Search

Background: To report our experience utilizing a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) at Indiana University (IU) since the publication of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG), and to compare our overall survival (OS) to that of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with metastatic germ-cell tumor (GCT) seen at IU from 1998 to 2014. A total of 1611 consecutive patients were identified, of whom 704 patients received an initial evaluation by our MDC (including medical oncology, pathology, urology and thoracic surgery) and started first-line chemotherapy at IU. These 704 patients were eligible for analysis. All patients in this cohort were treated with cisplatin–etoposide-based combination chemotherapy. We compared the progression-free survival (PFS) and OS of patients treated at IU with that of the published IGCCCG cohort. OS of the IU testis cancer primary cohort (n=622) was further compared with the SEER data of 1283 patients labeled with 'distant' disease. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS. Results: With a median follow-up of 4.4 years, patients with good, intermediate, and poor risk disease by IGCCCG criteria treated at IU had 5-year PFS of 90%, 84%, and 54% and 5-year OS of 97%, 92%, and 73%, respectively. The 5-year PFS for all patients in the IU cohort was 79% [95% confidence interval (CI) 76% to 82%]. The 5-year OS for the IU cohort was 90% (95% CI 87% to 92%). IU testis cohort had 5-year OS 94% (95% CI 91% to 96%) versus 75% (95% CI 73% to 78%) for the SEER 'distant' cohort between 2000 and 2014, P-value<0.0001. Conclusion: The MDC approach to GCT at high-volume cancer center associated with improved OS outcomes in this contemporary dataset. OS is significantly higher in the IU cohort compared with the IGCCCG and SEER 'distant' cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of sealing non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth. Data: Only controlled clinical trials and randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of sealing on non-cavitated proximal caries with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in the study. The primary outcome should be arrestment/progression of proximal caries evaluated by bitewing radiographs. A risk of bias evaluation based on the Cochrane Collaboration common scheme for bias was carried out for each study. The meta-analysis was performed on the studies considered low risk of bias and with pair-wise visual reading results through RevMan software. Sources: A comprehensive search was performed in the Systematic Electronic Databases: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBI Web of Science, Lilacs, SIGLE, and on website Clinical trials.gov, through until June 2013. Study selection: From 967 studies identified, 10 articles and 3 studies with partial results were assessed for eligibility. However three articles were excluded and our final sample included 10 studies. According to the risk of bias evaluation, six studies were considered ''high'' risk of bias, and four ''low'' risk of bias. The forest plot of the meta-analysis showed low heterogeneity (I² = 29%) and a favourable outcome for the Infiltrant. The chance of caries progression when this technique was used was significantly lower (p = 0.002) compared with Placebo. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the technique of sealing non-cavitated proximal caries seems to be effective in controlling proximal caries in the short and medium term. Further long-term randomized clinical trials are still necessary to increase this evidence. Clinical significance: Contemporary dentistry is focused in minimally invasive approaches that prevent the destruction of sound dental tissues next to carious lesions. This paper searches for evidence of the efficacy of sealing/infiltrating non-cavitated proximal caries in arresting caries progression both in permanent and primary teeth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]