-
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and... Feb 2023To summarize published information regarding malignant tumors with metastasis to the oral cavity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To summarize published information regarding malignant tumors with metastasis to the oral cavity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a systematic review with meta-analysis. An electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases from inceptions to February 2022 were performed. Only case reports or case series with histopathological results demonstrating metastasis to the oral cavity were included. The main outcomes included demographics, primary site, metastatic site, clinical manifestations, and patient survival. The quality of primary articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute - University of Adelaide scorecards for case reports and case series. Descriptive analysis and a Kaplan-Meier survival curve were performed.
RESULTS
273 articles were selected (50 case series and 223 case reports), for a total of 950 cases. The mean age was 57.11 years. Males were more affected (57.5%). The most common primary sites in women and men was breast (29.8%), and lung (24.8%), respectively. In ∼1/3 of the cases, oral metastasis preceded tumor dissemination. Jawbones were more affected (56.7%) than soft tissues (37.9%), with the mandible being the most affected site (45.5%), followed by the gingiva (19.9%). The most common clinical manifestation was a mass or nodule. Most radiographic evidence was radiolucency of the jaw (60.6%). 3-year and 5-year survival rates were 14.2 and 10.7%. In the majority of cases, the primary tumor was the first to be diagnosed, while in 30.4%, metastasis was the first sign of the disseminated disease. This can be implied that the oral metastasis should be included in the differential diagnosis list of the oral diseases.
CONCLUSION
Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of, albeit uncommon, oral metastases. Because the extracted data in this review was relatively generalized, the investigators cannot develop the diagnostic clues of oral metastasis, which require further investigations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Mouth Neoplasms; Mandible; Gingiva; Diagnosis, Differential
PubMed: 36371023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2022.11.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaws is among the most serious oral complications of head and neck cancer radiotherapy, arising from radiation-induced fibro-atrophic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaws is among the most serious oral complications of head and neck cancer radiotherapy, arising from radiation-induced fibro-atrophic tissue injury, manifested by necrosis of osseous tissues and failure to heal, often secondary to operative interventions in the oral cavity. It is associated with considerable morbidity and has important quality of life ramifications. Since ORN is very difficult to treat effectively, preventive measures to limit the onset of this disease are needed; however, the effects of various preventive interventions has not been adequately quantified.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for preventing ORN of the jaws in adult patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative or adjuvant (i.e. non-palliative) radiotherapy.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 November 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 5 November 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 November 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 November 2019), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) Ovid (1985 to 5 November 2019), Scopus (1966 to 5 November 2019), Proquest Dissertations and Theses International (1861 to 5 November 2019) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 5 November 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of adult patients 18 years or older with head and neck cancer who had undergone curative or adjuvant radiotherapy to the head and neck, who had received an intervention to prevent the onset of ORN. Eligible patients were those subjected to pre- or post-irradiation dental evaluation. Management of these patients was to be with interventions independent of their cancer therapy, including but not limited to local, systemic, or behavioural interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials from search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted relevant data for inclusion in the review. Authors of included studies were contacted to request missing data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies were identified that met pre-determined eligibility criteria, evaluating a total of 342 adults. From the four studies, all assessed as at high risk of bias, three broad interventions were identified that may potentially reduce the risk of ORN development: one study showed no reduction in ORN when using platelet-rich plasma placed in the extraction sockets of prophylactically removed healthy mandibular molar teeth prior to radiotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 19.09; one trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Another study involved comparing fluoride gel and high-content fluoride toothpaste (1350 parts per million (ppm)) in prevention of post-radiation caries, and found no difference between their use as no cases of ORN were reported (one trial, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The other two studies involved the use of perioperative hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy and antibiotics. One study showed that treatment with HBO caused a reduction in the development of ORN in comparison to patients treated with antibiotics following dental extractions (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76; one trial, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Another study found no difference between combined HBO and antibiotics compared to antibiotics alone prior to dental implant placement (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.16; one trial, 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects of the different interventions were not reported clearly or were not important.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the suboptimal reporting and inadequate sample sizes of the included studies, evidence regarding the interventions evaluated by the trials included in this review is uncertain. More well-designed RCTs with larger samples are required to make conclusive statements regarding the efficacy of these interventions.
