Dataset Information

Clinical long-term and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in oral cancer patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

The aim of this clinical study was to investigate the clinical long-term and patient-reported outcome of dental implants in patients with oral cancer. In addition, analysis of the influence of radiation therapy, timing of implant insertion, and augmentation procedures on implant survival was performed.

Material and methods

This retrospective study investigated the clinical outcome of 711 dental implants in 164 oral cancer patients, inserted by experienced surgeons of the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated.

Results

Cumulative 5-year and 10-year implant survival rates for all included implants were 87.3% and 80.0%. Implants placed straight after ablative surgery (primary implant placement) and implants placed after completing the oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement) showed a comparable implant survival (92.5% vs. 89.5%; p = 0.635). Irradiation therapy had no significant influence on implant survival of secondary placed implants (p = 0.929). However, regarding implant site (native bone vs. augmented bone) and radiation therapy (non-irradiated bone vs. irradiated bone), implants inserted in irradiated bone that received augmentation procedures showed a statistically significant lower implant survival (p < 0.001). Patients reported a distinct improvement in OHRQoL.

Conclusions

Promising long-term survival rates of dental implants in patients after treatment of oral cancer were seen. In addition, patients benefit in form of an improved OHRQoL. However, bone augmentation procedures in irradiated bone may result in an impaired implants' prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Schiegnitz E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276905 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Here we examine the relationship between achieving different levels of disease activity with tofacitinib (an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis), long-term structural progression, and patient-reported physical function. METHODS:This was a post hoc analysis of two 24-month, phase III randomized controlled trials in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve (ORAL Start [NCT01039688]) or MTX-inadequate responder (IR) patients (ORAL Scan [NCT00847613]) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily as either monotherapy or with background MTX. The modified total Sharp score (mTSS) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were analyzed at month 24 according to disease activity at month 6 defined by the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) or the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein (DAS28CRP). RESULTS:Mean changes from baseline in mTSS at month 24 were less in patients with CDAI remission at month 6 than in those with CDAI moderate/high disease activity (MDA/HDA) at month 6. A DAS28CRP of < 1.9 most closely approximated CDAI remission (≤ 2.8). Tofacitinib appeared to inhibit joint damage in the presence of persistent inflammation compared with MTX. More patients receiving tofacitinib or MTX with CDAI remission or low disease activity (LDA) at month 6 reported normative HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5) at month 24 than did those with CDAI MDA/HDA. CONCLUSION:Regardless of treatment, in both MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients, remission or LDA at month 6 was associated with successful long-term outcomes: inhibition of structural progression and normative HAQ-DI scores. Long-term outcomes were similar when patients achieved CDAI remission or a DAS28CRP of < 1.9, confirming that this is an appropriate cut-off for remission with DAS28CRP. Tofacitinib potentially inhibits joint damage even with persistent inflammation. FUNDING:Pfizer Inc. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT01039688 and NCT00847613.

Project description:BackgroundNonadherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is common and increases risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence. We analyzed factors associated with nonadherence among patients enrolled in S1105, a randomized trial of text messaging.MethodsAt enrollment, patients were required to have been on an adjuvant AI for at least 30 days and were asked about financial, medication, and demographic factors. They completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) representing pain (Brief Pain Inventory), endocrine symptoms (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptoms), and beliefs about medications (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medicine; Brief Medication Questionnaire). Our primary endpoint was AI nonadherence at 36 months, defined as urine AI metabolite assay of less than 10 ng/mL or no submitted specimen. We evaluated the association between individual baseline characteristics and nonadherence with logistic regression. A composite risk score reflecting the number of statistically significant baseline characteristics was examined.ResultsWe analyzed data from 702 patients; median age was 60.9 years. Overall, 35.9% patients were nonadherent at 36 months. Younger patients (younger than age 65 years) were more nonadherent (38.8% vs 28.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 2.16; P = .02). Fourteen baseline PRO scales were each statistically significantly associated with nonadherence. In a composite risk model categorized into quartile levels, each increase in risk level was associated with a 46.5% increase in the odds of nonadherence (OR = 1.47, 95% CI =1.26 to 1.70; P < .001). The highest-risk patients were more than 3 times more likely to be nonadherent than the lowest-risk patients (OR = 3.14, 95% CI = 1.97 to 5.02; P < .001).ConclusionsThe presence of multiple baseline PRO-specified risk factors was statistically significantly associated with AI nonadherence. The use of these assessments can help identify patients for targeted interventions to improve adherence.

Project description:ImportancePalliative care has shown benefits in reducing symptom intensity and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. However, high-quality evidence to support palliative care policy and service developments for patients with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) is lacking.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a short-term integrated palliative care (SIPC) intervention for people with LTNCs.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial conducted from April 1, 2015, to November 30, 2017, with a last follow-up date of May 31, 2018, in 7 UK hospitals with both neurology and palliative care services. A total of 535 patients with LTNC were assessed for eligibility and 350 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 years or older with any advanced stage of multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, idiopathic Parkinson disease multiple system atrophy, or progressive supranuclear palsy. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to March 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 using minimization method to receive SIPC (intervention, n = 176) or standard care (control, n = 174).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was change in 8 key palliative care symptoms from baseline to 12-weeks, measured by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for neurological conditions. Secondary outcomes included change in the burden of other symptoms, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden, and costs. Data were collected and analyzed blindly by intention to treat.ResultsA total of 350 patients (mean [SD] age 67 [12] years; years since diagnosis, 12 [range, 0-56]; 51% men; 49% requiring considerable assistance) with an advanced stage of LTNC were recruited, along with informal caregivers (n = 229). There were no between-group differences in primary outcome (effect size, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.05), any other patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, or survival. Although there was more symptom reduction in the SIPC group in relation to mean change in primary outcome, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (-0.78; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.26 vs -0.28; 95% CI, -0.82 to 0.26; P = .14). There was a decrease in mean health and social care costs from baseline to 12 weeks -$1367 (95% CI, -$2450 to -$282) in the SIPC group and -653 (95% CI, -$1839 to -$532) in the control group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .12). SIPC was perceived by patients and caregivers as building resilience, attending to function and deficits, and enabling caregivers.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, SIPC was not statistically significantly different from standard care for the patient-reported outcomes. However, SIPC was associated with lower cost, and in qualitative analysis was well-received by patients and caregivers, and there were no safety concerns. Further research is warranted.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN18337380.