Patients with oral tumors. Part 2: Quality of life after treatment with resection prostheses. Resection prosthetics: evaluation of quality of life

In the present study, the oral health-related quality of life of 18 patients (13 men and 5 women) was evaluated using validated questionnaires as proposed by the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The patients belonged to a cohort of 48 patients, whose prosthetic treatment was performed during the years 2004-2007. In the course of tumor resection, 12 patients underwent graft surgery and 14 patients radiotherapy. One patient required a nasal epithesis since resection of the nose became necessary. Five patients underwent a full block resection of the mandible, and tumor resection in 3 patients resulted in a large oronasal communication. Prosthetic rehabilitation was performed in all patients, and the follow-up period with regular care covered a minimum of 3 years. Eleven patients received dental implants for better support and retention of the prostheses. In spite of compromised oral conditions, functional restrictions, and some difficulties with the prostheses, the answers to the questionnaire were quite positive. The majority judged their general health as good or even excellent. The subjective perception of the patients may contradict the objective view by the dentist. In fact, the individual patient's history and experience provide a better understanding of the impact of oral tumors on daily life. The overall assessment identified 4 items that were perceived as major problems by all patients: swallowing solid food, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, and appearance. Prosthetic rehabilitation has only a limited influence on such problems.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.

Comparison of ovarian cancer markers in endometriosis favours HE4 over CA125

Endometriosis is a gynaecological condition with an associated chronic inflammatory response. The ectopic growth of 'lesions', consisting of endometrial cells outside the uterine cavity, stimulates an inflammatory response initiating the activation of macrophages, and resulting in increased cytokine and growth factor concentrations in the peritoneal fluid (PF). Endometriosis‑associated inflammation is chronic and long lasting. In patients with endometriosis, the risk of developing ovarian cancer within 10 years, particularly of the endometrioid or clear cell subtype, is increased 2.5‑4 times. Endometriosis creates a peritoneal environment that exposes the affected endometriotic and the normal ovarian surface epithelial cells to agents that have been suggested to be involved in the pathogenesis of cancer. Concentrations of several cytokines and growth factors were increased in the PF of patients with endometriosis. The ovarian cancer marker, CA125, was one such growth factor; however, this remains to be confirmed. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) was detected at high concentrations in patients with ovarian cancer and was identified as the best biomarker for the detection of ovarian cancer. The present study determined the levels of HE4 and CA125 in the peritoneal fluid of 258 patients with and 100 control individuals without endometriosis attending the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Berne (Berne, Switzerland) between 2007 and 2014. The cases were subdivided into groups without hormonal treatment (n=107), or treated with combined oral contraceptives (n=45), continuous gestagens (n=56) or GnRH agonists (n=50). Both of these markers were significantly increased in the non‑treated endometriosis samples compared with the control group. Hormone treatment with either of the three agents mentioned resulted in the concentration of CA125 returning to the control levels and the concentration of HE4 decreasing to below the control levels. CA125, however not HE4, significantly differed between the proliferative and secretory cycle phases. Since HE4 is sensitive to hormonal treatment and robust towards menstrual cycle variation, HE4 is potentially superior to CA125 as an endometriosis marker and therefore has greater potential as a marker for the identification of women at risk of developing ovarian cancer.