MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online search was done for studies reporting incidental prostate cancer in cystoprostatectomy specimens. After following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines we identified a total of 34 reports containing 13,140 patients who underwent radical cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer with no previous history of prostate cancer. A cumulative analysis was performed on the available data regarding prevalence, clinicopathological features and oncologic outcomes. RevMan, version 5.3 was used for data meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 13,140 patients incidental prostate cancer was detected in 3,335 (24.4%). Incidental prostate cancer was significantly associated with greater age (Z = 3.81, p = 0.0001, d = 0.27, 95% CI -0.14-0.68), lymphovascular invasion of bladder cancer (Z = 2.07, p = 0.04, r = 0.14, 95% CI 0.09-0.18) and lower 5-year overall survival (Z = 2.2, p = 0.03). Among patients with clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer those with clinically significant prostate cancer significantly more frequently showed a positive finding on digital rectal examination (Z = 3.12, p = 0.002, r = 0.10, 95% CI 0-0.19) and lower 5-year overall survival (Z = 2.49, p = 0.01) whereas no effect of age was observed (p = 0.15). Of 1,320 patients monitored for biochemical recurrence prostate specific antigen recurrence, defined as prostate specific antigen greater than 0.02 ng/ml, developed in 25 (1.9%) at between 3 and 102 months.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that incidental prostate cancer detected during histopathological examination of radical cystoprostatectomy specimens might be linked with adverse characteristics and outcomes in patients with invasive bladder cancer.
METHODS: Four-hundred and ten consecutive multiracial Asian patients undergoing colonoscopy for a variety of bowel symptoms in a private endoscopy unit were studied for differing frequencies (if any) in colonic diverticular disease and concomitant abnormalities.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients (10%) had diverticular disease. Diverticula were present in 22/147 Chinese (15%), 14/153 Indians (9%) and 5/110 Malays (4.5%). The mean age of patients with diverticular disease was 55 years as compared with 51.3 years in those without (P = 0.12) and there was no gender difference. Thirty-six patients (88%) had diverticula in the right colon only, four patients (10%) exclusively in the left hemicolon, and one patient (2%) had bilateral involvement. Using regression analysis, Chinese ethnicity [odds ratio (OR)=2.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-4.09; P = 0.027), constipation (OR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.23-5.42; P = 0.007) and colorectal adenomas (OR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.08-6.46; P = 0.033) were independently associated with diverticular disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Colonic diverticular disease in a multiracial Asian patient population has an ethnic predilection and is predominantly right-sided.
METHODS: In order to determine the prevalence and distribution of SMPD1 gene mutations, the genomic DNA of 15 unrelated Iranian patients with types A and B NPD was examined using PCR, DNA sequencing and bioinformatics analysis.
RESULTS: Of 8 patients with the p.G508R mutation, 5 patients were homozygous, while the other 3 were heterozygous. One patient was heterozygous for both the p.N385K and p.G508R mutations. Another patient was heterozygous for both the p.A487V and p.G508R mutations. Two patients (one homozygous and one heterozygous) showed the p.V36A mutation. One patient was homozygous for the c.1033-1034insT mutation. One patient was homozygous for the c.573delT mutation, and 1 patient was homozygous for the c.1417-1418delCT mutation. Additionally, bioinformatics analysis indicated that two new p.V36A and p.N385K mutations decreased the acid sphingomyelinase (ASM) protein stability, which might be evidence to suggest the pathogenicity of these mutations.
CONCLUSION: with detection of these new mutations, the genotypic spectrum of types A and B NPD is extended, facilitating the definition of disease-related mutations. However, more research is essential to confirm the pathogenic effect of these mutations.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.