Risk factors for oral mucositis in patients with solid tumorsunder treatment with cetuximab: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Background: This study retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for oral mucositis (OM) during cetuximab treatment. Material and Methods: We screened patients using cetuximab and retrospectively evaluated the presence of OM based on medical records. We collected information from 2 years of evaluations. Patient medical records were reviewed to obtain data on chemotherapy cycle and dose, sex, age, primary tumor, TNM stage, and head and neck radiotherapy (HNR) history. The X2 test and multinomial logistic regression were used for statistical analysis (SPSS 20.0, p < 0.05). Results: Among 1831 patients, OM was showed in 750 in any grade (41%), during cetuximab treatment. Most patients were female (n=944, 51.6%), <70years-old (n=1149, 62.8%), had larynx cancer (n=789, 43.1%) in T4 (n=579, 47.7%), N0 (n=509, 52.6%) stages. Primary tumor surgery was performed in 1476 (80.6%) patients, radiotherapy in 606 (33.1%) patients and cetuximab protocols most used involved up to four cycles (n=1072, 58.5%) of <400mg (n=996, 54.4%) cetuximab doses. Female (OR [odds ratio] = 2.17, CI95% = 1.26-3.75), >70 years-old patients (OR = 16.02, CI95% = 11.99-21.41), with HHNR (OR = 1.84, 1.41-2.40), treated with >4 cycles (OR = 1.52, CI95% = 1.16-2.01) and high doses of cetuximab (OR = 3.80, CI95% = 2.52-5.71) are the greatest risk factors for OM. Conclusions: Since the clinical benefit of cetuximab in the treatment of older patients is limited and there is a high OM, especially in women with head and neck treated with radiotherapy, high doses and a high number of cetuximab cycles must be administered with caution. (AU)

The impact of partially removing the Bichat fat pad in the linear facial measurements, satisfaction with facial aesthetics and quality of life: a single-arm CONSORT-guided clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of Bichat's ball removal on postoperative inflammatory parameters (pain, edema, and trismus), facial volume reduction, facial esthetic satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-arm clinical trial with 21 patients undergoing Bichat's ball removal. The following parameters were assessed at baseline and up to 3 months postoperatively: Visual Analogue Scale pain scores (0-10), rescue medication consumption, mouth opening, AM-Tr, AM-CEO, AM-NA, AM-CL, and AM-PM measurements, Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 QoL scores, and satisfaction with facial esthetics (FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance Overall Scale (SFAOS). X2, analysis of variance-repeated measures/Bonferroni, or Friedman/Dunn tests were used (p < 0.05, SPSS v20.0). RESULTS: Peak pain occurred after 2 h and, 10 h later, the levels returned to baseline values (p < 0.001). Rescue medication consumption peaked in the first 24 h reducing significantly after 72 h (p < 0.001). Mean mouth opening decreased after 24 h and returned to baseline levels after 1 month, and all linear facial measures reduced significantly after 1 or 3 months (p < 0.05). OHIP-14 scores and FACE-Q SFAOS scores showed significant improvement after 1 month (p < 0.001), but patients aged > 25 years showed a significant reduction in FACE-Q SFAOS at the end of the study (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical removal of the Bichat's ball induces a mild inflammatory process controlled by rescue medication, significantly reduces face volume, and improves QoL and satisfaction with facial esthetics 3 months postoperatively. However, the efficacy of this procedure in patients > 25 years old is questionable. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Evaluate the effectiveness of bichectomy in terms of clinical effects and impact on quality of life.

Analysis of a Brazilian cross-cultural adaptation of the FACE-Q SFAOS in facial harmonization in dentistry.

The FACE-Q SFAOS is an instrument developed for esthetic facial procedures and has been validated in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. It consists of ten items that assess the current perception of facial appearance regarding symmetry, harmony, proportion, freshness or vitality, and self-perception of appearance; these items are perhaps important to guide demands in orofacial harmonization (OFH). We aimed to validate the FACE-Q SFAOS scale among professionals working with OFH and verify its acceptance for use in clinical practice. Altogether, 25 OFH specialists were included to evaluate the FACE-Q SFAOS scale and the new technology acceptability model (TAM). Internal validity was measured using Cronbach's α coefficient. Both scales were associated with clinical experience and perceived usefulness using Spearman's correlation and Fisher's exact or chi-square tests (SPSS 20.0, p < 0.05). The FACE-Q SFAOS (α = 0.927) and TAM (α = 0.941) scales demonstrated good internal validity, and most professionals demonstrated good acceptance (TAM >70 = 64%). The mean FACE-Q SFAOS and TAM scores were 64.00±17.03 and 74.60±20.66, respectively. Practitioners with more than two years of experience (p=0.032) who believed the scale was useful for lip filler evaluation (p = 0.017) demonstrated greater acceptance. The number of indications on the scale was directly correlated with higher levels of acceptance (p = 0.002, r = 0.594). Thus, the FACE-Q SFAOS scale has good reproducibility and acceptance among OFH specialists; however, acceptability was shown to be dependent on perceived usability.

Analysis of a Brazilian cross-cultural adaptation of the FACE-Q SFAOS in facial harmonization in dentistry

Abstract: The FACE-Q SFAOS is an instrument developed for esthetic facial procedures and has been validated in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. It consists of ten items that assess the current perception of facial appearance regarding symmetry, harmony, proportion, freshness or vitality, and self-perception of appearance; these items are perhaps important to guide demands in orofacial harmonization (OFH). We aimed to validate the FACE-Q SFAOS scale among professionals working with OFH and verify its acceptance for use in clinical practice. Altogether, 25 OFH specialists were included to evaluate the FACE-Q SFAOS scale and the new technology acceptability model (TAM). Internal validity was measured using Cronbach's α coefficient. Both scales were associated with clinical experience and perceived usefulness using Spearman's correlation and Fisher's exact or chi-square tests (SPSS 20.0, p < 0.05). The FACE-Q SFAOS (α = 0.927) and TAM (α = 0.941) scales demonstrated good internal validity, and most professionals demonstrated good acceptance (TAM >70 = 64%). The mean FACE-Q SFAOS and TAM scores were 64.00±17.03 and 74.60±20.66, respectively. Practitioners with more than two years of experience (p=0.032) who believed the scale was useful for lip filler evaluation (p = 0.017) demonstrated greater acceptance. The number of indications on the scale was directly correlated with higher levels of acceptance (p = 0.002, r = 0.594). Thus, the FACE-Q SFAOS scale has good reproducibility and acceptance among OFH specialists; however, acceptability was shown to be dependent on perceived usability.