase II study (MESRIX-III, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04776538) in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of injection of MSC(A) from healthy donors (allogeneic) in patients with HNC suffering from xerostomia (152). A multidisciplinary team at the University of Wisconsin recently published a pilot study demonstrating the safety of autologous marrow–derived MSCs, or MSC(M), in patients who were two or more years out from the completion of radiation or chemoradiation (146). They recently opened a phase I study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05820711) utilizing autologous MSC(M) to define a phase II dose of cells (153). The optimal source of MSCs (marrow, adipose, or other; allogeneic or autologous) remains to be defined.

An adjunct to injecting stem cell populations into damaged glands is to introduce biomaterials to support regeneration of damaged glands. Several labs are testing novel biomaterial approaches to engineer implantable tissue that exhibit the regenerative potential of isolated stem or progenitor cells (154). Others hope to regenerate salivary glands by using primary murine SMG cells to build cell sheets to repair damaged regions of the tissue (155). These stem cell–based therapies show preclinical and clinical promise and may represent the next major step in the treatment or prevention of RIX.

Pharmacological intervention.

In addition to gene therapy and stem cell therapy methods, many researchers are exploring pharmacological approaches to treat or prevent RIX. Minipigs receiving an injection of rapamycin, an inhibitor of mTOR signaling, one hour prior to radiotherapy had improved saliva flow rates 12 weeks following treatment (156). Another potential pharmacological intervention for salivary gland regeneration is the postirradiation delivery of ectodysplasin A receptor (EDAR)-agonist monoclonal antibodies. EDAR is a signaling molecule involved in salivary gland development. Transient activation of EDAR signaling after ionizing radiation (5 Gy) restored salivary gland function and amylase levels after 90 days in mice (157).

Regenerative treatments to restore salivary gland functions after radiation therapy require further investigation, but provide a promising outlook for relief and prevention of RIX symptoms.

Conclusions

Xerostomia is a serious cancer treatment–related toxicity that has long-term consequences for survivor’s quality of life. It represents a major unmet medical need given the poor efficacy of available treatments. The number of open and unreported clinical trials may suggest that investigated therapies have largely failed to produce beneficial results. Advances in the understanding of the molecular and immunologic mechanisms underlying the development of xerostomia following radiation and other cancer treatments may identify new approaches and therapeutic opportunities. Novel trials of cellular therapies in the last few years are beginning to demonstrate encouraging results (145, 146, 151), supporting the need for further investigation into these therapies. Continued investment in basic research, translational studies, and clinical trials is needed to help grow the field of salivary biology.

Patients with cancer therapy–induced xerostomia should have close follow-up with an oral health provider such as a dentist. More frequent oral health surveillance and implementation of oral hygiene strategies can be used to maintain a healthy mouth. Early management of dental caries and management or prevention of opportunistic oral infections can improve overall quality of life for patients after a cancer diagnosis (158).

The authors would like to thank James Zacny for editorial support in the preparation of this manuscript. The authors are supported in part by an Advanced Opportunity Fellowship (to CP), NIH grant F31 DE031180 (to CP), Wisconsin Head and Neck Cancer SPORE grant P50 CA278595 (to RJK), University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA014520 (to RJK), and NIH grant UG3 DE 030431 (to RJK). NGZ is supported by the American Cancer Society – Tri State CEOs Against Cancer Clinician Scientist Development Grant CSDG-20-013-01-CCE, Department of Defense (2020–present), and receives remuneration from the American College of Radiation Oncology for chart review and accreditation of radiation oncology facilities nationally (2020–present).

Version 1 09/03/2024

Electronic publication

Figure 1 Schematic of the various physiological roles saliva is critical in supporting.

Summary of saliva’s contributions to various physiological and behavioral functions. Changes in saliva production or the chemical makeup of saliva as seen in xerostomia can negatively affect all of these aspects of a patient’s life, decreasing overall quality of several facets of the patient’s life.

Figure 2 Salivary gland anatomy.

(A) Location of major salivary glands (yellow) in the human are displayed in two projections. The lower left inset shows the general glandular structure, depicting serous acini, mucinous acini, myoepithelial cells, and ducts. To the right of the inset, pie charts convey differences in the mucous and serous composition of the major salivary glands. (B) Minor salivary glands are widely dispersed throughout the oral cavity, as indicated by yellow regions. The inset represents the structure of minor salivary glands, which consist of single seromucinous acini draining directly into excretory ducts.

Figure 3 Effects of cancer therapies on the salivary glands.

(A) Acute and chronic responses to cancer treatment are associated with fibrosis and damage to salivary acini, including changes to endothelial and myoepithelial cells as well as serous and mucous epithelial cells. Recent studies have indicated a role for T cell activation and other indicated changes in immunotherapy-related salivary dysfunction, while macrophages have been shown to be involved in damage response following radiotherapy. (B) Timeline of known effects of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy on salivary glands. Solid bars represent approximate start and end time of indicated changes; a dashed bar indicates presumed changes. Gray wedge indicates the decline of overall incidence of these responses in patients over time. Effects of radiotherapy have been well described; however, few descriptions of mechanisms underlying chemotherapy or immunotherapy-driven changes have been described. Adapted from Jasmer et al. (20).

