METHODS: This historical cohort study included women who underwent mastectomy after diagnosis with stage 0 to stage IIIa breast cancer from 2011 to 2015 in a tertiary hospital. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with immediate breast reconstruction and to measure clinical outcomes.
RESULT: Out of 790 patients with early breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy, only 68 (8.6%) received immediate breast reconstruction. Immediate breast reconstruction was independently associated with younger age at diagnosis, recent calendar years, Chinese ethnicity, higher education level, and invasive ductal carcinomas. Although immediate breast reconstruction was associated with a higher risk of short-term local surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio: 3.58 [95% confidence interval 1.75-7.30]), there were no significant differences in terms of delay in initiation of chemotherapy, 5-year disease-free survival, and 5-year overall survival between both groups in the multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSION: Although associated with short-term surgical complications, immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy does not appear to be associated with delays in initiation of chemotherapy, recurrence, or mortality after breast cancer. These findings are valuable in facilitating shared surgical decision-making, improving access to immediate breast reconstruction, and setting priorities for surgical trainings in middle-income settings.
Case presentation: 50-year-old male had his chemoport inserted for adjuvant chemotherapy 3 years ago. During the removal, remaining half of the distal catheter was not found. There was no difficulties during the removal. Chest xray revealed that the fractured catheter had embolized to the right ventricle. Further history taking, he did experienced occasional palpitation and chest discomfort for the past six months. Electrocardiogram and cardiac enzymes were normal. Urgent removal of the fractured catheter via the percutaneous endovascular approach, under fluoroscopic guidance by an experience interventional radiologist was done. The procedure was successful without any complication. Patient made an uneventful recovery. He was discharged the following day, and was well during his 3rd month follow up.
Conclusion: Early detection and preventive measures can be done to prevent pinch-off syndrome. Unrecognized POS can result in fatal complications such as cardiac arrhythmia and septic embolization. Retrieval via the percutaneous endovascular approach provide excellent outcome in the case of embolized fractured catheter.
Purpose: This study was conducted to explore attitude and practice on using AET among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.
Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal breast cancer patients on at least 3 months of AET attending the outpatient oncology clinic at a tertiary care hospital were interviewed. Patients underwent in-depth interviews exploring their attitude and practices while on AET using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results: There were four main themes for attitude toward the use of AET: 1) benefits of using AET, 2) concerns on taking AET, 3) beliefs on alternative treatment, and 4) beliefs toward the doctor. For practice, six themes were obtained: 1) correct use of AET, 2) appointment adherence, 3) information-seeking behavior, 4) counseling services obtained, 5) experienced side effects of AET, and 6) usage of complementary and alternative medicines.
Conclusion: Several themes concerning attitude and practice of breast cancer patients receiving AET were identified, which may be addressed during treatment consultations in clinical practice.
Case presentation: A 26-year-old lady presented with anterior neck swelling with symptoms of superior vena cava syndrome for 6 months. Imaging study revealed a mediastinal mass which was preceded with core biopsy which was consistent with high-grade small cell NETs. Despite second-line adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, her disease became advanced which was confirmed via restaging scan. There were bilateral breast lesions discovered during the scan which was deemed to be metastatic NETs histologically. Despite prompt initiation of treatment, she succumbed 1 year after the radiotherapy due to disease progression.
Conclusion: High suspicion of an index is needed for diagnosis when patients with known primary NETs present with suspicious breast lesions. Triple assessment is mandatory, however histopathology assessment and immunohistochemistry staining are the mainstay of diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP for the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 9 March 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which involved individuals with clinically diagnosed untreated periodontitis. Trials compared SRP with systemic antibiotics versus SRP alone/placebo, or with other systemic antibiotics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 trials conducted worldwide involving 2664 adult participants. 14 studies were at low, 8 at high, and the remaining 23 at unclear overall risk of bias. Seven trials did not contribute data to the analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the 10 comparisons which reported long-term follow-up (≥ 1 year). None of the studies reported data on antimicrobial resistance and patient-reported quality of life changes. Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -16.20%, 95% CI -25.87 to -6.53; 1 study, 44 participants); clinical attachment level (CAL) (MD -0.47 mm, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.05; 2 studies, 389 participants); probing pocket depth (PD) (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; 2 studies, 389 participants); and percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) (MD -8.06%, 95% CI -14.26 to -1.85; 2 studies, 389 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for closed pockets and BOP showed a minimally important clinical difference (MICD) favouring amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP. Metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -12.20%, 95% CI -29.23 to 4.83; 1 study, 22 participants); CAL (MD -1.12 mm, 95% CI -2.24 to 0; 3 studies, 71 participants); PD (MD -1.11 mm, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.61; 2 studies, 47 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -6.90%, 95% CI -22.10 to 8.30; 1 study, 22 