Topics: Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Jaw Diseases; Oral Health; Osteoradionecrosis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31745986
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011559.pub2 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Mar 2021to systematically review the literature, comparing the healing of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) among the therapeutic alternatives: surgical, pharmacological and combined.
BACKGROUND
to systematically review the literature, comparing the healing of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) among the therapeutic alternatives: surgical, pharmacological and combined.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The review was organized according to the PRISMA protocol with regards to the following PICO question: patients with ORN of the jaws (P=Patient); all interventions reported (I = intervention); between all therapies (C=Comparison); healing of lesions (O=outcome).
RESULTS
Surgical treatment was the most common choice (46.3%) followed by pharmacological treatment, exclusively (25.9%) or combined (26.9%). Treatment exclusively by surgical intervention seems to be most effective option, with 51.2% of the lesions healed, OR for healing of 5.7 (CI95% 1.9-16.9, p=0.002). Only 1 case (0.9%) corresponded to low level laser therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
It seems clear that early intervention with conservative surgical combined with pharmacological methods improves the prognosis of ORN.
Topics: Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Jaw; Jaw Diseases; Osteoradionecrosis; Prognosis
PubMed: 33037800
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.24132 -
Clinical Therapeutics Aug 2020Bone metastases from solid tumors and multiple myeloma (MM) represent an important source of morbidity. The present meta-analysis was performed with the purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Bone metastases from solid tumors and multiple myeloma (MM) represent an important source of morbidity. The present meta-analysis was performed with the purpose of comparing the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) in the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumors or bone lesions in multiple myeloma.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, PubMed Central, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies published until April 23, 2020. We included randomized, controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab 120 mg SC versus ZA 4 mg IV, given every 4 weeks, in patients with bone lesions in multiple myeloma or bone metastases secondary to advanced solid tumors. Two reviewers independently identified studies, assessed the risk for bias, and extracted the data. Times to event outcomes were analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. We analyzed tolerability outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs, with a fixed-effects model.
FINDINGS
Four randomized, controlled trials (7379 patients) were identified as suitable for analysis. The pooled data indicated that denosumab was more favorable than ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = 0.0001) as well as the time to first and subsequent on-study SREs (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90; P < 0.0001); however, the results on overall survival and disease progression were similar between the 2 drugs. Additionally, denosumab was associated with lower risks for bone pain (risk ratio [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P = 0.01), osteonecrosis of the jaw (RR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93; P = 0.007), and acute-phase reactions (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56; P < 0.00001).
IMPLICATIONS
Compared with ZA, denosumab demonstrated efficacy in significantly delaying on-study SREs. Furthermore, it showed a better tolerability profile, despite being associated with potential yet manageable adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019126390).
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Denosumab; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 32718784
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.05.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.
Topics: Adult; Alendronate; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Clodronic Acid; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Etidronic Acid; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Pamidronate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Quality of Life; RANK Ligand; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 33270906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013020.pub2 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Mar 2024Segmental surgical resection is a frequently indicated procedure to treat aggressive mandibular tumors. One of the most important complications derived from this...
BACKGROUND
Segmental surgical resection is a frequently indicated procedure to treat aggressive mandibular tumors. One of the most important complications derived from this technique is permanent paresthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), which significantly affects the quality of life of patients who experience it. This could be avoided through maneuvers that preserve the IAN. The objective of this paper is to review the main techniques for IAN preservation and to present 2 cases with the technique used by the author.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines, apropos of two clinical cases reported in this study. The MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Several variables were considered and are presented in detail in the form of tables and figures. In addition, 2 case reports with NAI preservation techniques are presented.
RESULTS
13 articles were finally obtained for analysis. 127 patients were evaluated, reporting mandibular resections associated with various pathologies. Various surgical techniques were used, all with the same goal of maintaining the IAN. In most of the patients, the maintenance of sensitivity was achieved, which was verified with different methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Preservation of the IAN in maxillofacial surgical procedures where surgical resection of the mandibular bone has been performed is an alternative that has demonstrated successful results in terms of reducing postoperative sequelae and is currently positioned as a necessary and feasible procedure.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Mandible; Mandibular Nerve; Mandibular Neoplasms; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37823290
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.26239