Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Head and Neck Cancer

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1644178

This article is part of the Research TopicAdvancements in Personalized Medicine for Head and Neck Cancer: Molecular-based Approaches to Treatment and CareView all 7 articles

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of non-pharmacological interventions on treatment-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Provisionally accepted
Jingyu  TaiJingyu Tai1Aimin  GuoAimin Guo1*Juntong  ChenJuntong Chen1Haoyu  LiHaoyu Li1Qian  DongQian Dong1Wumei  HaoWumei Hao1Wenjing  WangWenjing Wang1Zunzhu  LiZunzhu Li2Jianshu  YeJianshu Ye2Jinbang  LiuJinbang Liu2Chengwu  YangChengwu Yang2
  • 1Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
  • 2Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Aim: To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for radiotherapy-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for articles published up to March 1, 2025. Three outcome measures were utilized to assess treatment effectiveness: xerostomia, saliva flow rate, and xerostomia-related quality of life. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was employed to synthesize the comparative performance of different non-pharmacological interventions. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251027019).Results: A total of 30 RCTs encompassing 1,595 participants and nine distinct non-pharmacological treatment modalities were included. Compared with the SOC, mouthwash demonstrated the most pronounced improvement in XQ (SMD = -0.70; 95% CI: -1.38 to -0.01) and XI scores (SMD = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.26). Oral moisturizing gel exhibited the greatest reduction in VAS scores (SMD = -1.55; 95% CI: -2.31 to -0.80). Regarding salivary flow enhancement, oral moisturizing gel was most effective in increasing USFR (SMD = 3.83; 95% CI: 0.56 to 7.09), while chewing gum provided the highest gain in SSFR (SMD = 3.83; 95% CI: 0.56 to 7.09). Among safety outcomes, electrical stimulation therapy was associated with the most favorable profile relative to SOC (SMD = -1.82; 95% CI: -3.96 to 0.33).Non-pharmacological interventions appear to offer superior efficacy with comparable safety to SOC in care of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia among patients with head and neck cancer. Mouthwash is likely the most effective option for alleviating subjective xerostomia symptoms, with oral moisturizing gel as a valuable alternative. For salivary flow enhancement, oral moisturizing gel is preferred for unstimulated flow, whereas chewing gum is optimal for stimulated flow. Electrical stimulation therapy may yield the most substantial improvement in quality of life, with photobiomodulation therapy representing a promising adjunctive strategy.

Keywords: head and neck cancer, Xerostomia, non-pharmacological intervention, network metaanalysis, evidence-based

Received: 10 Jun 2025; Accepted: 11 Jul 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Tai, Guo, Chen, Li, Dong, Hao, Wang, Li, Ye, Liu and Yang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Aimin Guo, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.