Skip to main content
Download PDF

Xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review of clinical features and complications

BMC Palliative Care volume 22, Article number: 178 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this project was to review the literature on dry mouth / xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer, with the objectives being to determine its prevalence, clinical features, and complications.

Methods

Standard methodology was used to conduct this scoping review. Detailed searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases were conducted to identify relevant studies: eligible studies had to include patients with advanced cancer, and to contain details of clinical features and/or complications of xerostomia. Commercial bibliographic / systematic review software was used to support the process.

Results

Forty-three studies were discovered from the database and hand searches. The studies included 23 generic symptom studies, eight “symptom cluster” studies, nine oral symptom / problem studies, and three xerostomia-specific studies. In depth data is described on the clinical features and complications of xerostomia, and on the “symptom clusters” including xerostomia, in this cohort of patients.

Conclusion

This review discovered a relatively small number of focused studies (involving a similarly small number of patients). Nonetheless, it demonstrates that xerostomia is a very common problem in patients with advanced cancer and is often associated with significant morbidity (and impairment of quality of life).

Peer Review reports

Background

Xerostomia is defined as “the subjective sensation of dryness of the mouth” [1]. Xerostomia is usually the result of a decrease in the volume of saliva secreted (i.e. resting / unstimulated whole salivary flow rather than stimulated whole salivary flow) [2]. Indeed, normal subjects complain of a dry mouth when their unstimulated whole salivary flow rate falls by 50% [3]. However, xerostomia may also result from a change in the composition of the saliva secreted [4].

Xerostomia is relatively common in the general population. For example, Nederfors et al. [5] estimated an overall prevalence of 21.3% in Swedish adult males, and 27.3% in Swedish adult females: this difference was statistically significant. Other factors associated with xerostomia in this study were age (higher prevalence in older persons), and pharmacotherapy (higher prevalence in persons taking medication, and especially multiple medications). Indeed, medications are the most common cause of xerostomia in the general population [6].

Xerostomia is common in patients with acute / chronic medical conditions [7], and is especially common in patients with cancer. Xerostomia may occur at diagnosis, during anticancer treatment [8], at disease progression, and into cancer survivorship [9]. There are a number of potential causes of xerostomia in patients with cancer, including direct effects of the cancer, indirect effects of the cancer (i.e. paraneoplastic syndrome), adverse effects of anticancer treatments, adverse effects of supportive care measures, and co-morbidities (and their management) [10].

Xerostomia is considered an “orphan symptom” [11], which are defined as “generally prevalent symptoms that are unaddressed in clinical practice, yet often not reported by the patients or by healthcare professionals” [12]. The aim of this review is to appraise the published literature on xerostomia (rather than salivary gland hypofunction) in patients with advanced cancer, with the specific objectives being to determine its prevalence, clinical features (i.e. subjective, objective), and complications (i.e. physical, psycho-social).

Methods

The methodology utilised in this review was based on the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley [13], but incorporating updated guidance on this framework [14]. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to report the outcome of this review [15].

Search strategy

Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo) were originally searched in October 2022, and re-searched in January 2023 (to check for any new references). A detailed search strategy was developed for Medline (Appendix 1), and adapted as needed for the other databases. Non-English studies were excluded from the review.

Study eligibility criteria

Studies needed to include patients with advanced cancer, as defined by the National Cancer Institute / NCI, USA [16]: “Cancer that is unlikely to be cured or controlled with treatment. The cancer may have spread from where it first started to nearby tissue, lymph nodes, or distant parts of the body”. Studies which included mixed groups of patients were excluded, unless results for the patients with advanced cancer were separately reported. Studies which focussed on patients with advanced head and neck cancer, and studies that focussed on cancer patients receiving anticancer treatment were excluded. Studies needed to include details of clinical features and/or complications of xerostomia. Studies involving children (< 19 yr) were excluded. Case reports, review articles, and other records without original information were also excluded.

Data management and synthesis

The EndNote 20™ bibliographic software (Clarivate Analytics LLP, USA) was used to store the retrieved articles, whilst the Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Australia) was used to screen these retrieved articles.