Table 2 Existing approaches to prevent and/or treat salivary dysfunction caused by cancer therapy, including side effects and efficacy

Table 1 Chemotherapy safety and efficacy trials and reporting of xerostomia-related adverse effects (AEs)

Conflict of interest: NGZ is an employee of Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center. GCB is an employee of the University of Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation. RJK is an employee of the University of Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation. His spouse is also an employee of the University of Wisconsin and the US Veterans Administration. RJK declares research funding to the University of Wisconsin in support of his lab from Merck and OncoHost Ltd that is unrelated to the work in this manuscript.

Copyright: © 2024, Paz et al. This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2024;134(17):e182661.https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI182661.
==== Refs
1 Guggenheimer J Moore PA Xerostomia: etiology, recognition and treatment J Am Dent Assoc 2003 134 1 61 69 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0018 12555958
2 Porter SR et al An update of the etiology and management of xerostomia Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004 97 1 28 46 10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.010 14716254
3 López-Pintor RM, et al. Xerostomia and hyposalivation. In: Hogue CM, Ruiz JG, eds. Oral Health and Aging. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022:85–108.
4 Drummond JR Chisholm DM A qualitative and quantitative study of the ageing human labial salivary glands Arch Oral Biol 1984 29 2 151 155 10.1016/0003-9969(84)90120-1 6586119
5 Li N et al Alterations in histology of the aging salivary gland and correlation with the glandular inflammatory microenvironment iScience 2023 26 5 106571 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106571 37124415
6 McCoy SS et al A comprehensive overview of living with Sjögren’s: results of a National Sjögren’s Foundation survey Clin Rheumatol 2022 41 7 2071 2078 10.1007/s10067-022-06119-w 35257256
7 Soto AP Meyer SL Oral implications of polypharmacy in older adults Clin Geriatr Med 2023 39 2 273 293 10.1016/j.cger.2023.01.008 37045533
8 Paşahan R et al Dry mouth caused by facial nerve ischemia due to subarachnoid hemorrhage: an experimental study World Neurosurg 2021 154 e488 e494 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.07.072 34311137
9 Jensen SB et al A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: prevalence, severity and impact on quality of life Support Care Cancer 2010 18 8 1039 1060 10.1007/s00520-010-0827-8 20237805
10 Jensen SB et al Salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia in head and neck radiation patients J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2019 2019 53 lgz016 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgz016 31425600
11 Xu Y et al Oral side effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICIT): An analysis of 4683 patients receiving ICIT for malignancies at Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 2011 to 2019 Cancer 2021 127 11 1796 1804 10.1002/cncr.33436 33595843
12 Harris JA et al An overview of clinical oncology and impact on oral health Front Oral Health 2022 3 874332 10.3389/froh.2022.874332 35548170
13 Al-Eryani K et al Orofacial complications from immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective analysis from two academic medical centers Head Neck 2024 46 8 1865 1872 10.1002/hed.27646 38258988
14 Bulthuis MS et al Subjective oral dryness following haematopoietic cell transplantation: a report from the Orastem study Transplant Cell Ther 2024 30 4 446.e1 446.e11 10.1016/j.jtct.2024.01.067 38320730
15 Nathan C-AO et al Current management of xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients Am J Otolaryngol 2023 44 4 103867 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103867 36996514
16 Pedersen AML et al Salivary secretion in health and disease J Oral Rehabil 2018 45 9 730 746 10.1111/joor.12664 29878444
17 Alhajj M, Babos M. Physiology, salivation. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024:NBK542251.
18 Atkinson JC Baum BJ Salivary enhancement: current status and future therapies J Dent Educ 2001 65 10 1096 1101 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.10.tb03455.x 11699983
19 do Nascimento ML et al Impact of xerostomia on the quality of life of patients submitted to head and neck radiotherapy Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019 24 6 e770 e775 10.4317/medoral.23131 31655838
20 Jasmer KJ et al Radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction: mechanisms, therapeutics and future directions J Clin Med 2020 9 12 4095 10.3390/jcm9124095 33353023
21 Kapourani A et al A review on the role of pilocarpine on the management of xerostomia and the importance of the topical administration systems development Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2022 15 6 762 10.3390/ph15060762 35745681
22 Spirk C et al Comprehensive investigation of saliva replacement liquids for the treatment of xerostomia Int J Pharm 2019 571 118759 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.118759 31622744
23 Valstar MH et al The tubarial salivary glands: a potential new organ at risk for radiotherapy Radiother Oncol 2021 154 292 298 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.034 32976871
24 NB P et al Discovery of new salivary gland — a substantial histological analysis Radiother Oncol 2021 161 92 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.06.004 34119589
