General practitioner involvement in follow-up of childhood cancer survivors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND An increasing number of childhood cancer survivors need long-term follow-up care. Different models address this problem, including that of follow-up by general practitioners (GP). We describe models that involve GPs in follow-up for childhood cancer survivors, their advantages and disadvantages, clinics that employ these models, and the elements essential to high-quality, GP-led follow-up care. PROCEDURE We searched four databases (PubMed [including Medline], Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL) without language restrictions. RESULTS We found 26 publications, which explicitly mentioned GP-led follow-up. Two models were commonly described: GP-only, and shared care between GP and pediatric oncology or late effects clinic. The shared care model appears to have advantages over GP-only follow-up. We found four clinics using models of GP-led follow-up, described in five papers. We identified well-organized transition, treatment summary, survivorship care plan, education of GPs and guidelines as necessary components of successful follow-up. CONCLUSION Scarcity of literature necessitated a review rather than a meta-analysis. More research on the outcomes of GP-led care is necessary to confirm the model for follow-up of childhood cancer survivors in the long term. However, with the necessary elements in place, the model of GP-led follow-up, and shared care in particular, holds promise.

Positional guidelines for orthodontic mini-implant placement in the anterior alveolar region: a systematic review

PURPOSE To investigate the adequacy of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the anterior alveolar region (delimited by the first premolars) through a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT (CBCT) to assess anatomical hard tissue parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density. MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers published between 1980 and September 2011. An extensive search strategy was performed that included the key words "computerized (computed) tomography" and "mini-implants." Information was extracted from the eligible articles for three anatomical areas: maxillary anterior buccal, maxillary anterior palatal, and mandibular anterior buccal. Quantitative data obtained for each anatomical variable under study were evaluated qualitatively with a scoring system. RESULTS Of the 790 articles identified by the search, 8 were eligible to be included in the study. The most favorable area for OMI insertion in the anterior maxilla (buccally and palatally) and mandible is between the canine and the first premolar. The best alternative area in the maxilla (buccally) and the mandible is between the lateral incisor and the canine, while in the maxillary palatal area it is between the central incisors or between the lateral incisor and the canine. CONCLUSIONS Although there is considerable heterogeneity among studies, there is a good level of agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI placement in the anterior region among investigations of anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT scans. In this context, the area between the lateral incisor and the first premolar is the most favorable. However, interroot distance seems to be a critical factor that should be evaluated carefully.

Comparing Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine schedules: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine trials

BACKGROUND The optimal schedule and the need for a booster dose are unclear for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines. We systematically reviewed relative effects of Hib vaccine schedules. METHODS We searched 21 databases to May 2010 or June 2012 and selected randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared different Hib schedules (3 primary doses with no booster dose [3p+0], 3p+1 and 2p+1) or different intervals in primary schedules and between primary and booster schedules. Outcomes were clinical efficacy, nasopharyngeal carriage and immunological response. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty trials from 15 countries were included; 16 used vaccines conjugated to tetanus toxoid (polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid). No trials assessed clinical or carriage outcomes. Twenty trials examined immunological outcomes and found few relevant differences. Comparing polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid 3p+0 with 2p+0, there was no difference in seropositivity at the 1.0 μg/mL threshold by 6 months after the last primary dose (combined risk difference -0.02; 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.06). Only small differences were seen between schedules starting at different ages, with different intervals between primary doses, or with different intervals between primary and booster doses. Individuals receiving a booster were more likely to be seropositive than those at the same age who did not. CONCLUSIONS There is no clear evidence from trials that any 2p+1, 3p+0 or 3p+1 schedule of Hib conjugate vaccine is likely to provide better protection against Hib disease than other schedules. Until more data become available, scheduling is likely to be determined by epidemiological and programmatic considerations in individual settings.