Search

Purpose: To evaluate the antineoplastic therapy (AT) as a risk factor for dental caries lesions independent of other risk factors such as income, family education, stimulated salivary flow rate, hygiene habits, frequency of sugar intake, and microbiota in childhood cancer (CC) patients. Methods: 72 individuals were divided into CC patients (n=36) and healthy individuals (control group - CT n=36). Demographic data, hygiene habits, frequency of sugar intake, CC type, and AT were collected. Stimulated salivary flow rate was measured and the presence and concentration of Streptococcus mutans were assessed using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) technique. Clinical evaluations included plaque index (PI) and decayed-missing-filled-teeth index (dmft/DMFT). Descriptive statistics, T-test, Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and two-way analysis of variance were used for data analysis (p<0.05). Results: At the time of oral evaluation, both groups exhibited similar ages with means of 12.0±3.9 years old for CC and 12.0±4.0 years old for CT patients. All CC patients underwent chemotherapy with nine also undergoing radiotherapy. Significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of color/race, income, family education, and hygiene habits. However, no statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding the frequency of sugar intake, stimulated salivary flow rate, or the concentration of Streptococcus mutans (qPCR technique). For clinical parameters, the DMF (CC:1.80, CT: 0.75), decayed (CC: 0.88, CT: 0.19), missing (CC: 0.25, CT:0), and PI (CC: 30.5%, CT: 22.6%) were higher in the CC group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Childhood cancer (CC) patients undergoing antineoplastic therapy (AT) exhibit a higher prevalence of dental caries, regardless of income/education, frequency of sugar intake, stimulated salivary flow rate, and microbiota. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether oral and dental hygiene protocols (DHPs) reduce the incidence and severity of oral mucositis (OM) during antineoplastic treatment. Materials and methods: This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42021295322) was based on searches of publicly accessible databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, EBSCOhost, LIVIVO, Embase, and gray literature (Google Scholar, ProQuest, and Energy) until December 2021. Twenty-five articles from these searches and 14 articles retrieved from the references therein were evaluated in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I for randomized (RCT) and non-randomized (n-RCT) clinical trials, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed on RCTs and n-RCTs in two subgroups to evaluate oral mouth rinses or DHP. GRADE-pro was used to assess the degree of certainty of the evidence. Results: Of the 3367 articles retrieved, 25 RCTs and 14 n-RCTs involving 2109 and 754 patients, respectively, were included in the analyses. RoB was low for RCTs and moderate-to-very severe for n-RCTs. High heterogeneity and publication RoB were identified. In RCTs, mouth rinses (p = 0.830) and DHP (p = 0.100) did not reduce the incidence of OM. However, mouth rinses strongly reduced the severity of OM (p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = − 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = − 2.49 to − 1.24). In non-RCTs, mouth rinses (p < 0.001) and DHP (p < 0.001) reduced the relative risk of OM 0.38 (95% CI = 0.24 to 0.59) and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.70) times, respectively. In addition, DHP strongly reduced OM severity (Cohen’s d = − 0.81, 95% CI = − 1.03 to − 0.59). GRADE-pro showed high certainty of OM severity and incidence in RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively, and low (OM incidence in RCTs) to very low (OM severity in non-RCTs) certainty in other outcomes. Conclusion: DHPs strongly reduce the severity and moderately reduce the incidence of OM. However, further studies with low heterogeneity are needed to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The increasing number of women living longer with potential side effects of breast cancer treatment highlights the need of a comprehensive assessment of its burden. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the relation between different breast cancer treatments and sleep quality 1 year after diagnosis.Methods: A cohort of 502 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients was prospectively followed. Sleep quality was evaluated with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), at baseline and at the 1-year follow-up. Odds ratios (OR) were computed to quantify the association between patient characteristics and poor sleep quality (PSQI score >5) at baseline, and relative risks (RR) were computed for the association between treatments and the occurrence of poor sleep quality at 1 year.Results: A total of 60.2% of the patients had poor sleep quality before breast cancer treatments, especially those with anxiety [OR = 2.86, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.92 to 4.27] or depression (OR = 5.25, 95%CI 2.01 to 13.67). Radiotherapy increased the risk of poor sleep quality at 1 year (RR = 3.71, 95%CI 1.15 to 11.96, for a cumulative dose >50 Gy) and there was a tendency for a higher risk in those submitted to chemotherapy, although not statistically significant.Conclusions: Our study shows that sleep disturbances are frequent before cancer treatment and confirms their co-occurrence with other medical conditions, such as anxiety and depression. Different breast cancer treatments increase the risk of impaired sleep quality, therefore contributing to the global disability associated with cancer treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing side effect that affects many patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy, despite the use of antiemetic medications. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin for the prevention of CINV during the first cycle of treatment in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: Eighty chemotherapy-naive patients, scheduled to receive moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were enrolled in this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. All patients received intravenous ondansetron 8 mg, dexamethasone 10 mg and ranitidine 50 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice a day on days 2 and 3. Patients were randomly assigned to take gabapentin 300 mg or placebo on the following schedule: 5 and 4 days before chemotherapy once daily, 3 and 2 days before chemotherapy twice daily, 1 day before to 5 days after chemotherapy thrice daily. The primary endpoint was complete overall protection from both vomiting and nausea over the course of the entire study (day 1 through day 5), and complete protection during the delayed period (24-120 h after chemotherapy). Results: The proportion of patients achieving complete response improved from 40% to 62.5%, ( p = 0.04) when comparing the control group and the gabapentin group, respectively. In the subset of patients who achieved complete control in the acute phase, the percentage of patients who achieved delayed complete control was higher in the gabapentin group (89.3 × 60.7%, p = 0.01). Adverse events did not significantly differ between study arms. Conclusions: Gabapentin is a low-cost strategy to improve complete control of CINV, specially delayed CINV control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]