25 Pringle S et al Immunohistological profiling confirms salivary gland-like nature of the tubarial glands and suggests closest resemblance to the palatal salivary glands Radiother Oncol 2023 187 109845 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109845 37543053
26 Almståhl A et al Lactoferrin, amylase and mucin MUC5B and their relation to the oral microflora in hyposalivation of different origins Oral Microbiol Immunol 2001 16 6 345 352 10.1034/j.1399-302X.2001.160605.x 11737657
27 des Gachons CP Breslin PAS Salivary amylase: digestion and metabolic syndrome Curr Diab Rep 2016 16 10 102 10.1007/s11892-016-0794-7 27640169
28 Dijkema T et al MUC5B levels in submandibular gland saliva of patients treated with radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: a pilot study Radiat Oncol 2012 7 1 91 10.1186/1748-717X-7-91 22704532
29 Tabak LA In defense of the oral cavity: structure, biosynthesis, and function of salivary mucins Annu Rev Physiol 1995 57 1 547 564 10.1146/annurev.ph.57.030195.002555 7778877
30 Amerongen AVN et al Salivary mucins: protective functions in relation to their diversity Glycobiology 1995 5 8 733 740 10.1093/glycob/5.8.733 8720071
31 Proctor GB The physiology of salivary secretion Periodontol 2000 2016 70 1 11 25 10.1111/prd.12116 26662479
32 Ghannam MG, Singh P. Anatomy, head and neck, salivary glands. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024:NBK538325.
33 Punj A. Secretions of human salivary gland. IntechOpen; 2019. 10.5772/intechopen.75538
34 Spielman AI et al Protein analysis of human von Ebner saliva and a method for its collection from the foliate papillae J Dent Res 1993 72 9 1331 1335 10.1177/00220345930720091301 7689601
35 Korsrud F Brandtzaeg P Characterization of epithelial elements in human major salivary glands by functional markers: localization of amylase, lactoferrin, lysozyme, secretory component, and secretory immunoglobulins by paired immunofluorescence staining J Histochem Cytochem 1982 30 7 657 666 10.1177/30.7.6179983 6179983
36 Knaś M et al Salivary: flow and proteins of the innate and adaptive immunity in the limited and diffused systemic sclerosis J Oral Pathol Med 2014 43 7 521 529 10.1111/jop.12166 25184163
37 Moslemi M et al Relationship of salivary lactoferrin and lysozyme concentrations with early childhood caries J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2015 9 2 109 114 10.15171/joddd.2015.022 26236438
38 Kell DB et al The biology of lactoferrin, an iron-binding protein that can help defend against viruses and bacteria Front Immunol 2020 11 1221 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01221 32574271
39 Modéer T Human saliva kallikrein. Biological properties of saliva kallikrein isolated by use of affinity chromatography Acta Odontol Scand 1977 35 1 23 29 10.3109/00016357709055987 265674
40 Proctor GB, Carpenter GH. Salivary secretion: mechanism and neural regulation. In: Ligtenberg AJM, Veerman ECI, eds. Monographs in Oral Science. Karger AG; 2014:14–29.
41 Inoue H et al Gender difference in unstimulated whole saliva flow rate and salivary gland sizes Arch Oral Biol 2006 51 12 1055 1060 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2006.06.010 16919593
42 Nakamura T et al M(3) muscarinic acetylcholine receptor plays a critical role in parasympathetic control of salivation in mice J Physiol 2004 558 pt 2 561 575 10.1113/jphysiol.2004.064626 15146045
43 Proctor GB Muscarinic receptors and salivary secretion J Appl Physiol (1985) 2006 100 4 1103 1104 10.1152/japplphysiol.01546.2005 16540706
44 Chitra S Devi CS Effects of radiation and alpha-tocopherol on saliva flow rate, amylase activity, total protein and electrolyte levels in oral cavity cancer Indian J Dent Res 2008 19 3 213 218 10.4103/0970-9290.42953 18797097
45 Sim C et al Xerostomia, salivary characteristics and gland volumes following intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a two-year follow up Aust Dent J 2018 63 2 217 223 10.1111/adj.12608 29569726
46 Marsh PD et al Influence of saliva on the oral microbiota Periodontol 2000 2016 70 1 80 92 10.1111/prd.12098 26662484
47 Almståhl A et al Microflora in oral ecosystems in subjects with radiation-induced hyposalivation Oral Dis 2008 14 6 541 549 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2007.01416.x 18208474
48 Almståhl A et al Explorative study on mucosal and major salivary secretion rates, caries and plaque microflora in head and neck cancer patients Int J Dent Hyg 2018 16 4 450 458 10.1111/idh.12338 29532594
49 Kumpitsch C et al Preliminary insights into the impact of primary radiochemotherapy on the salivary microbiome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma Sci Rep 2020 10 1 16582 10.1038/s41598-020-73515-0 33024215
50 Blitzer GC et al Quantification of very late xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients after irradiation Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2022 7 4 1018 1024 10.1002/lio2.864 36000048
51 Chen A et al The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M. D. Anderson dysphagia inventory Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001 127 7 870 876 11448365
52 Henson BS et al Preserved salivary output and xerostomia-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients receiving parotid-sparing radiotherapy Oral Oncol 2001 37 1 84 93 10.1016/S1368-8375(00)00063-4 11120488
53 Ilie G et al The role of response-shift in studies assessing quality of life outcomes among cancer patients: a systematic review Front Oncol 2019 9 783 10.3389/fonc.2019.00783 31482068
54 Navazesh M et al Measuring salivary flow: challenges and opportunities J Am Dent Assoc 2008 139 Suppl 35S 40S 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0353 18460678
55 Alterio D et al Modern radiotherapy for head and neck cancer Semin Oncol 2019 46 3 233 245 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.07.002 31378376
