The trend of dental check-up and prevalence of dental complications following the use of bone modifying agents in patients with metastatic breast and prostate cancer: analysis of data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.

BACKGROUND: Bone-modifying agents (BMA) are key components in the management of cancer patients with bone metastasis. Despite their clinical benefits, the use of BMA is associated with dental adverse events (AEs) including medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). This study investigated the frequency of dental surveillance before BMA treatment and the prevalence of dental AEs including MRONJ, after BMA treatment in patients with bone metastasis from breast and prostate cancer using data from the national health insurance system. METHODS: Data, including age, cancer diagnosis, administered BMA, and dental AEs during cancer treatment, of patients with bone metastasis from breast and prostate cancer who received at least one infusion of BMA between 2007 and 2019 were extracted from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) dataset. RESULTS: Of the 15,357 patients who received BMA, 1,706 patients (11.1%) underwent dental check-ups before BMA treatment. The proportion of patients receiving dental check-up increased from 4.4% in 2007 to 16.7% in 2019. Referral to dentists for a dental check-up was more active in clinics/primary hospitals than general/tertiary hospitals, and medical doctors and urologists actively consulted to dentists than general surgeons, regardless of the patient's health insurance status. After BMA treatment, 508 patients (3.8%) developed dental AEs, including abscess (42.9%), acute periodontitis (29.7%), acute pericoronitis (14.9%), and MRONJ (12.5% of dental AEs cases, 0.5% of total BMA treated patients). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the long treatment period in patients with metastatic cancer, coordination between dentists and oncologists is necessary to ensure appropriate dental management before the initiation of BMA.

The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. METHODS: A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

Integrative analysis of risk factors for immune-related adverse events of checkpoint blockade therapy in cancer.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) induced by checkpoint inhibitors involve a multitude of different risk factors. Here, to interrogate the multifaceted underlying mechanisms, we compiled germline exomes and blood transcriptomes with clinical data, before and after checkpoint inhibitor treatment, from 672 patients with cancer. Overall, irAE samples showed a substantially lower contribution of neutrophils in terms of baseline and on-therapy cell counts and gene expression markers related to neutrophil function. Allelic variation of HLA-B correlated with overall irAE risk. Analysis of germline coding variants identified a nonsense mutation in an immunoglobulin superfamily protein, TMEM162. In our cohort and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data, TMEM162 alteration was associated with higher peripheral and tumor-infiltrating B cell counts and suppression of regulatory T cells in response to therapy. We developed machine learning models for irAE prediction, validated using additional data from 169 patients. Our results provide valuable insights into risk factors of irAE and their clinical utility.

Blood transfusion has an adverse impact on the prognosis of patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: experience from a single institution with a patient blood management program.

PURPOSE: Perioperative blood transfusion in early stage cancer patients had a negative effect on the prognosis of patients, but the prognostic impact of transfusion in advanced cancer patients remains unclear. To minimize and guide rational transfusion, an institutional patient blood management (PBM) program was launched, and we evaluated the new program that has changed the practice and impacted on the prognosis of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: We investigated the medical records of colorectal cancer patients who received chemotherapy from 2015 to 2020. The amount and frequency of transfusion, iron replacement and laboratory findings, and overall survival were compared before and after implementation of PBM. RESULTS: The rate of transfusion in colorectal cancer patients was significantly decreased from 23.5/100 person-quarter in 2015 to 1.2/100 person-quarter in 2020, but iron supplementation therapy was frequently used, and the proportion of patients who received transfusion under hemoglobin 7 g/dL significantly increased from 15.9% in 2015 to 55.3% in 2020. Multivariate analysis revealed that transfusion was a significant risk factor affecting the overall survival of patients (HR 2.70, 95% CI: 1.93-3.78, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that overall survival was significantly longer in non-transfused patients than in transfused patients (11.0 versus 22.4 months; HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.86, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that minimized transfusion through an institutional PBM can positively affect the prognosis of patients who are receiving chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer.

Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program on the Physical and Psychological Status and Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

This nonequivalent control group pre-/posttest study investigated the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based stress reduction program at improving both the physical status and psychological status of 18 patients with metastatic breast cancer. The mindfulness-based stress reduction program had a mild effect of improving average pain and alleviating distress.

Sorafenib versus cytotoxic chemotherapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective, single-institution study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the 2008 advent of sorafenib, traditional cytotoxic agents were the therapeutic mainstay for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We thus undertook a clinical study of sorafinib and conventional cytotoxic therapy for HCC, comparing efficacy and safety. METHODS: From January, 2002 to December, 2009, 173 patients with unresectable HCC were reviewed retrospectively. Among them, 44 (25.4%) had been treated with sorafenib, and the remainder had received cytotoxic therapy (CTX). We evaluated objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profiles. RESULTS: Median OS of sorafinib was 23.0 weeks (95% CI, 8.1-37.9) vs 43.6 weeks (95% CI, 34.0-53.2) for CTX. Likewise, median PFS was 11.1 weeks (95% CI, 6.5-15.8) vs 12.4 weeks (95% CI, 8.1-16.7) for sorafenib and CTX, respectively. Neither parameter differed significantly (OS, p = 0.105; PFS, p = 0.496). ORR and disease control rate for sorafenib were 2.3% and 52.3% vs 6.2% and 43.4% for CTX. CTX-treated patients experienced more Grade 3/4 neutropenia (19.7% vs 0% for sorafenib), while sorafenib therapy was more often linked to dermatologic toxicities (all grades), such as hand-foot skin reaction, rash, and pruritus. CONCLUSION: Although sorafenib has become the treatment of choice for advanced HCC, there are still unsettled issues regarding the optimal use of sorafenib. Our analysis indicates that conventional CTX can be another option of treatment for advanced HCC. To improve clinical outcomes, further prospective investigations which define the role of CTX are needed.