Two reviewers (MW, NF) independently screened the titles and abstracts for full text articles to review. A third reviewer (AD) was available to resolve potential conflicts. Two reviewers (MW, AD) independently reviewed the full text articles, and extracted the relevant information using a review-specific template. A third reviewer (NF) was again available to resolve conflicts.

The reference lists of all retrieved full text articles, relevant chapters in major palliative care textbooks, and relevant sections of major palliative care guidelines, were hand searched for other potential studies. Other sources of studies included the researchers’ personal bibliographies.

Results

Search results

The search strategy identified 10,873 references, although only 166 full text articles were retrieved (Fig. 1). Thirty-seven studies were identified from the database searches and had their data extracted [2, 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Another six studies were identified from handsearching / researcher’s bibliography [53,54,55,56,57,58]. The studies identified included 23 generic symptom studies [18, 20,21,22, 25, 26, 29,30,31,32, 40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47, 52,53,54,55,56], eight symptom cluster studies [34,35,36,37,38,39, 57, 58], nine oral symptom / problem studies [17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 33, 50, 51], and three xerostomia-specific studies [2, 48, 49]. Several “duplicate” records were identified amongst the retrieved full text articles: some were conference abstracts, some articles reporting “early” results, and some articles reporting different analyses / subsets of results. Table 1 shows studies reporting clinical features of xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer, and includes references for relevant assessment tools [59,60,61].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image
Table 1 Studies reporting clinical features of xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer
Full size table

Assessment

The three xerostomia specific studies involved small numbers of patients (median: 70; range: 16–120) [2, 48, 49]: two were quantitative (with one using a validated / non-specific assessment tool, i.e. Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale / MSAS) [2, 48], whilst one was qualitative [49]. The nine oral symptom / problem studies involved somewhat larger numbers of patients (median: 104; range: 50–669) [17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 33, 50, 51]: all were quantitative (with three using validated / non-specific assessment tools, i.e. Oral Symptom Assessment Scale / OSAS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System / ESAS—Norwegian version, and MSAS) [17, 28, 50]. It should be noted that there is no validated xerostomia assessment tool for this cohort of patients.

Epidemiology

Xerostomia prevalence varied widely in the studies identified in this review (median: 72.15%, range: 40.4–91.0%). Alsirafy et al. reported that only one patient reported this symptom on open questioning, although 57% patients gave a positive response on systematic assessment (with 43% of these patients reporting “moderate” / “severe” intensity) [22]. Other authors reported similar findings in this group of patients [62].

The identified studies reported minimal information on the risk factors for xerostomia (e.g. demographics, cancer diagnosis, performance status, comorbidities). There is some data to suggest that xerostomia may be more prevalent in females [20, 40], in younger patients [41], and in Caucasians versus African Americans in this population [42].

Xerostomia appears to be common in all groups of patients with cancer, including patients with haematological malignancies [23, 43], and patients with sarcomas [44]. There is better data to suggest that xerostomia is more prevalent in patients with a poor performance status [45, 46], and equally that xerostomia is more prevalent in patients at the very end-of-life [31, 47]. However, the association between xerostomia and limited prognosis is inconsistent [63].

The identified studies also reported minimal information on the aetiology of xerostomia. Davies et al. (2001) reported 97.5% patients were receiving medications that are known to cause xerostomia, and that the median number of such drugs used was 4 (range 0–9) [2]. Other authors have reported an association with the use of anticholinergic drugs [41], opioid analgesics [41], and chemotherapy drugs [23].

Symptom clusters

Table 2 shows studies reporting physical and/or psychological symptom clusters involving xerostomia [34,35,36,37,38,39, 57, 58]. The symptom clusters identified varied from study to study, and also varied within study (depending on the outcome measure chosen, and the statistical method utilised). It should be noted that there are many other studies reporting physical and/or psychological symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer, but which did not include the symptom of xerostomia [64].