56 Funegård U et al Parotid saliva composition during and after irradiation of head and neck cancer Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol 1994 30B 4 230 233 10.1016/0964-1955(94)90002-7 7524881
57 Makkonen TA et al Changes in the protein composition of whole saliva during radiotherapy in patients with oral or pharyngeal cancer Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986 62 3 270 275 10.1016/0030-4220(86)90007-1 2427987
58 Navazesh M Christensen CM A comparison of whole mouth resting and stimulated salivary measurement procedures J Dent Res 1982 61 10 1158 1162 10.1177/00220345820610100901 6956596
59 Greenspan D Xerostomia: diagnosis and management Oncology (Williston Park) 1996 10 3 suppl 7 11 8723427
60 Mercadante V et al Salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia induced by nonsurgical cancer therapies: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO Guideline J Clin Oncol 2021 39 25 2825 2843 10.1200/JCO.21.01208 34283635
61 Mantsopoulos K et al Applicability of shear wave elastography of the major salivary glands: values in healthy patients and effects of gender, smoking and pre-compression Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 9 2310 2318 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.04.015 26022793
62 Kałużny J et al Shear wave elastography: a new noninvasive tool to assess the intensity of fibrosis of irradiated salivary glands in head and neck cancer patients Biomed Res Int 2014 2014 157809 10.1155/2014/157809 25202703
63 Cindil E et al Ultrasound elastography in assessment of salivary glands involvement in primary Sjögren’s syndrome Clin Imaging 2018 50 229 234 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.04.011 29689477
64 Ermongkonchai T et al A review of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in head and neck cancer patients for treatment evaluation and prediction of radiation-induced xerostomia Radiat Oncol 2023 18 1 20 10.1186/s13014-022-02178-0 36710364
65 Cho A et al Correlations of MR sialographic gradings with the clinical measures of Sjögren’s syndrome Laryngoscope 2023 133 2 307 316 10.1002/lary.30150 35546506
66 Chen YC et al Recent advances in salivary scintigraphic evaluation of salivary gland function Diagnostics (Basel) 2021 11 7 1173 10.3390/diagnostics11071173 34203365
67 Maruoka Y et al A functional scoring system based on salivary gland scintigraphy for evaluating salivary gland dysfunction secondary to 131I therapy in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma J Clin Diagn Res 2017 11 8 TC23 TC28 10.7860/JCDR/2017/27340.10431 28969240
68 Mohan V et al Dose response modelling of secretory cell loss in salivary glands using PSMA PET Radiother Oncol 2022 177 164 171 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.038 36368471
69 Triantafyllias K et al Diagnostic value of labial minor salivary gland biopsy: histological findings of a large sicca cohort and clinical associations Diagnostics (Basel) 2023 13 19 3117 10.3390/diagnostics13193117 37835860
70 de Castro G Federico MHH Evaluation, prevention and management of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients Curr Opin Oncol 2006 18 3 266 270 10.1097/01.cco.0000219256.37843.83 16552239
71 Sánchez-Guerrero J et al The wafer test: a semi-quantitative test to screen for xerostomia Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002 41 4 381 389 10.1093/rheumatology/41.4.381 11961167
72 Wilberg P et al Chemotherapy-associated oral sequelae in patients with cancers outside the head and neck region J Pain Symptom Manage 2014 48 6 1060 1069 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.02.009 24751438
73 Jensen SB et al A systematic review of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by cancer therapies: management strategies and economic impact Support Care Cancer 2010 18 8 1061 1079 10.1007/s00520-010-0837-6 20333412
74 Wickham RS et al Taste changes experienced by patients receiving chemotherapy Oncol Nurs Forum 1999 26 4 697 706 10337648
75 Avşar A et al Long-term effects of chemotherapy on caries formation, dental development, and salivary factors in childhood cancer survivors Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007 104 6 781 789 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.02.029 17618135
76 Meurman JH et al Five-year follow-up of saliva in patients treated for lymphomas Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997 83 4 447 452 10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90143-8 9127375
77 Blomgren J et al Secretion rate from minor salivary glands in patients with malignant haematological diseases receiving chemotherapy--a pilot study Swed Dent J 2002 26 2 75 80 12462875
78 Hong CH et al Incidence of acute oral sequelae in pediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy Pediatr Dent 2009 31 5 420 425 19947138
79 Bulthuis MS et al The effect of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation on patient-reported subjective oral dryness: a systematic review focusing on prevalence, severity and distress Support Care Cancer 2023 31 8 449 10.1007/s00520-023-07921-1 37421511
80 Cappelli LC et al Rheumatic and musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events due to immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review of the literature Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2017 69 11 1751 1763 10.1002/acr.23177 27998041
81 Warner BM et al Sicca syndrome associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy Oncologist 2019 24 9 1259 1269 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0823 30996010
