MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 180 samples were used for polymerization shrinkage (buoyancy and optical methods) and degree of conversion tests in which they were divided into Group 1, nanofilled composite (Filtek-Z350- XT; 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN 55144-1000, USA), Group 2, microhybrid composite (Zmack-Comp), and Group 3, nanohybrid composite (Zr-Hybrid). Polymerization shrinkage test was performed using buoyancy and optical methods. For buoyancy method, samples were weighed in air and water to calculate the shrinkage value, whereas, for optical method, images of nonpolymerized samples were captured under a digital microscope and recaptured again after light-cured to calculate the percentage of shrinkage. Degree of conversion was tested using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy spectrometer.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance complemented by post hoc Dunnett's T3 test for polymerization shrinkage and Tukey's honestly significant difference test for degree of conversion. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Group 3 demonstrated similar polymerization shrinkage with Group 1, but lower shrinkage (p < 0.05) than Group 2 based on buoyancy method. However, optical method (p < 0.05) showed that Group 3 had the lowest shrinkage, followed by Group 1 and lastly Group 2. Besides, Group 3 showed a significantly higher degree of conversion (p < 0.05) than Group 1 and comparable conversion value with Group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia-reinforced rice husk nanohybrid composite showed excellent shrinkage and conversion values, hence can be considered as an alternative to commercially available composite resins.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of scalp cooling among breast cancer patients in our study population.
METHODS: Consecutive breast cancer patients receiving FE75C, FE100C, FE100C-D, docetaxel75 or docetaxel, and cyclophosphamide (TC) at our treatment center were recruited and allocated to the treatment (scalp cooling, DigniCapTM system) or control group in this prospective nonrandomized controlled study. The assessment of alopecia was carried out using the World Health Organization grading system and clinical photographs.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were recruited, but only 25 completed the study and were evaluable for analysis. Five of 12 patients (42%) in the scalp cooling group managed to preserve hair. Two of three patients who received FE75C and TC regimens had minimal hair loss. All patients treated with FE100C had severe hair loss. Half of all patients who received scalp cooling throughout chemotherapy rated the treatment as reasonably well tolerated. The most common reason for discontinuing scalp cooling was intolerance to its side effects.
CONCLUSION: Scalp cooling is potentially effective in reducing CIA caused by docetaxel, TC, and FE75C chemotherapy regimen. However, it was not well tolerated by our study population. The dropout rate was high, and this needs to be taken into consideration when pursuing further trials in a similar setting.
METHODS: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031.
FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64-0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71-1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63-0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45-0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53-0·80], p<0·0001) at final analysis. Neither pembrolizumab alone nor pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival at the second interim analysis. At final analysis, grade 3 or worse all-cause adverse events occurred in 164 (55%) of 300 treated participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 235 (85%) of 276 in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 239 (83%) of 287 in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Adverse events led to death in 25 (8%) participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 32 (12%) in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 28 (10%) in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Based on the observed efficacy and safety, pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the willingness to accept chemotherapy among elderly Malaysians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients aged 60 and above from various clinics/wards were recruited. Those giving consent were interviewed using a questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were recruited, 35 patients (47%) with a history of cancer. The median age was 73 years old. There were 29 Chinese (38.7%), 22 Indian (29.3%), 20 Malay (26.7%) and four other ethnicity patients. Some 83% and 73% of patients willing to accept strong and mild chemotherapy, respectively. Patients with cancer were more willing to accept strong and mild chemotherapy compared to the non-cancer group (88.6% vs 62.5%, P=0.005, 94% vs 80%, P=0.068). On sub-analysis, 71.4% and 42.9% of Chinese patients without a history of cancer were not willing to receive strong and mild chemotherapy, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of elderly patients in UMMC were willing to receive chemotherapy if they had cancer. Experience with previous treatment had positive influence on the willingness to undergo chemotherapy.