Search

Despite the introduction of targeted vaccines and screening protocols, locally advanced cervical cancer represents a median proportion of 37% among all cervical carcinomas. Compared to early stages, it presents significantly lower cure rates, with a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 68% and a 5-year overall survival rate of 74%. According to current guidelines, definitive radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy represents the gold standard for locally advanced cervical cancer treatment. However, a significant number of patients relapse and die from metastatic disease. The aim of this narrative review is to examine the recent advancements in treating locally advanced cervical cancer, exploring new frontiers in therapeutic approaches. The PubMed database and clinical trial registries were searched to identify relevant articles published on locally advanced cervical cancer treatment up to March 2024, mainly focusing on papers published in the last decade. Abstracts presented at major international congresses that bring relevant evidence were included. Progress achieved in refining radiotherapy techniques, recent evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment preceding surgery or concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and key findings concerning adjuvant treatment are thoroughly explored. Furthermore, a comprehensive review of prominent phase II and phase III trials examining the integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors is conducted, analyzing the various contexts in which they are applied. In light of the new evidence that has emerged in recent years and is discussed in this article, the appropriate selection of the most suitable therapeutic approach for each patient remains a complex but crucial issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the availability of treatments such as surgery and hormonal therapy, women with endometriosis often endure chronic problems. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of neuropelveology. Methods: In a systematic review with a meta-analysis, we searched three electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science (WOS). The search was conducted in January 2024 with no date or language restrictions using a carefully curated set of keywords. We conducted a comprehensive review, including all observational and clinical trials reporting data on neuropelveology approaches in the management of endometriosis, irrespective of geographical location. The studies included in our review were required to be published in peer-reviewed journals and be available in any language, with at least an abstract in English. The data of all included studies were summarized in excel (version 19) and were analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-analysis v3.3 (Biostat) and STATA (version 17). A multilevel meta-analysis was performed on studies with two arms (intervention and control) to evaluate the efficacy of neuropelveology in managing women with endometriosis. Results: After screening 476 records, 30 studies, published from 1952 to 2021, were included in this review, each employing various methodologies. The studies were divided into the following three categories: (a) efficacy of neurectomy or nerve resection (n = 20), (b) efficacy of neurolysis (nerve blocks) (n = 4), and (c) efficacy of neuromodulation (n = 6) in the management of endometriosis. Among the studies evaluating the efficacy of neurectomy or nerve resection, 10 studies (with 18 group comparisons) were included in the random-effects meta-analysis. Treatment success (not occurrence of pain) was higher with neurectomy vs. controls (RR = 0.497, 95% CI = 0.236 to 1.04, p = 0.06 (for experimental studies) and RR = 0.248, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.43, p < 0.001 (for observational studies)), representing a 50% and 75.2% risk reduction in the recurrence of pain in experimental and observational studies, respectively. Similarly, neurolysis, particularly superior hypogastric plexus blocks and uterine nerve ethanol neurolysis, demonstrated encouraging outcomes in pain reduction and an improved quality of life for women with endometriosis. The efficacy of neuromodulation in managing endometriosis symptoms appears promising but requires further investigation. Conclusions: In conclusion, neuropelveology approaches, such as neurectomy, neurolysis, and neuromodulation, offer significant potential for pain reduction in endometriosis patients, albeit with risks of complications and high recurrence rates, necessitating careful patient selection and long-term monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oral mucositis is a common and distressing side effect of head and neck oncology treatment. Photobiomodulation therapy can be utilized to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Its impact on salivary cytokines has yet to be thoroughly investigated. This is the first systematic review aiming to evaluate the effect of photobiomodulation on salivary cytokines in patients undergoing anticancer treatment. Methods: Numerous data resources, from the Web of Science, Embase, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were sought. Articles published up until February 2024 were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: clinical trials reporting the effect on salivary cytokines in patients undergoing anticancer therapy. The methodological quality was assessed using several appraisal tools. Results: Four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. All the studies were conducted in Brazil and used an InGaAlP diode laser with a wavelength of 660 nm. The included studies had a relatively low risk of bias. The head and neck cancer patients' salivary cytokines that were assessed by the studies, along with photobiomodulation therapy, included IL-12p70, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, CXCL8, and IL-1β. The results varied among the studies. Conclusions: Our results show that photobiomodulation demonstrated positive results for reducing the severity of OM in all the included studies. Among the examined salivary cytokines, IL-6 is the most relevant cytokine for oral mucositis development and severity. A variation in the cytokine levels between the studies was noted due to differences in the type of anticancer treatment and saliva sampling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]