82 Schulz TU et al Persistent immune-related adverse events after cessation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy: Prevalence and impact on patients’ health-related quality of life Eur J Cancer 2022 176 88 99 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.08.029 36198246
83 Ramos-Casals M et al Sicca/Sjögren’s syndrome triggered by PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. Data from the International ImmunoCancer Registry (ICIR) Clin Exp Rheumatol 2019 37 Suppl 118 3 114 122 31464670
84 Dijkema T et al Parotid gland function after radiotherapy: the combined michigan and utrecht experience Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010 78 2 449 453 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1708 20056347
85 Little M et al Reducing xerostomia after chemo-IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: beyond sparing the parotid glands Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012 83 3 1007 1014 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.004 22056067
86 Hawkins PG et al Sparing all salivary glands with IMRT for head and neck cancer: Longitudinal study of patient-reported xerostomia and head-and-neck quality of life Radiother Oncol 2018 126 1 68 74 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.002 28823405
87 Ma J et al Mucins, mucus, and goblet cells Chest 2018 154 1 169 176 10.1016/j.chest.2017.11.008 29170036
88 Baudelet M et al Very late xerostomia, dysphagia, and neck fibrosis after head and neck radiotherapy Head Neck 2019 41 10 3594 3603 10.1002/hed.25880 31329343
89 Wijers OB et al Patients with head and neck cancer cured by radiation therapy: a survey of the dry mouth syndrome in long-term survivors Head Neck 2002 24 8 737 747 10.1002/hed.10129 12203798
90 Agarwal JP et al Radiation-induced xerostomia Int J Head Neck Surg 2012 3 2 82 86 10.5005/jp-journals-10001-1100 16906511
91 Gillison ML et al Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial Lancet 2019 393 10166 40 50 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32779-X 30449625
92 Nutting CM et al Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol 2011 12 2 127 136 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4 21236730
93 Li Y et al The impact of dose on parotid salivary recovery in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007 67 3 660 669 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.021 17141973
94 Gupta T et al Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: long-term and mature outcomes of a prospective randomized trial Radiat Oncol 2020 15 1 218 10.1186/s13014-020-01666-5 32938468
95 Ballal S et al Long-term survival outcomes of salvage [225Ac]Ac-PSMA-617 targeted alpha therapy in patients with PSMA-expressing end-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a real-world study [225Ac]Ac-PSMA-617 targeted alpha therapy in patients with PSMA-expressing end-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a real-world study Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023 50 12 3777 3789 10.1007/s00259-023-06340-y 37462775
96 Parida GK et al Efficacy and safety of Ac-225 PSMA radio ligand therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. A systematic review and metanalysis Med Princ Pract 2023 32 3 178 191 10.1159/000531246 37247612
97 Langbein T et al Salivary gland toxicity of PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA and combined 225Ac- and 177Lu-labeled PSMA Ligands (TANDEM-PRLT) in advanced prostate cancer: a single-center systematic investigation Diagnostics (Basel) 2022 12 8 1926 10.3390/diagnostics12081926 36010276
98 Feuerecker B et al Activity and adverse events of actinium-225-PSMA-617 in advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after failure of lutetium-177-PSMA Eur Urol 2021 79 3 343 350 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.013 33293081
99 Sartor O et al Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2021 385 12 1091 1103 10.1056/NEJMoa2107322 34161051
100 Khreish F et al 177 Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Initial 254-patient results from a prospective registry (REALITY Study) Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022 49 3 1075 1085 10.1007/s00259-021-05525-7 34494131
101 Derlin T et al 177Lu-PSMA for extended treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer J Nucl Med 2023 64 1 54 10.2967/jnumed.122.264293 35835580
102 Guchelaar HJ et al Radiation-induced xerostomia: pathophysiology, clinical course and supportive treatment Support Care Cancer 1997 5 4 281 288 10.1007/s005200050075 9257424
103 Abok K et al Morphologic and histochemical studies on the differing radiosensitivity of ductular and acinar cells of the rat submandibular gland Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol 1984 45 4 443 460 10.1007/BF02889885 6145251
104 Dirix P et al Radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer: a literature review Cancer 2006 107 11 2525 2534 10.1002/cncr.22302 17078052
105 Grundmann O et al Sensitivity of salivary glands to radiation: from animal models to therapies J Dent Res 2009 88 10 894 903 10.1177/0022034509343143 19783796
106 Winter C et al Investigation of changes in saliva in radiotherapy-induced head neck cancer patients Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021 18 4 1629 10.3390/ijerph18041629 33572065
107 Konings AWT et al On the mechanism of salivary gland radiosensitivity Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005 62 4 1187 1194 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.12.051 15990024
108 Knox SM et al Parasympathetic stimulation improves epithelial organ regeneration Nat Commun 2013 4 1494 10.1038/ncomms2493 23422662
