-
PloS One 2021Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments was a bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate, alendronate or clodronate). Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). We carried out pairwise and network meta-analyses to estimate the size of any adverse effects potentially related to bisphosphonates. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age, or interacted with other common adjuvant breast cancer treatments, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, AZURE.
FINDINGS
We identified 56 trials that reported adverse data, which included a total of 29,248 patients (18,301 receiving bisphosphonate drugs versus 10,947 not). 24 out of the 103 different adverse outcomes analysed showed a statistically and practically significant increase in patients receiving a bisphosphonate drug compared with those not (2 additional outcomes that appeared statistically significant came only from small studies with low event counts and no clinical suspicion so are likely artifacts). Most of these 24 are already clinically recognised: 'flu-like symptoms, fever, headache and chills; increased bone pain, arthralgia, myalgia, back pain; cardiac events, thromboembolic events; hypocalcaemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw; as well as possibly stiffness and nausea. Oral clodronate appeared to increase the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea (which may also be increased by other bisphosphonates), and there may be some hepatotoxicity. Four additional potential adverse effects emerged for bisphosphonate drugs in this analysis which have not classically be recognised: fatigue, neurosensory problems, hypertonia/muscle spasms and possibly dysgeusia. Several symptoms previously reported as potential side effects in the literature were not significantly increased in this analysis: constipation, insomnia, respiratory problems, oedema or thirst/dry mouth. Individual patient-level data and subgroup analysis revealed little variation in side effects between women of different ages or menopausal status, those with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer, or between women receiving different concurrent breast cancer therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis has produced estimates for the absolute frequencies of a range of side effects significantly associated with bisphosphonate drugs when used by breast cancer patients. These results show good agreement with previous literature on the subject but are the first systematic quantification of side effects and their severities. However, the analysis is limited by the availability and quality of data on adverse events, and the potential for bias introduced by a lack of standards for reporting of such events. We therefore present a table of adverse effects for bisphosphonates, identified and quantified to the best of our ability from a large number of trials, which we hope can be used to improve the communication of the potential harms of these drugs to patients and their healthcare providers.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33544765
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246441 -
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and... Sep 2023Three-dimensional (3D) printing is now a widely recognized surgical tool in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, little is known about its benefits for the surgical...
BACKGROUND
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is now a widely recognized surgical tool in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, little is known about its benefits for the surgical management of benign maxillary and mandibular tumors and cysts.
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the contribution of 3D printing in the management of benign jaw lesions.
METHODS
A systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases, up to December 2022, by following PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting 3D printing applications for the surgical management of benign jaw lesions were considered.
RESULTS
This review included thirteen studies involving 74 patients. The principal use of 3D printing was to produce anatomical models, intraoperative surgical guides, or both, allowing for the successful removal of maxillary and mandibular lesions. The greatest reported benefits of printed models were the visualization of the lesion and its anatomical relationships to anticipate intraoperative risks. Surgical guides were designed as drilling locating guides or osteotomy cutting guides and contributed to decreasing operating time and improving the accuracy of the surgery.
CONCLUSION
Using 3D printing technologies to manage benign jaw lesions results in less invasive procedures by facilitating precise osteotomies, reducing operating times, and complications. More studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to confirm our results.