Table 2 Studies reporting symptom clusters including dry mouth in patients with advanced cancer
Full size table

Davies et al. (2021) examined oral symptom clusters, and reported that xerostomia did not cluster with other oral symptoms when using prevalence data, but did cluster with taste disturbance when using frequency data (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.6) [17]. No analogous studies were identified in the literature.

Clinical features

Table 1 shows studies reporting the clinical features of xerostomia. It demonstrates that it is usually a frequent symptom [2, 17, 21, 56], is often moderate-to-severe in intensity [2, 17, 19,20,21,22, 27, 56], and is often associated with significant distress [2, 17, 18, 54,55,56]. Moreover, xerostomia is a usually a continuous symptom [41], occurring both during the day-time and during the night-time (often resulting in sleep disturbance) [48, 49]. It should be noted that there were many other studies reporting xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer, but which did not include details about clinical features and/or complications.

Complications

Xerostomia has been associated with a variety of other oral symptoms / problems, including oral discomfort [2, 28], difficulty opening mouth (“gluing” of mouth) [49], taste disturbance [2, 17, 49], difficulty chewing [2], difficulty swallowing [2, 29, 49], and difficulty speaking [2, 49]. Oral discomfort may result from the xerostomia itself, and/or the complications of the xerostomia (e.g. dental erosion leading to dental sensitivity, and possibly trauma to the oral mucosa) [10].

As well as the complications already outlined, xerostomia is a common “nutrition impact symptom” [65], and has been associated with anorexia [2, 29], decreased enjoyment of eating [49], a need to take longer while eating, and a need to drink more while eating. Unsurprisingly, xerostomia is associated with decreased food / energy intake [29]. Furthermore, patients with xerostomia often avoid eating with others (“social eating”) [49].

Xerostomia has been associated with non-specific oral infections [49], but especially with oral candidosis [27, 50, 51]. Importantly, it is also associated with periodontal disease and dental caries, which can rapidly progress to cause problems such as oral discomfort / pain, halitosis, tooth loss, local infections, and systemic infections [10]. Xerostomia has also been associated with problems relating to the absorption / efficacy of oral transmucosal medications [66]. Unsurprisingly, given all of the above, xerostomia is associated with social isolation (self-imposed) [49], decreased mood / depression [30, 49], decreased spiritual well-being [52], and reduced quality-of-life.

Discussion

This scoping review confirms that xerostomia is a very common problem, and is frequently associated with significant morbidity (and impaired quality of life), in patients with advanced cancer. Indeed, this review reiterates that this so-called “orphan symptom” warrants much greater appreciation from healthcare professionals. Thus, patients with advanced cancer should be regularly screened for xerostomia, and those with xerostomia require adequate assessment, appropriate treatment, and ongoing re-assessment (the so-called “ART” of management) [67].

Saliva has a variety of functions (e.g. oral lubrication, mucosal protection, oral hygiene, infection control, communication, eating and drinking), and many of the reported oral symptoms / problems relate to these homeostatic functions. However, patients also experience indirect problems, especially psychosocial complications (e.g. depression, social isolation). Indeed, xerostomia could be considered an “orphan syndrome” as opposed to an orphan symptom. Importantly, while most problems are associated with increased morbidity, some problems may be associated with increased mortality (e.g. oral infections causing systemic infections; nutrition-related symptoms exacerbating malnutrition).

The management of xerostomia involves treatment of the cause (if possible), use of saliva stimulants (e.g. chewing gum, muscarinic agonists), use of saliva substitutes (e.g. water, “artificial salivas”), and/or treatment of any complications [10, 67]. Saliva substitutes are very different from normal saliva, and so tend to have minimal effect on the related oral symptoms / problems. Moreover, they tend to have a limited effect on the sensation of dryness of the mouth. Hence, expert opinion recommends the use of saliva stimulants wherever possible [67], since an increase in secretion of “normal” saliva should improve both the sensation of dryness of the mouth and the related oral symptoms / problems. In addition, the use of appropriately fluoridated toothpastes (or mouthwashes) is recommended to prevent dental caries in dentate patients with xerostomia / salivary gland hypofunction [10].