109 Ferreira JNA et al Neurturin gene therapy protects parasympathetic function to prevent irradiation-induced murine salivary gland hypofunction Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 2018 9 172 180 10.1016/j.omtm.2018.02.008 29560384
110 McKendrick JG et al CSF1R-dependent macrophages in the salivary gland are essential for epithelial regeneration after radiation-induced injury Sci Immunol 2023 8 89 eadd4374 10.1126/sciimmunol.add4374 37922341
111 Eisbruch A et al Dose, volume, and function relationships in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity-modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999 45 3 577 587 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00247-3 10524409
112 Ma SJ et al Long-term outcomes of interventions for radiation-induced xerostomia: A review World J Clin Oncol 2019 10 1 1 13 10.5306/wjco.v10.i1.1 30627521
113 Jha N et al Submandibular salivary gland transfer prevents radiation-induced xerostomia Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000 46 1 7 11 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00460-5 10656365
114 Kutuk T et al Submandibular gland transfer for the prevention of radiation induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer — dosimetric impact with intensity modulated radiotherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021 111 3 e404 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1167 34560024
115 Rieger J et al Submandibular gland transfer for prevention of xerostomia after radiation therapy: swallowing outcomes Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005 131 2 140 145 10.1001/archotol.131.2.140 15723946
116 Jha N et al Prevention of radiation induced xerostomia by surgical transfer of submandibular salivary gland into the submental space Radiother Oncol 2003 66 3 283 289 10.1016/S0167-8140(03)00023-9 12742268
117 Jha N et al A phase II study of submandibular gland transfer prior to radiation for prevention of radiation-induced xerostomia in head-and-neck cancer (RTOG 0244) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012 84 2 437 442 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.034 22541957
118 Garcia MK et al Effect of true and sham acupuncture on radiation-induced xerostomia among patients with head and neck cancer: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Netw Open 2019 2 12 e1916910 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16910 31808921
119 Sherlock S et al Hyperbaric oxygen treatment for the management of radiation-induced xerostomia J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018 62 6 841 846 10.1111/1754-9485.12789 30113763
120 Akamatsu T et al Expression and localization of aquaporins, members of the water channel family, during development of the rat submandibular gland Pflugers Arch 2003 446 6 641 651 10.1007/s00424-003-1109-9 12838423
121 Wang Z et al Artificial induction of native aquaporin-1 expression in human salivary cells J Dent Res 2017 96 4 444 449 10.1177/0022034516685045 28072927
122 Smith E et al Reduced aquaporin-1 transcript expression in colorectal carcinoma is associated with promoter hypermethylation Epigenetics 2019 14 2 158 170 10.1080/15592294.2019.1580112 30739527
123 Baum BJ et al Aquaporin-1 gene transfer to correct radiation-induced salivary hypofunction Handb Exp Pharmacol 2009 190 403 418 10.1007/978-3-540-79885-9_20 19096789
124 Gao R et al AAV2-mediated transfer of the human aquaporin 1 cDNA restores fluid secretion from irradiated miniature pig parotid glands Gene Ther 2011 18 1 38 42 10.1038/gt.2010.128 20882054
125 Alevizos I et al Late responses to adenoviral-mediated transfer of the aquaporin-1 gene for radiation-induced salivary hypofunction Gene Ther 2017 24 3 176 186 10.1038/gt.2016.87 27996967
126 Peng X et al Cellular senescence contributes to radiation-induced hyposalivation by affecting the stem/progenitor cell niche Cell Death Dis 2020 11 10 854 10.1038/s41419-020-03074-9 33056980
127 Steenbakkers R et al Stem cell sparing IMRT for head and neck cancer patients: a double-blind randomized controlled trial Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019 105 1 S16 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.411 31422807
128 Emmerson E et al Salivary glands regenerate after radiation injury through SOX2-mediated secretory cell replacement EMBO Mol Med 2018 10 3 e8051 10.15252/emmm.201708051 29335337
129 Zhang S et al Retinoic acid and FGF10 promote the differentiation of pluripotent stem cells into salivary gland placodes Stem Cell Res Ther 2022 13 1 368 10.1186/s13287-022-03033-5 35902913
130 Tanaka J et al Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived salivary gland organoids model SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication Nat Cell Biol 2022 24 11 1595 1605 10.1038/s41556-022-01007-6 36253535
131 Zhang S et al Derivation of human salivary epithelial progenitors from pluripotent stem cells via activation of RA and Wnt signaling Stem Cell Rev Rep 2023 19 2 430 442 10.1007/s12015-022-10431-y 35948781
132 Kwak M et al Identification of stem cells in the secretory complex of salivary glands J Dent Res 2016 95 7 776 783 10.1177/0022034516634664 26936214
133 May AJ et al Diverse progenitor cells preserve salivary gland ductal architecture after radiation-induced damage Development 2018 145 21 dev166363 10.1242/dev.166363 30305288
134 Zhang X et al IFT140+/K14+ cells function as stem/progenitor cells in salivary glands Int J Oral Sci 2022 14 1 49 10.1038/s41368-022-00200-5 36216809
135 Ninche N et al Diverse epithelial cell populations contribute to the regeneration of secretory units in injured salivary glands Development 2020 147 19 dev192807 10.1242/dev.192807 32994165
136 Kwak M et al c-Kit+ cells in adult salivary glands do not function as tissue stem cells Sci Rep 2018 8 1 14193 10.1038/s41598-018-32557-1 30242278