Topics: Humans; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Mandible; Mandibular Neoplasms; Osteotomy; Cysts
PubMed: 36914002
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2023.101433 -
Head and Neck Pathology Dec 2021Dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT) and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC) form a spectrum of rare benign and malignant odontogenic neoplasms, respectively. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Dentinogenic ghost cell tumor (DGCT) and ghost cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC) form a spectrum of rare benign and malignant odontogenic neoplasms, respectively. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative systematic review of the clinicopathological, genetic, therapeutic, and prognostic features of DGCT and GCOC. The electronic search was performed until December 2020 on seven electronic databases. Case reports, series, and research studies with enough histopathological criteria for diagnosis and all genomic studies were included. Both DGCT and GCOC showed a male prevalence (p = 0.043), with mandibular and maxillary predilections, respectively (p = 0.008). Peripheral DGCT (DGCTp) affected most elderly people (p < 0.001), and central DGCT (DGCTc) and GCOC occurred mainly in younger individuals. Unilateral enlargement of maxilla or mandible was the most common clinical sign associated with a radiolucent or mixed image. Ameloblastomatous epithelium was often present in both neoplasms. Basaloid and large cells with vesicular nuclei were also frequently seen in GCOC. β-catenin expression and mutations (CTNNB1 gene) were found in DGCT and GCOC. Conservative surgery was mostly used for DGCTp, while radical resection was chosen for DGCTc and GCOC. High recurrence rates were found in DGCTc and GCOC. Metastasis occurred in 16.7% of GCOC cases and the 5-year survival rate was 72.6%. DGCT and GCOC share numerous clinicopathological features and demand a careful histopathological evaluation, considering the overlap features with other odontogenic tumors and the possibility of malignant transformation of DGCT. A strict regular post-operative follow-up is mandatory due to high recurrence rates and metastatic capacity in GCOC.
Topics: Age Factors; DNA Copy Number Variations; Humans; Jaw Neoplasms; Keratins; Ki-67 Antigen; Mutation; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Odontogenic Tumors; Sex Factors; Tumor Suppressor Protein p53; beta Catenin
PubMed: 34128137
DOI: 10.1007/s12105-021-01347-z -
Metastasizing Ameloblastoma: A 10 Year Clinicopathological Review with an Insight Into Pathogenesis.Head and Neck Pathology Sep 2021Ameloblastoma, a benign but locally aggressive odontogenic tumor, often demonstrates metastasis despite benign histological features and this variant is termed as...
Ameloblastoma, a benign but locally aggressive odontogenic tumor, often demonstrates metastasis despite benign histological features and this variant is termed as metastasizing ameloblastoma (METAM). It was classified under the malignant category in the 2005 WHO but has been re-classified under benign epithelial odontogenic tumors in the latest 2017 WHO classification. The present review aimed at gathering the available data on METAM to update the current cognizance about the pathology. Comprehensive search of the databases (viz., PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE and Google Scholar) was done for published articles on METAM following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 42 cases were extracted. The mean age of occurrence was 42.71 ± 15.87 years. A slight male predilection was noted. Mandibular cases showed more metastasis than maxillary cases. Follicular ameloblastoma was most frequently encountered at secondary site followed by plexiform type. Lungs were the most commonly affected secondary sites. METAM is a rare odontogenic tumor and the diagnosis is usually made in retrospect. Inadequate treatment may result in multiple recurrences and metastasis in rare instances. Metastasis in ameloblastoma appears to be multi-factorial in nature and needs further investigation in untapped territory like exploration of quantum effects at cellular and molecular levels.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Ameloblastoma; Female; Humans; Jaw Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 33394372
DOI: 10.1007/s12105-020-01258-5 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Feb 2023The aim of this study is to evaluate recent evidence-based data that summarize the clinicopathological findings and treatment along with follow-up measures taken in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to evaluate recent evidence-based data that summarize the clinicopathological findings and treatment along with follow-up measures taken in terms of published cases of Juvenile psammomatoid ossifying fibroma (JPOF) of the maxilla and mandible by a systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The databases searched were PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Google scholar, and Cross references. Only those case reports of JPOFs published in the English language from 2000 to 2022 were considered. All cases included confirmed JPOF lesions histopathologically. The SR-included details like clinical and radiographic data, follow-up details such as recurrence, and the presence of any adverse outcome.
