This study evaluated the extent to which oral chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) consensus assessments are predictive of management across institutions with and without oral medicine (OM) centers, and whether ancillary care guidelines are followed within clinical practice. MethodsLongitudinal oral cGVHD data were abstracted from the cGVHD Consortium, and additional mouth-specific management data were analyzed across five transplant centers. ResultsSeventy-nine patients with 656 visits were observed for a median of 7.1months with one visit per follow-up month. Ancillary therapies for oral cGVHD were prescribed for 67% of patients for a median of 0.46months (per follow-up month) at OM centers and 0.78months at non-OM centers. Patients treated with ancillary therapy were more likely to have an National Institutes of Health (NIH) mouth score of 1 (P<0.001, odds ratio: 5.1) and mouth pain (P=0.01, odds ratio: 2.6). The odds ratios of receiving ancillary therapy from OM experts were higher than transplant physicians (53%; P=0.03). ConclusionsOral cGVHD consensus assessments corresponding with ancillary therapy use were mouth pain and NIH mouth score, with higher odds ratios of receiving therapy from OM experts. Ancillary care guidelines for oral cGVHD are reflected in academic clinical practice with respect to utilization of recommended prescriptions.223235240