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for CAL and PD showed an MICD favouring the MTZ + SRP group. Azithromycin + SRP versus SRP for chronic/aggressive periodontitis: we found no evidence of a difference in percentage of closed pockets (MD 2.50%, 95% CI -10.19 to 15.19; 1 study, 40 participants); CAL (MD -0.59 mm, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.08; 2 studies, 110 participants); PD (MD -0.77 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.79; 2 studies, 110 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -1.28%, 95% CI -4.32 to 1.76; 2 studies, 110 participants) (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP versus SRP for chronic periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 21 participants for CAL (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.71); PD (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.37); and BOP (MD 0%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Doxycycline + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 22 participants for CAL (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.11); and PD (MD -1.00 mm, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.22) was of very low certainty, with the doxycycline + SRP group showing an MICD in PD only. Tetracycline + SRP versus SRP for aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL for the tetracycline group (MD -2.30 mm, 95% CI -2.50 to -2.10; 1 study, 26 participants). Clindamycin + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 21 participants of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -2.40 to -1.00); and PD (MD -1.80 mm, 95% CI -2.47 to -1.13) favouring clindamycin + SRP. Doxycycline + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: there was very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 27 participants of a difference in long-term CAL (MD 1.10 mm, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84); and PD (MD 1.00 mm, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.70) favouring metronidazole + SRP. Clindamycin + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 26 participants for CAL (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.95); and PD (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.78) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Clindamycin + SRP versus doxycycline + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 23 participants for CAL (MD -0.90 mm, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.18); and PD (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.02) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Most trials testing amoxicillin, metronidazole, and azithromycin reported adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mild gastrointestinal disturbances, and metallic taste. No serious adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-certainty evidence (for long-term follow-up) to inform clinicians and patients if adjunctive systemic antimicrobials are of any help for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. There is insufficient evidence to decide whether some antibiotics are better than others when used alongside SRP. None of the trials reported serious adverse events but patients should be made aware of the common adverse events related to these drugs. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted clearly defining the minimally important clinical difference for the outcomes closed pockets, CAL, PD, and BOP.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared a prospectively collected group of 48 patients undergoing oxaliplatin/irinotecan-based perioperative systemic chemotherapy (s-CT) with targeted agents, and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) (no-HIPEC group) with 48 controls undergoing the same perioperative s-CT and CRS/HIPEC (HIPEC group). Patients were matched (1:1) according to the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score, completeness of cytoreduction, history of extraperitoneal disease (EPD), and Peritoneal Cancer Index.
RESULTS: The groups were comparable, except for a higher number of patients in the HIPEC group with World Health Organization performance status 0, pN2 stage primary tumor, and treated with preoperative s-CT. Forty-one patients in the no-HIPEC group and 43 patients in the HIPEC group had optimal comprehensive treatment (P = 0.759), defined as complete cytoreduction of PM and margin-negative EPD resection. Median follow-up was 31.6 months in the no-HIPEC group and 39.9 months in the HIPEC group. Median overall survival was 39.3 months in the no-HIPEC group and 34.8 months in the HIPEC group (P = 0.702). In the two groups, severe morbidity occurred in 14 (29.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients, respectively (P = 1.000), with no operative deaths. On multivariate analysis, left-sided primary and curative treatment independently correlated with better survival while HIPEC did not (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.15; P = 0.178).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed that, in selected patients, perioperative s-CT and surgical treatment of CRC-PM resulted in unexpectedly high survival rates. Mitomycin C-based HIPEC did not increase morbidity but did not impact prognosis.
METHOD: This was a retrospective clinical record review study carried out at a tertiary centre from June 2013 until May 2017. A total of 55 locally recurrent NPC patients (rT1-rT4) underwent EETN performed by single skull base surgeon with curative intention with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy but without postoperative radiotherapy.
RESULTS: There were 44 (80.0%) males and 11 (20.0%) females, with mean age of 52.5 years. The mean operating time was 180 min (range 150-280 min). 85% (47/55) of patients achieved en bloc tumour resection. 93% (51/55) of patients obtained negative microscopic margin based on postoperative histopathological evaluation. Intraoperatively, one (1.8%) patient had internal carotid artery injury which was successfully stented and had recovered fully without neurological deficit. There were no major postoperative complications reported. During a mean follow-up period of 18-month (range 12-48 months) postsurgery, five patients (9.1%) had residual or recurrence at the primary site. All five patients underwent re-surgery. One patient at rT3 passed away 6 months after re-surgery due to distant metastasis complicated with septicaemia. The 1-year local disease-free rate was 93% and the 1-year overall survival rate was 98%.