In terms of future research, further observational studies of xerostomia are probably unnecessary in patients with advanced cancer (given the available evidence). However, further interventional studies are very necessary, since relevant evidence is lacking, especially in this cohort of patients [67]. Future studies need to assess not only improvement in the sensation of dryness of the mouth, but also improvement in the related oral symptoms / problems (and especially those associated with significant morbidity / increased mortality).

Conclusion

This scoping review discovered a relatively small number of focused studies (involving a similarly small number of patients). Nonetheless, it demonstrates that xerostomia is a very common problem in patients with advanced cancer and is often associated with significant morbidity (and impairment of quality of life).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current project.

Abbreviations

NCI:

National Cancer Institute

MSAS:

Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale

OSAS:

Oral Symptom Assessment Scale

ESAS:

Edmonton Symptom Assessment System

ART:

Assessment, re-assessment, treatment

References

  1. Sreebny LM. Xerostomia: diagnosis, management and clinical complications. In: Edgar WM, O’Mullane DM, editors. Saliva and oral health. 2nd ed. London: British Dental Association; 1996. p. 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davies AN, Broadley K, Beighton D. Xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;22:820–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dawes C. Physiological factors affecting salivary flow rate, oral sugar clearance, and the sensation of dry mouth in man. J Dent Res. 1987;66:648–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anonymous M. Saliva: its role in health and disease FDI Working Group 10 of the Commission on Oral Health, Research and Epidemiology (CORE). Int Dent J. 1992;42(Suppl 2):291–304.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nederfors T, Isaksson R, Mörnstad H, Dahlof C. Prevalence of perceived symptoms of dry mouth in an adult Swedish population–relation to age, sex and pharmacotherapy. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25:211–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sreebny LM, Valdini A, Yu A. Xerostomia Part II: relationship to nonoral symptoms, drugs, and diseases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989;68:419–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson G, Barenthin I, Westphal P. Mouth dryness among patients in longterm hospitals. Gerodontology. 1984;3:197–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jensen SB, Pedersen AM, Vissink A, Andersen E, Brown CG, Davies AN, 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;18:1039–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patni T, Lee CT, Li Y, Kaste S, Zhu L, Sun R, et al. Factors for poor oral health in long-term childhood cancer survivors. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Davies A. Salivary gland dysfunction. In: Davies AN, Epstein JB, editors. Oral complications of cancer and its management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 203–23.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Shorthose K, Davies AN. Symptom prevalence in palliative care. Palliat Med. 2003;17:723–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Santini D, Armento G, Giusti R, Ferrara M, Moro C, Fulfaro F, et al. Management of orphan symptoms: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. ESMO Open. 2020;5: e000933.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021;19:3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McGowan J, Strausb S, Moher D, Langlois EV, O’Brien KK, Horsley T, et al. Reporting scoping reviews- PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:177–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Cancer Institute: Dictionary of Cancer Terms. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/advanced-cancer Accessed 29 March 2023