RESULTS
The database search produced 595 articles from 2000 to 2022, among which 22 case reports were included in the systematic review. The mean age of JPOF occurrence in patients was 18 ± 16 years. A male predilection was noted among patients younger than 14 years of age, whereas a female predilection was noted in patients older than 14 years of age. Frequent involvement of the mandible (56%) compared to the maxilla (44%) was reported. The posterior mandible was the most commonly affected site involving numerous adjacent structures. The expansile nature of the JPOF displayed 57% buccolingual expansion, 50% downward displacement or erosion of the lower border of the mandible and 81% of involvement of the maxillary antrum/pterygoid plate/orbital floor. Among the 20 cases reported, the treatment provided included surgical excision in 45% of the patients, jaw resection in 35% of the patients, and enucleation and curettage in 18% of the patients. Follow-up details were provided in 80% of the reports that showed recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
The diagnosis of JPOF requires correlation of the clinical and radiographic features with key histopathological features. Although long-term follow-up of the case reports has been reported, the data lack information about the long-term outcomes of JPOF.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Child, Preschool; Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Maxilla; Fibroma, Ossifying; Bone Neoplasms; Mandible
PubMed: 36325758
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.687 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Mar 2021The role of denosumab in patients with resectable giant cell tumour of bone remains unclear. We asked the following research question: for patients (aged ≥ 12 years)...
The role of denosumab in patients with resectable giant cell tumour of bone remains unclear. We asked the following research question: for patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with resectable giant cell tumour of bone, what are the benefits and harms of denosumab compared with no denosumab in terms of (1) facilitation of surgery (operative time, blood loss), (2) disease recurrence, (3) pain control, (4) disease stability, and (5) adverse effects (e.g., malignant transformation, osteonecrosis of jaw, atypical femur fracture)? One previous systematic review addressed only one outcome-disease recurrence. Therefore, we undertook this new systematic review to address the above five outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched on June 30, 2020. This systematic review included one previous systematic review and five comparative studies. Due to poor quality, non-randomized studies fraught with selection bias, it is difficult to determine if a significant difference exists in the outcomes for surgical giant cell tumour of bone with perioperative denosumab. There were no reported cases of adverse effects from denosumab. To date, there is insufficient evidence to understand the value of denosumab in the perioperative setting in patients with giant cell tumour of bone.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Denosumab; Giant Cell Tumor of Bone; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33809979
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28020124 -
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 -
Medicine Dec 2017Familial gigantiform cementoma (FGC) is a rare benign autosomal dominant fibrocemento-osseous lesion generally limited to the facial bones, typically in the anterior... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
Familial gigantiform cementoma (FGC) is a rare benign autosomal dominant fibrocemento-osseous lesion generally limited to the facial bones, typically in the anterior portion of the mandible; it is often associated with abnormalities of the long bones and prepubertal pathologic fractures. Owing to the small number of such patients, a uniform treatment criterion has not been established. This paper presents a patient with FGC who was treated in our department, and offers a systematic review of the patients reported in the literature. Our aim was to explore the treatment strategy for patients with FGC.
PATIENT CONCERNS
Our patient, a 13-year-old boy, presented with a painless enlargement of the mandible first noted 2 years earlier. It had grown rapidly over the preceding 8 months, affecting both his appearance and ability to chew.
DIAGNOSIS
Based on the pathologic, clinical, and radiographic features, FGC was diagnosed.
INTERVENTIONS
Mandibuloectomy was performed. The mandibular defect was immediately reconstructed with his right vascularized iliac crest flap. At the same time, a PubMed search was conducted to identify studies reporting on other patients with FGC.
OUTCOMES
A 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) scan demonstrated appropriate height of the new alveolar bone. Follow-up results showed recovery of the patient's appearance and mandibular function. He was free of recurrence at 4-year follow-up.
LESSONS
FGC is a rare benign fibrocemento-osseous lesion of the jaws that can cause severe facial deformity. Incomplete removal leads to more rapid growth of the residual lesion. Therefore, extensive resection is a suitable strategy to avoid recurrence. Defects of the facial bones found intraoperatively should be repaired with resort to an appropriate donor site. However, it is important to be aware that patients with FGC always have concomitant abnormalities of skeletal metabolism and structure, as well as a vulnerability to fractures of the long bones of the lower extremity. Therefore, the optimal management strategy should include a review of treatment options for other patients as reported in the literature. An optimal protocol can not only provide sufficient high-quality bone suitable for the reconstruction of bone defects, but also minimize complications and maximize quality of life.
Topics: Adolescent; Bone Transplantation; Cementoma; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Ilium; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Jaw Neoplasms; Male; Mandibular Neoplasms; Mandibular Reconstruction; Surgical Flaps; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 29390315
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009138 -
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