Cediranib Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX Versus Placebo Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (HORIZON II)

Purpose Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2: 1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. Results In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. Conclusion Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC. J Clin Oncol 30:3596-3603. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Masticatory efficiency in class II and class III dentofacial deformities

Masticatory efficiency may be impaired in individuals with dentofacial deformities. The objective of the present study was to determine the condition of masticatory efficiency in individuals with dentofacial deformities. 30 patients with class II (DG-II) and 35 patients with class III (DG-III) dentofacial deformity participated in the study, all had an indication for orthognathic surgery. 30 volunteers (CG) with no alterations of facial morphology or dental occlusion and with no signs or symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction also participated. Masticatory efficiency was analysed using a bead system (colorimetric method). Each individual chewed 4 beads, one at a time, over 20 s measured with a chronometer. The groups were compared in term's of masticatory efficiency using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the level of significance set at P < 0.05. Masticatory efficiency was significantly greater in CG (P < 0.05) than in DG-II and DG-III in all chewing tasks tested, with no significant difference between DG-II and DG-III (P > 0.05). It was observed that the presence of class II and class III dentofacial deformity affected masticatory efficiency compared to CG, although there was no difference between DG-II and DG-III.

Comparative analysis of the anterior and posterior length and deflection angle of the cranial base, in individuals with facial pattern I, II and III

Objective: This study evaluated the variations in the anterior cranial base (S-N), posterior cranial base (S-Ba) and deflection of the cranial base (SNBa) among three different facial patterns (Pattern I, II and III). Method: A sample of 60 lateral cephalometric radiographs of Brazilian Caucasian patients, both genders, between 8 and 17 years of age was selected. The sample was divided into 3 groups (Pattern I, II and III) of 20 individuals each. The inclusion criteria for each group were the ANB angle, Wits appraisal and the facial profile angle (G’.Sn.Pg’). To compare the mean values obtained from (SNBa, S-N, S-Ba) each group measures, the ANOVA test and Scheffé’s Post-Hoc test were applied. Results and Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference for the deflection angle of the cranial base among the different facial patterns (Patterns I, II and III). There was no significant difference for the measures of the anterior and posterior cranial base between the facial Patterns I and II. The mean values for S-Ba were lower in facial Pattern III with statistically significant difference. The mean values of S-N in the facial Pattern III were also reduced, but without showing statistically significant difference. This trend of lower values in the cranial base measurements would explain the maxillary deficiency and/or mandibular prognathism features that characterize the facial Pattern III.