137 Lombaert IMA et al Rescue of salivary gland function after stem cell transplantation in irradiated glands PLoS One 2008 3 4 e2063 10.1371/journal.pone.0002063 18446241
138 Nanduri LSY et al Regeneration of irradiated salivary glands with stem cell marker expressing cells Radiother Oncol 2011 99 3 367 372 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.085 21719134
139 Nanduri LSY et al Salisphere derived c-Kit+ cell transplantation restores tissue homeostasis in irradiated salivary gland Radiother Oncol 2013 108 3 458 463 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.020 23769181
140 Pringle S et al Human salivary gland stem cells functionally restore radiation damaged salivary glands Stem Cells 2016 34 3 640 652 10.1002/stem.2278 26887347
141 Nanduri LSY et al Purification and ex vivo expansion of fully functional salivary gland stem cells Stem Cell Reports 2014 3 6 957 964 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.09.015 25448065
142 Zanten J van et al Optimization of the production process of clinical-grade human salivary gland organoid-derived cell therapy for the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer Pharmaceutics 2024 16 3 435 10.3390/pharmaceutics16030435 38543329
143 Grønhøj C et al Safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for radiation-induced xerostomia: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 trial (MESRIX) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018 101 3 581 592 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.034 29678523
144 Jakobsen KK et al A single-centre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II study to investigate the safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell for radiation-induced hyposalivation and xerostomia in previous head and neck cancer patients (MESRIX-III) Trials 2023 24 1 567 10.1186/s13063-023-07594-5 37658468
145 Lynggaard CD et al Long-term safety of treatment with autologous mesenchymal stem cells in patients with radiation-induced xerostomia: primary results of the MESRIX phase I/II randomized trial Clin Cancer Res 2022 28 13 2890 2897 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4520 35486613
146 Blitzer GC et al Marrow-Derived Autologous Stromal Cells for the Restoration of Salivary Hypofunction (MARSH): A pilot, first-in-human study of interferon gamma-stimulated marrow mesenchymal stromal cells for treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia Cytotherapy 2023 25 11 1139 1144 10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.07.009 37589639
147 Lim JY et al Intraglandular transplantation of bone marrow-derived clonal mesenchymal stem cells for amelioration of post-irradiation salivary gland damage Oral Oncol 2013 49 2 136 143 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.08.010 22981389
148 Kojima T et al Regeneration of radiation damaged salivary glands with adipose-derived stromal cells Laryngoscope 2011 121 9 1864 1869 10.1002/lary.22080 21748735
149 Lin CY et al Cell therapy for salivary gland regeneration J Dent Res 2011 90 3 341 346 10.1177/0022034510386374 21297017
150 Grønhøj C et al First-in-man mesenchymal stem cells for radiation-induced xerostomia (MESRIX): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Trials 2017 18 1 108 10.1186/s13063-017-1856-0 28270226
151 Lynggaard CD et al Intraglandular off-the-shelf allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell treatment in patients with radiation-induced xerostomia: a safety study (MESRIX-II) Stem Cells Transl Med 2022 11 5 478 489 10.1093/stcltm/szac011 35435231
152 Jakobsen KK et al Effectiveness and safety of mesenchymal stem/stromal cell for radiation-induced hyposalivation and xerostomia in previous head and neck cancer patients (MESRIX-III): a study protocol for a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II study Trials 2023 24 1 567 10.1186/s13063-023-07594-5 37658468
153 Blitzer GC et al Marrow-Derived Autologous Stromal Cells for the Restoration of Salivary Hypofunction (MARSH): Study protocol for a phase 1 dose-escalation trial of patients with xerostomia after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: MARSH: Marrow-Derived Autologous Stromal Cells for the Restoration of Salivary Hypofunction Cytotherapy 2022 24 5 534 543 10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.11.003 35183442
154 Ozdemir T et al Biomaterials-based strategies for salivary gland tissue regeneration Biomater Sci 2016 4 4 592 604 10.1039/C5BM00358J 26878077
155 Nam K et al Using cell sheets to regenerate mouse submandibular glands NPJ Regen Med 2019 4 16 10.1038/s41536-019-0078-3 31285850
156 Zhu Z et al Prevention of irradiation-induced salivary hypofunction by rapamycin in swine parotid glands Oncotarget 2016 7 15 20271 20281 10.18632/oncotarget.7941 26958808
157 Hill G et al Pharmacological activation of the EDA/EDAR signaling pathway restores salivary gland function following radiation-induced damage PLoS One 2014 9 11 e112840 10.1371/journal.pone.0112840 25409170
158 Pinna R et al Xerostomia induced by radiotherapy: an overview of the physiopathology, clinical evidence, and management of the oral damage Ther Clin Risk Manag 2015 11 171 188 10.2147/TCRM.S70652 25691810
159 Stupp R et al Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma N Engl J Med 2005 352 10 987 996 10.1056/NEJMoa043330 15758009
160 van den Bent MJ et al Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON; EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol 2021 22 6 813 823 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00090-5 34000245
161 Schmid P et al Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer N Engl J Med 2020 382 9 810 821 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549 32101663
