Impact of solid cancer on in-hospital mortality overall and among different subgroups of patients with COVID-19: a nationwide, population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer seems to have an independent adverse prognostic effect on COVID-19-related mortality, but uncertainty exists regarding its effect across different patient subgroups. We report a population-based analysis of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 with prior or current solid cancer versus those without cancer. METHODS: We analysed data of adult patients registered until 24 May 2020 in the Belgian nationwide database of Sciensano. The primary objective was in-hospital mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with solid cancer versus patients without cancer. Severe event occurrence, a composite of intensive care unit admission, invasive ventilation and/or death, was a secondary objective. These endpoints were analysed across different patient subgroups. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyse the association between cancer and clinical characteristics (baseline analysis) and the effect of cancer on in-hospital mortality and on severe event occurrence, adjusting for clinical characteristics (in-hospital analysis). RESULTS: A total of 13 594 patients (of whom 1187 with solid cancer (8.7%)) were evaluable for the baseline analysis and 10 486 (892 with solid cancer (8.5%)) for the in-hospital analysis. Patients with cancer were older and presented with less symptoms/signs and lung imaging alterations. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with solid cancer compared with patients without cancer (31.7% vs 20.0%, respectively; adjusted OR (aOR) 1.34; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58). The aOR was 3.84 (95% CI 1.94 to 7.59) among younger patients (<60 years) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.41 to 3.64) among patients without other comorbidities. Severe event occurrence was similar in both groups (36.7% vs 28.8%; aOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based analysis demonstrates that solid cancer is an independent adverse prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19. This adverse effect was more pronounced among younger patients and those without other comorbidities. Patients with solid cancer should be prioritised in vaccination campaigns and in tailored containment measurements.

Multi-modular bone healing assessment in a randomized controlled clinical trial of root-end surgery with the use of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin and an occlusive membrane.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess in a multi-modular manner the bone healing 1 year post root-end surgery (RES) with leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (LPRF) and Bio-Gide® (BG; Geistlich Pharma North America, Inc., Princeton, USA) as an occlusive membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of RES +/- LPRF and +/- BG was performed. The follow-up until 1 year post RES was performed by means of ultrasound imaging (UI), periapical radiographs (PR), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). RESULTS: From the 50 included patients, 6 dropped-out during follow-up. For the 44 assessed patients (34 with UI and 42 with PR and CBCT), there was no evidence (p > 0.05) for an effect of LRPF, neither on UI measurements nor on CBCT assessments. On the contrary, there was an indication for a better outcome with BG. UI presented significant shorter healing time for the bony crypt surface (p = 0.014) and cortical opening (p = 0.006) for the groups with BG. The qualitative CBCT assessment for the combined scores of the apical area and cortical plane was significantly higher for BG (p = 0.01 and 0.02). The quantitative CBCT measurement for bone healing after 1 year was lower with BG (p = 0.019), as well as the percentage of non-zero values (p = 0.026), irrespective of the preoperative lesion size and type. Furthermore, UI seemed to be safer for frequent follow-up during the early postoperative stage (0-3 months), whereas CBCT gave more accurate results 1 year post RES. Amongst the assessors, the qualitative PR analysis was inconsistent for a favorable outcome 1 year post RES with LPRF (p = 0.11 and p = 0.023), but consistent for BG (p = 0.024 and p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for improvement of bone healing when RES was applied with LPRF in comparison with RES without LPRF. However, RES with BG gave evidence for a better outcome than RES without BG. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The addition of an occlusive membrane rather than an autologous platelet concentrate improved bone regeneration 1 year post RES significantly, irrespective of the assessment device applied. The accuracy of PR assessment is questionable.

Root-end surgery with leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin and an occlusive membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial on patients' quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the adjunct of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (LPRF) to root-end surgery (RES) on the patients' quality of life during the first week post RES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in need of RES were recruited for an open randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) with a 2 × 2 factorial design. They were randomly allocated to the test (+LPRF) and control (-LPRF) group. Each group was subsequently divided into two strata: with or without an occlusive membrane (Bio-Gide®, Geistlich Biomaterials, Switzerland; BG). After RES, the patients completed daily for 1 week a visual analog pain scale (VAS) and a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire concerning activity impairment, occurrence of symptoms, and medication use. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included, equally divided between the test and control group. Only one patient in the "-LPRF+BG-group" had to take additional antibiotics due to a persistent jaw swelling. There was no evidence (p ≤ 0.05) for a difference between the test and control group in VAS, occurrence of pain symptoms, impairment of daily activities, and medication use, over the 7 days and daily during the 7 days post RES. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical significant evidence for improvement of patients' quality of life during the first week post RES with LPRF in comparison with RES without LPRF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although LPRF seems to be an inexpensive and autologous agent to reduce pain and swelling post RES, this RCT does not provide a statistical significant evidence for that.

Ultrasound Assessment of Bone Healing after Root-end Surgery: Echoes Back to Patient's Safety.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to present ultrasound imaging (UI) techniques as promising and safe tools for the follow-up of root-end surgery (RES) in vivo. METHODS: The study included 8 patients who underwent RES. All were followed up using UI at 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months (if necessary) after RES. The bony crypt was defined on the ultrasound image, and the following observations were made during follow-up: cortical bone interruption and surface area measurement of the residual echoic bony crypt image. RESULTS: In all cases, the hypoechoic image became hyperechoic, indicating gradual bone healing of the crypt. Compared with baseline, at 3 months a remaining cortical opening of 51.2% (±12.6%) and a bony crypt surface area of 24.3% (±10.8%) was detected for all patients. For 50% of the patients, the echographic follow-up ended at 3 months because the ultrasound waves could no longer enter the bony crypt. For 4 patients who attended the 6-month recall, a remaining cortical disruption of 43.2% (±9.9%) and a bony crypt surface area of 17.2% (±7%) compared with the baseline was noted. CONCLUSIONS: UI is a promising follow-up tool for RES. It helps clinicians understand the initial stages of bone healing, allows close healing monitoring, and is radiation free.