  17. Davies A, Buchanan A, Todd J, Gregory A, Batsari KM. Oral symptoms in patients with advanced cancer: an observational study using a novel oral symptom assessment scale. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:4357–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Webber K, Davies AN, Leach C, Waghorn M. Symptom prevalence and severity in palliative cancer medicine. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tebidze N, Chikhladze N, Janberidze E, Margvelashvili V, Jincharadze M, Kordzaia D. Perception of oral problems in patients with advanced cancer. Georgian Med. 2019;294:50–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vigstad S, Clancy A, Broderstad AR. Palliative patients get greater relief from early screening of symptoms and implementation of measures. Norwegian J Clin Nurs / Sykepleien Forskning. 2018;13(74591):E-74591.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Van Lancker A, Beeckman D, Van Den Noortgate N, Verhaeghe S, Van Hecke A. Frequency and intensity of symptoms and treatment interventions in hospitalized older palliative cancer patients: a multicentre cross-sectional study. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73:1455–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alsirafy SA, Abd El-Aal HH, Farag DE, Radwan RH, El-Sherief WA, Fawzy R. High symptom burden among patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer in a developing country. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;51:e1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mercadante S, Aielli F, Adile C, Ferrera P, Valle A, Fusco F, et al. Prevalence of oral mucositis, dry mouth, and dysphagia in advanced cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:3249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fischer DJ, Epstein JB, Yao Y, Wilkie DJ. Oral health conditions affect functional and social activities of terminally ill cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:803–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Oechsle K, Goerth K, Bokemeyer C, Mehnert A. Symptom burden in palliative care patients: perspectives of patients, their family caregivers, and their attending physicians. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:1955–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Shahri MZ, Eldali AM, Al-Zahrani O. Nonpain symptoms of new and follow-up cancer patients attending a palliative care outpatient clinic in Saudi Arabia. Indian J. 2012;18:98–102.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Alt-Epping B, Nejad RK, Jung K, Gross U, Nauck F. Symptoms of the oral cavity and their association with local microbiological and clinical findings-a prospective survey in palliative care. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:531–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilberg P, Hjermstad MJ, Ottesen S, Herlofson BB. Oral health is an important issue in end-of-life cancer care. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:3115–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bovio G, Montagna G, Bariani C, Baiardi P. Upper gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with advanced cancer: relationship to nutritional and performance status. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:1317–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McMillan SC, Rivera HR. The relationship between depressive symptoms and symptom distress in patients with cancer newly admitted to hospice home care. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2009;11:41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tsai JS, Wu CH, Chiu TY, Hu WY, Chen CY. Symptom patterns of advanced cancer patients in a palliative care unit. Palliat Med. 2006;20:617–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McMillan SC, Small BJ. Symptom distress and quality of life in patients with cancer newly admitted to hospice home care. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29:1421–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Oneschuk D, Hanson J, Bruera E. A survey of mouth pain and dryness in patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2000;8:372–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Buck HG, Benitez B, Fradley MG, Donovan KA, McMillan SC, Reich RR, et al. Examining the relationship between patient fatigue-related symptom clusters and carer depressive symptoms in advanced cancer dyads: a secondary analysis of a large hospice data set. Cancer Nurs. 2020;43:498–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Omran S, Khader Y, McMillan S. Symptom clusters and quality of life in hospice patients with cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18:2387–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ozalp GS, Uysal N, Oguz G, Kocak N, Karaca S, Kadiogullari N. Identification of symptom clusters in cancer patients at palliative care clinic. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2017;4:259–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Barata PC, Cardoso A, Custodio MP, Alves M, Papoila AL, Antonio B, et al. Symptom clusters and survival in Portuguese patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Med. 2016;5:2731–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsai LY, Li IF, Lai YH, Liu CP, Chang TY, Tu CT. Fatigue and its associated factors in hospice cancer patients in Taiwan. Cancer Nurs. 2007;30:24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Aktas A, Walsh D, Hu B. Cancer symptom clusters: an exploratory analysis of eight statistical techniques. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;48:1254–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mercadante S, Fulfaro F, Casuccio A. The impact of home palliative care on symptoms in advanced cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2000;8:307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S. Contributing factors to physical symptoms in terminally-ill cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18:338–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aktas A, Walsh D, Rybicki L, Fitz A. Relationship of race to cancer symptom profiles in advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:S159.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lowe JR, Yu Y, Wolf S, Samsa G, LeBlanc TW. A cohort study of patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization in acute myeloid leukemia patients receiving active cancer therapy in the last six months of life. J Palliat Med. 2018;21:592–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Gough N, Koffman J, Ross JR, Riley J, Judson I. Symptom burden in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53:588–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mercadante S, Casuccio A, Fulfaro F. The course of symptom frequency and intensity in advanced cancer patients followed at home. