Dysphagia Progression And Swallowing Management In Parkinson's Disease: An Observational Study.

Dysphagia is relatively common in individuals with neurological disorders. To describe the swallowing management and investigate associated factors with swallowing in a case series of patients with Parkinson's disease. It is a long-term study with 24 patients. The patients were observed in a five-year period (2006-2011). They underwent Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing, Functional Oral Intake Scale and therapeutic intervention every three months. In the therapeutic intervention they received orientation about exercises to improve swallowing. The Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's tests were used. The period of time for improvement or worsening of swallowing was described by Kaplan-Meier analysis. During the follow-up, ten patients improved, five stayed the same and nine worsened their swallowing functionality. The median time for improvement was ten months. Prior to the worsening there was a median time of 33 months of follow-up. There was no associated factor with improvement or worsening of swallowing. The maneuvers frequently indicated in therapeutic intervention were: chin-tuck, bolus consistency, bolus effect, strengthening-tongue, multiple swallows and vocal exercises. The swallowing management was characterized by swallowing assessment every three months with indication of compensatory and rehabilitation maneuvers, aiming to maintain the oral feeding without risks. There was no associated factor with swallowing functionality in this case series.

P16(ink) (4a) Expression As A Potential Marker Of Low-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Progression.

To evaluate p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in CIN1 lesions looking for differences between cases that progress to CIN2/3 maintain CIN1 diagnosis, or spontaneously regress. Seventy-four CIN1 biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy was performed and 28.7% showed no lesion (regression), 37.9% maintained CIN1, and 33.4% progressed to CIN2/3. Immunostaining for p16(INK) (4a) was performed in the first biopsy and it was considered positive when there was strong and diffuse staining of the basal and parabasal layers. Pearson's chi-square was used to compare the groups (p ≤ 0.05). The age of the patients was similar. There was no significant difference in p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in the groups, however, statistical analyses showed a significant association when only the progression and regression groups were compared (p = 0.042). Considering p16(INK) (4a) positivity and the progression to CIN2/3, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values in our cohort were 45%, 75%, 47%, and 94%, respectively. We emphasize that CIN1 with p16(INK) (4a) staining was associated with lesion progression, but the sensitivity was not high. However, the negative predictive value was more reliable (94%) and p16(INK) (4a) may represent a useful biomarker that can identify CIN1 lesions that need particular attention, complementing morphology.