CONCLUSIONS: EETN is emerging treatment options for locally recurrent NPC, with relatively low morbidity and encouraging short-term outcome. Long-term outcome is yet to be determined with longer follow-up and bigger cohort study. However, a successful surgical outcome required a very experienced team and highly specialised equipment.
METHODS: Postmenopausal breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy were recruited at three hospitals in Malaysia. Presence and severity of menopausal symptoms were determined using the Menopause Rating Scale. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected from medical records.
RESULTS: A total of 192 patients participated in this study. Commonly reported symptoms were musculoskeletal pain (59.9%), physical and mental exhaustion (59.4%), and hot flushes (41.1%). Multivariate analyses indicated that increasing number of years after menopause until the start of endocrine therapy was significantly associated with less likelihood of reporting menopausal symptoms and musculoskeletal pain. Patients with primary or secondary education levels reported significantly less menopausal urogenital symptoms compared to patients with a tertiary education level. Patients using aromatase inhibitors were twice as likely to experience musculoskeletal pain compared to patients using tamoxifen (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.50; p
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
SETTING: An academic medical center.
METHODS: Weight changes of patients who received weight loss medications after bariatric surgery from 2012 to 2015 at a single center were studied.
RESULTS: Weight loss medications prescribed for 209 patients were phentermine (n = 156, 74.6%), phentermine/topiramate extended release (n = 25, 12%), lorcaserin (n = 18, 8.6%), and naltrexone slow-release/bupropion slow-release (n = 10, 4.8%). Of patients, 37% lost>5% of their total weight 1 year after pharmacotherapy was prescribed. There were significant differences in weight loss at 1 year in gastric banding versus sleeve gastrectomy patients (4.6% versus .3%, P = .02) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy patients (2.8% versus .3%, P = .01).There was a significant positive correlation between body mass index at the start of adjuvant pharmacotherapy and total weight loss at 1 year (P = .025).
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant weight loss medications halted weight regain in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. More than one third achieved>5% weight loss with the addition of weight loss medication. The observed response was significantly better in gastric bypass and gastric banding patients compared with sleeve gastrectomy patients. Furthermore, adjuvant pharmacotherapy was more effective in patients with higher body mass index. Given the low risk of medications compared with revisional surgery, it can be a reasonable option in the appropriate patients. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal medication and timing of adjuvant pharmacotherapy after bariatric surgery.
METHOD: All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors measuring≤2cm at the University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia) from 1993 to 2013 were included. Mortality of patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy were compared and adjusted for possible confounders using propensity score.
RESULTS: Of 6732 breast cancer patients, 341 (5.1%) had small (≤2cm), node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors at diagnosis. Among them, only 214 (62.8%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival was 88.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.0%-94.2%) for patients receiving chemotherapy and 89.6% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.1%) for patients without chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was not associated with survival following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor size, tumor grade, HER2 status, lympho-vascular invasion, type of surgery and radiotherapy administration. However, chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival advantage (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14-0.91) in a subgroup of women with high-grade tumors.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit in women with T1N0M0, hormone receptor negative breast cancer except in those with high-grade tumors.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BC) from 2005 to 2013 at our tertiary institution were included and divided according to race and subtypes. Demographic and clinical information of non-metastatic TNBC patients were analyzed. Log-rank test, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to find associated risk factors related with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).
RESULTS: Among 1227 BC patients, 129 (10.5%) had TNBC. TNBC patients had the worst OS (P: 0.0005) and DFS (P: 0.0016) among the subtypes. However, variations in race did not have any difference in OS or DFS among TNBC patients. Axillary lymph node involvement, invasive lobular histology, larger tumor size, and the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were factors associated with both poor DFS and OS among TNBC patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Racial variation did not have any impact on the prognosis of the TNBC.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Eligible publications reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or disease-specific survival (DSS) were included. A total of 14 studies, including 17,869 patients, were considered for analysis. The impact of therapeutic modalities on survival was assessed, with a risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: For RP, RT, and HT, the mean 10-year OS was 70.7% (95% CI 61.3-80.2), 65.8% (95% CI 48.1-83.3), and 22.6% (95% CI 4.9-40.3; p = 0.001), respectively. The corresponding 10-year DSS was 84.1% (95% CI 75.1-93.2), 89.4% (95% CI 70.1-108.6), and 50.4% (95% CI 31.2-69.6; p = 0.0127), respectively. Among all treatment combinations, RP displayed significant improvement in OS when included in the treatment (Z = 4.01; p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT significantly improved DSS (Z = 2.7; p = 0.007). Combination of RT and HT favored better OS in comparison to monotherapy with RT or HT (Z = 3.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes in advanced PC were detected for RP plus adjuvant RT vs. RP alone and RT plus adjuvant HT vs. RT alone with comparable survival results between both regimens. RP with adjuvant RT may present the modality of choice when HT is contraindicated.