Efficacy of pegfilgrastim administration in patients with esophageal cancer treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil.

Chemotherapy is among the standard treatments for esophageal cancer. The docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin (DCF) protocol yields a better response rate than 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin. However, the incidence of side effects, such as febrile neutropenia and hematologic toxicity, is also significantly high with the DCF protocol. The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and pegfilgrastim are prophylactically administered to prevent febrile neutropenia. This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving DCF therapy. Of the 65 patients who were administered DCF therapy in our hospital from 2011 through 2016, 21 received pegfilgrastim 24 hours or more after the end of chemotherapy. The protocol comprised 70 mg/m2 each of docetaxel and cisplatin on day 1 and 700 mg/m2 5-fluorouracil on days 1 to 5 via intravenous injection in a 3-week cycle. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The mean patient age was 66.4 years. The incidence of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 14.2 % and 11.4 %, respectively, in the pegfilgrastim group and 31.9 % and 37.8 %, respectively, in the non-pegfilgrastim group. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in the pegfilgrastim group and non-pegfilgrastim group was 11.4 % and 40.3 %, respectively. Statistical analysis showed that the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was significantly different (p<0.05) between the two groups. Pegfilgrastim prevents severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in patients with esophageal cancer who are treated according to the DCF protocol.

Clarifying the mechanism of effect of the Bionator for treatment of maxillary protrusion: A percentile growth study.

AIM: The reported effects of Bionator treatment in patients with mandibular retrognathism are conflicting. This study evaluated the changes in craniofacial morphology resulting from treatment with a Bionator, based on measurement percentiles previously reported, to clarify the mechanism of the effect of this commonly used functional device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study Design: Retrospective. SETTING: A private orthodontic clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two children (mean age, 10.13 years) requiring treatment with a Bionator for Class II malocclusion (mandibular retrognathism). Children were randomly assigned to a Bionator group with or without an expansion screw. Measurements on lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and upon completion of Bionator treatment. All parameters measured were characterised according to the measurement percentiles previously reported. Each parameter was compared before and after treatment for all patients and for each treatment group using Wilcoxon's test. RESULTS: No significant differences in cranial length or mandibular body length were seen in any of the 3 groups, but anterior cranial base length and maxillary length were significantly decreased while mandibular ramus height and mandibular length were significantly increased after treatment in the Bionator with expansion screw group and in the all-patient group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that treatment with a Bionator with expansion screw during the growth and development stage results in increased mandible length and ramus height and inhibits the growth of the maxilla and anterior cranial base bone.