ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis are based on the bone mineral density (BMD) level in the lumbar spine and femur bone. Patients with osteoporotic fractures were diagnosed with osteoporosis. While systemic BMD and mandibular cortical bone morphology are correlated, this has not been studied in patients with a history of osteoporotic fractures. Therefore, purpose of this study was researching the mandibular cortical bone morphology in patients with osteoporotic fractures. METHODS: The subjects were 55 female and 20 male patients with osteoporotic fractures. Patients were divided into 30 primary osteoporosis patients and 45 secondary osteoporosis patients according to the medical history. Patients underwent BMD and panoramic radiography examinations during orthopedic treatment for fractures. A dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry system was used to measure BMD. Mandibular cortex index (MCI) and mandibular cortex width (MCW) were evaluated using machine-learning measurement software. RESULTS: In the analysis of MCI, the ratio of class 2 and 3 was 73% of both primary osteoporosis and secondary osteoporosis. The average MCW was 2.19 mm for primary osteoporosis and 2.30 mm for secondary osteoporosis. The sensitivity values by MCI and MCW were 73% and 76% for both primary and secondary osteoporosis, which were similar detection powers. In addition, the false-negative rates by MCI and MCW were 27% and 24%. CONCLUSION: We suggested that MCI and MCW are indicators of osteoporotic conditions in patients with primary and secondary osteoporosis. Our results show that MCI and MCW are non-inferior to the sensitivity values for lumbar BMD in patients with osteoporotic fractures.
Subject(s)
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal , Osteoporosis , Osteoporotic Fractures , Absorptiometry, Photon/methods , Bone Density , Cortical Bone/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Male , Osteoporosis/diagnostic imaging , Osteoporotic Fractures/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has changed the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Nivolumab shows better outcomes compared to best supportive care among AGC patients who received at least two prior regimens. However, there are no reliable data regarding AGC patients with poor performance status (PS) who received nivolumab. We investigated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab among AGC patients with poor PS. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinicopathologic data from patients with AGC who underwent nivolumab monotherapy at our institution from October 2017 to June 2019. RESULTS: Forty-nine AGC patients who received nivolumab were assessed. Twenty-seven patients had PS 0 or 1 (Good group) and 22 had PS 2 or 3 (Poor group). The median progression-free survival and overall survival durations were 2.0 and 6.0 months in the Good group, respectively, and 1.2 and 2.8 months in the Poor group, respectively. The overall survival was significantly shorter in the Poor group (6.0 vs 2.8 months, p = 0.0255). The disease control rates were 23 and 9% in the Good and Poor groups, respectively. Thirty-three percent of patients experienced immune-related adverse events in the Good group, and 18% in the Poor group. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab is feasible but insufficient as third- or later-line treatment for AGC patients with poor PS.
