Search

To examine the effect of ionizing radiation on fluoride release from restorative dental materials, samples of Equia Forte HT, Fuji Triage, Fuji IX, Cention Forte, Activa Presto, Beautifil II, and Luminos (n = 10) were made in Teflon molds and divided into a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group was exposed to ionizing radiation for a total of 35 days (70 Gy, 2 Gy per day). The fluoride release was measured with a fluorine-selective electrode. The median recorded fluoride values were higher with Equia Forte HT, Fuji Triage, and Fuji IX compared to others during the entire period in both groups. With Activa Presto, a higher release of fluoride was recorded in the experimental group on the first day of irradiation, while a higher release was recorded in the control group, as well as with Luminos and Beautifil II. With Cention Forte, there was no significant difference in fluoride release between the experimental and control groups except on the sixth day. With Fuji Triage and Fuji IX, the release of fluoride was higher in the experimental group compared to the control group, while with Equia Forte HT, there was no difference between the groups. In conclusion, ionizing radiation has no major effect on fluoride release in all the tested materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiotherapy plays a key role in the treatment of the early and advanced stages of head and neck cancer. To date, there is still no consensus on the effects of radiotherapy on the mechanical properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials which can be used in patients undergoing radiotherapy with increased incidence of caries. The fluoride-releasing materials Equia Forte HT and Cention N were compared to the resin-based materials Tetric EvoCeram and Tetric Power Fill. Standard irradiation was performed with a linear accelerator. Vickers microhardness, mass, surface roughness and color were measured before and after irradiation. Cention N and Tetric PowerFill showed stability in the mass, while the surface roughness did not change in any of the examined groups. Resistance to microhardness change was shown by Cention N, Tetric PowerFill and Tetric EvoCeram, and the color change was significant in all groups (p < 0.05). It should be remembered that patients receiving head and neck radiation therapy may experience adverse effects from the treatment, including changes in the mechanical properties of the restorative materials. The obtained results suggest that Cention N can be used as a material in patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy due to the mechanical stability and depo effect of fluoride release. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Cancer cachexia is a complex metabolic condition that is often overlooked and recognized in a late irreversible phase. There is a continuing effort to discover and define a biochemical biomarker of the condition. In this study, we have chosen interleukin-13 (IL-13) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), i.e., two cytokines with presumed roles in the development of cancer cachexia, and we measured their concentrations in the serum and saliva of cachectic patients with metastatic solid tumors, non-cachectic patients with metastatic solid tumors, and healthy individuals. We have demonstrated the role of saliva cytokine measurement as a potential sample for cachexia investigations as opposed to the standard approach to biomarker research, which is serum measurement. We have also found that the salivary IL-13 and TGF-ß are independent risk factors and thus could serve as potential biomarkers of the condition, a fact that warrants further research and confirmation. Cancer cachexia is a syndrome characterized by weight and muscle loss and functional impairment, strongly influencing survival in cancer patients. In this study, we aimed to establish the role of saliva cytokine measurement in cancer cachexia investigation and define two potential independent salivary biomarkers of the condition. Methods: serum and saliva specimens were obtained from 78 patients. Forty-six patients were non-cachectic, and 32 patients were cachectic (per SCRINIO group criteria), all with metastatic solid tumors. Commercial ELISA kits were used to determine the salivary and serum concentrations of interleukin 13 (IL-13) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) in two patient groups and healthy controls. Laboratory values were obtained from the hospital information system, and weight and height were measured at the time of sampling. Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in saliva IL-13 concentrations but no difference in serum concentrations. Statistically significant differences were also observed between the groups in saliva and serum concentrations of TGF-β. Logistic regression analysis has identified salivary IL-13 and TGF-β as independent factors for cancer cachexia. Conclusions: We demonstrated saliva as a valuable specimen for cachexia investigation and established IL-13 and TGF-β as potential cancer cachexia biomarkers. Further research is needed to evaluate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lijecnicki Vjesnik is the property of Croatian Medical Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article in Neoplasma discusses the impact of the number of therapy lines on survival in patients with advanced gastric and esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. The study confirms that patients treated with 3 or more therapy lines had the longest median overall survival of 20 months. However, the authors caution that the apparent improvement in survival associated with more therapy lines may be influenced by immortalization bias, where patients who live longer have more opportunities to receive additional treatments. The study emphasizes the need for well-designed prospective trials to accurately assess the true impact of multiple lines of therapy on patient outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Acta Stomatologica Croatica is the property of Acta Stomatologica Croatica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is well established for the treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer. As clear differences in efficacy, safety, or tolerability between the available LHRH agonists are lacking, the healthcare management team needs to look to practical differences between the formulations when selecting therapy for their patients. Moreover, as the economic burden of prostate cancer rises alongside earlier diagnosis and improved survival, the possibility for cost savings by using products with specific features is growing in importance. Methods: A review was conducted to summarize the information on the different LHRH agonist formulations currently available and offer insight into their relative benefits and disadvantages from the perspectives of physicians, a pharmacist, and a nurse. Results: The leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate solid implants have the advantage of being ready to use with no requirement for refrigeration, whereas powder and microsphere formulations have to be reconstituted and have specific storage or handling constraints. The single-step administration of solid implants, therefore, has potential to reduce labor time and associated costs. Dosing frequency is another key consideration, as administering the injection provides an opportunity for face-to-face interaction between the patient and healthcare professionals to ensure therapy is optimized and give reassurance to patients. Prostate cancer patients are reported to prefer 3- or 6-monthly dosing, which aligns with the monitoring frequency recommended in European Association of Urology guidelines and has been shown to result in reduced annual costs compared with 1-month formulations. Conclusions: A number of practical differences exist between the different LHRH agonist preparations available, which may impact on clinical practice. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware and carefully consider these differences when selecting treatments for their prostate cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]