Does intensity-modulated radiation therapy by helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer increase the subsequent risk of bladder cancer? A propensity score-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of bladder cancer after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer in comparison to the risk post-radical prostatectomy (RP) using propensity score-matched analysis and to assess the risk factors for bladder cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2067 patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer treated at our institution between June 2007 and December 2016. Of these, 1547 patients were treated with IMRT and 520 underwent RP. The propensity scores were calculated using age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification, prostate volume, Brinkman index, and follow-up time as matched covariates. A propensity score-matched patient cohort (n = 718; IMRT: 359, RP: 359) was created, and the risk of bladder cancer after treatment was compared. RESULTS: In total, bladder cancer was detected in 33 patients. Five patients in the IMRT group and one in the RP group died of bladder cancer. In the propensity score-matched analysis, the 5-year bladder cancer-free survival rate was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the RP group (91.7% and 96.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that IMRT and the Brinkman index were the risk factors for bladder cancer in this cohort (odds ratio = 5.085, 95% confidence interval = 1.436-18.008, p = 0.012 and odds ratio = 1.001, 95% confidence interval = 1.000-1.001, p = 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy increases the subsequent risk of bladder cancer compared with RP and is an independent risk factor for bladder cancer similar to smoking.

Metastatic colon carcinoma in the maxilla: Highlighting the importance of perioperative oral management: A case report.

Metastatic colorectal carcinoma involving the maxilla is a rare phenomenon, and existing literature regarding the significance of perioperative oral function management (POM) in managing such cases is limited. In the present case report the clinical details of a 58-year-old male referred to the oral and maxillofacial department for POM. The patient had previously undergone segmental bowel resection due to stage IIIb colon cancer. A comprehensive approach encompassing a thorough medical history, meticulous physical examination, radiographic imaging and immunohistopathology was employed, and a definitive diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma in the left maxillary gingiva originating from a colorectal carcinoma was reached. Additionally, concomitant metastases were detected in the lungs and liver. Despite the daunting prognosis associated with the metastases in the oral cavity, the patient's quality of life exhibited discernible improvements owing to the implementation of palliative care interventions. Notably, this interdisciplinary approach facilitated the patient's survival for over a year. The present case report strongly advocates for the prompt integration of POM in the surgical management of cancer patients with oral manifestations, which can optimize both the quality of life and overall survival.