162 Masuda N et al Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy N Engl J Med 2017 376 22 2147 2159 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645 28564564
163 Antonia SJ et al Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2017 377 20 1919 1929 10.1056/NEJMoa1709937 28885881
164 Forde PM et al Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer N Engl J Med 2022 386 21 1973 1985 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 35403841
165 Bradley JD et al Long-term results of NRG oncology RTOG 0617: standard- versus high-dose chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 2020 38 7 706 714 10.1200/JCO.19.01162 31841363
166 André MPE et al Early positron emission tomography response-adapted treatment in stage I and II Hodgkin Lymphoma: final results of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial J Clin Oncol 2017 35 16 1786 1794 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.6394 28291393
167 Engert A et al Reduced treatment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma N Engl J Med 2010 363 7 640 652 10.1056/NEJMoa1000067 20818855
168 James ND et al Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer N Engl J Med 2012 366 16 1477 1488 10.1056/NEJMoa1106106 22512481
169 Oliver RTD et al Radiotherapy versus single-dose carboplatin in adjuvant treatment of stage I seminoma: a randomised trial Lancet 2005 366 9482 293 300 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66984-X 16039331
170 Al-Batran SE et al Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4) a randomised, phase 2/3 trial Lancet 2019 393 10184 1948 1957 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1 30982686
171 UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial Working Party Lancet 1996 348 9034 1049 1054 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03409-5 8874455
172 Conroy T et al Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2021 22 5 702 715 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00079-6 33862000
173 Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group et al Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer N Engl J Med 1991 324 24 1685 1690 10.1056/NEJM199106133242402 2034244
174 Bernier J et al Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer N Engl J Med 2004 350 19 1945 1952 10.1056/NEJMoa032641 15128894
175 Cooper JS et al Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck N Engl J Med 2004 350 19 1937 1944 10.1056/NEJMoa032646 15128893
176 de Boer SM et al Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2018 19 3 295 309 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30079-2 29449189
177 Alves LDB et al Benefits of intraoral stents in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy: Systematic review Head Neck 2021 43 5 1652 1663 10.1002/hed.26620 33527582
178 Singh A et al Intraoral radiation stents-Primer for clinical use in head and neck cancer therapy Head Neck 2021 43 12 4010 4017 10.1002/hed.26848 34480818
179 Patni N et al The role of amifostine in prophylaxis of radiotherapy induced mucositis and xerostomia in head and neck cancer J Clin Oncol 2004 22 14_suppl 5568 10.1200/jco.2004.22.90140.5568 15295847
180 National Library of Medicine. Amifostine Injection: MedlinePlus Drug Information. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a696014.html Updated December 15, 2012. Accessed July 3, 2024
181 King M et al Use of amifostine for cytoprotection during radiation therapy: A Review Oncology 2019 98 2 61 80 10.1159/000502979 31846959
182 Panarese V, Moshirfar M. Pilocarpine. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2020:NBK556128.
183 Noaiseh G et al Comparison of the discontinuation rates and side-effect profiles of pilocarpine and cevimeline for xerostomia in primary Sjögren’s syndrome Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014 32 4 575 577 25065774
184 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Dry Mouth. https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/dry-mouth Updated June 2024. Accessed January 24, 2024
185 Drugs.com. XyliMelts Uses, Side Effects & Warnings. https://www.drugs.com/mtm/xylimelts.html Updated August 1, 2023. Accessed July 3, 2024
186 Garcia MK et al Systematic review of acupuncture in cancer care: a synthesis of the evidence J Clin Oncol 2013 31 7 952 960 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.5818 23341529
187 NHS. Acupuncture. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/acupuncture/ Updated February 28, 2023. Accessed July 3, 2024
188 MD Anderson Cancer Center. Acupuncture Reduces Radiation-Induced Dry Mouth for Cancer Patients. https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/acupuncture-reduces-radiation-induced-dry-mouth-for-cancer-patients.h00-159308568.html Updated December 6, 2019. Accessed July 3, 2024
189 Medicare. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Coverage. https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy Accessed January 30, 2024
190 Johns Hopkins Medicine. Complications of Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/complications-of-hyperbaric-oxygen-treatment Accessed July 3, 2024
191 Salimi F et al Trans-cutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to treat dry mouth (xerostomia) following radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. A systematic review Ann Med Surg (lond) 2021 63 102146 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.01.094 33664943
192 RxList. Artificial Saliva: Side Effects, Uses, Dosage, Interactions, Warnings. https://www.rxlist.com/artificial_saliva/generic-drug.htm Accessed July 3, 2024
193 Talha B, Swarnkar SA. Xerostomia. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024:NBK545287.