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000;20:104–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Walsh D, Donnelly S, Rybicki L. The symptoms of advanced cancer: relationship to age, gender, and performance status in 1,000 patients. Support Care Cancer. 2000;8:175–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Conill C, Verger E, Henriquez I, Saiz N, Espier M, Lugo F, et al. Symptom prevalence in the last week of life. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;14:328–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sweeney MP, Bagg J, Baxter WP, Aitchison TC. Oral disease in terminally ill cancer patients with xerostomia. Oral Oncol. 1998;34:123–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rydholm M, Strang P. Physical and psychosocial impact of xerostomia in palliative cancer care: a qualitative interview study. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2002;8:318–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Davies AN, Brailsford SR, Beighton D. Oral candidosis in patients with advanced cancer. Oral Oncol. 2006;42:698–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Davies AN, Brailsford SR, Beighton D, Shorthose K, Stevens VC. Oral candidosis in community-based patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008;35:508–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kandasamy A, Chaturvedi SK, Desai G. Spirituality, distress, depression, anxiety, and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Indian J Cancer. 2011;48:55–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Spichiger E, Müller-Fröhlich C, Denhaerynck K, Stoll H, Hantikainen V, Dodd M. Symptom prevalence and changes of symptoms over ten days in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer: a descriptive study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15:95–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Webber K, Davies AN. Validity of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form psychological subscales in advanced cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;42:761–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kirkova J, Walsh D, Rybicki L, Davis MP, Aktas A, Tao Jin, et al. Symptom severity and distress in advanced cancer. Palliat Med. 2010;24:330–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tranmer JE, Heyland D, Dudgeon D, Groll D, Squires-Graham M, Coulson K. Measuring the symptom experience of seriously ill cancer and noncancer hospitalized patients near the end of life with the memorial symptom assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003;25:420–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chaiviboontham S, Viwatwongkasem C, Hanucharurnkul S, McCorkle R. Symptom clusters in Thais with advanced cancer. Pac Rim Int J Nurs Res. 2011;15:265–77.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Walsh D, Rybicki L. Symptom clustering in advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14:831–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M, Kasimis BS, Thaler HT. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF). Cancer. 2000;89:1162–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Van Lancker A, Beeckman D, Verhaeghe S, Van Den Noortgate N, Grypdonck M, Van Hecke A. An instrument to collect data on frequency and intensity of symptoms in older palliative cancer patients: a development and validation study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016;21:38–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Kornblith AB, Lepore JM, Friedlander-Klar H, Kiyasu E, et al. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:1326–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shah S, Davies AN. Re: medical records vs. patient self-rating. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;22:805–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Trajkovic-Vidakovic M, de Graeff A, Voest EE, Teunissen SC. Symptoms tell it all: a systematic review of the value of symptom assessment to predict survival in advanced cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012;84:130–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Dong ST, Butow PN, Costa DS, Lovell MR, Agar M. Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of observational studies. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;48:411–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Alderman B, Allan L, Amano K, Bouleuc C, Davis M, Lister-Flynn S, et al. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/guidance on the use of clinically assisted nutrition in patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:2983–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Davies AN, Vriens J. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate and xerostomia. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30:496–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Jones JA, Chavarri-Guerra Y, Corrêa LB, Dean DR, Epstein JB, Fregnani ER, et al. MASCC / ISOO expert opinion on the management of oral problems in patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:8761–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marymount University Hospital & Hospice, Curraheen, Ireland

    Maria Walsh

  2. Our Lady’s Hospice & Care Services, Dublin, Ireland

    Norah Fagan

  3. Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin & Our Lady’s Hospice Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Andrew Davies

Authors
  1. Maria Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norah Fagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.D. conceived the scoping review, wrote the search strategy, and undertook the database searches. M.W., N.F. and A.D. screened the abstracts, and M.W. and A.D. reviewed the full text articles (and extracted the relevant information). A.D. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, including producing Fig. 1 and Tables 1 and 2. All the authors (M.W., N.F., A.D.) contributed to the re-drafting of the manuscript. All the authors approved the submitted (final) version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Davies.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Appendix 1.

Medline search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walsh, M., Fagan, N. & Davies, A. Xerostomia in patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review of clinical features and complications. BMC Palliat Care 22, 178 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01276-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01276-4

Keywords

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us