Association of dental occlusal support with the Prognostic Nutritional Index in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: The Prognostic Nutritional Index is useful for predicting surgical risk and overall survival based on preoperative immunological and nutritional status in patients undergoing digestive organ cancer surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the Prognostic Nutritional Index and dental status in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included 73 patients who underwent resection of esophageal cancer (69 males, 4 females; age 36-83). General and dental status were evaluated. The Prognostic Nutritional Index was calculated based on the serum albumin concentration and the total lymphocyte count, and subjects were divided into two groups based on index scores: a higher group, characterized by scores ≥ 45 (n = 54); and a lower group, characterized by scores < 45 (n = 19). Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to compare between groups. RESULTS: Total protein, C-reactive protein, the number of sound and total decayed, missing and filled teeth, and the rate of patients with poor dental occlusal support showed significant differences between the lower and higher Prognostic Nutritional Index groups (p < 0.05). Stepwise logistic regression analysis by backward selection approach showed that low total protein, few sound teeth, and poor status of dental occlusal support were significantly associated with the lower Prognostic Nutritional Index (p = 0.007, 0.042, and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: Dental status, especially dental occlusal support and the number of sound teeth, showed a positive relationship with the Prognostic Nutritional Index in esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Unusual oral mucosal microbiota after hematopoietic cell transplantation with glycopeptide antibiotics: potential association with pathophysiology of oral mucositis.

Severe oral mucositis occurs frequently in patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Oral mucosal bacteria can be associated with progression of oral mucositis, and systemic infection may occur via ulcerative oral mucositis. However, little information is available regarding the oral microbiota after HCT. Here, PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) was performed to characterize the oral mucosal microbiota, which can be affected by antibiotics, before and after HCT. Sixty reduced-intensity HCT patients were enrolled. Three patients with the least antibiotic use (quinolone prophylaxis and/or ß-lactam monotherapy group) and three patients with the most antibiotic use (ß-lactam-glycopeptide combination therapy group) were selected. Bacterial DNA samples obtained from the oral mucosa before and after HCT were subjected to PCR-DGGE. The trajectory of oral mucositis was evaluated. The oral mucosal microbiota in the ß-lactam-glycopeptide combination therapy group was different from that in the quinolone prophylaxis and/or ß-lactam monotherapy group, and Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. were identified. Lautropia mirabilis was dominant in one patient. Ulcerative oral mucositis was observed only in the ß-lactam-glycopeptide combination therapy group. In conclusion, especially with the use of strong antibiotics, such as glycopeptides, the oral mucosal microbiota differed completely from that under normal conditions and consisted of Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and unexpectedly L. mirabilis. The normal oral microbiota consists not only of bacteria, but these unexpected bacteria could be involved in the pathophysiology as well as systemic infection via oral mucositis. Our results can be used as the basis for future studies in larger patient populations.

Replacing zoledronic acid with denosumab is a risk factor for developing osteonecrosis of the jaw.

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) is often replaced with subcutaneous denosumab in patients with bone metastatic cancer. Despite their different pharmacologic mechanisms of action, both denosumab and ZA are effective in bone metastasis but cause osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as a side effect. ZA persists in the body almost indefinitely, whereas denosumab does not persist for long periods. This study evaluated the risks of developing ONJ when replacing ZA with denosumab. STUDY DESIGN: In total, 161 Japanese patients administered ZA for bone metastatic cancer were enrolled in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. The risk of developing ONJ was evaluated by logistic regression analysis using the following factors: age, gender, cancer type, angiogenesis inhibitors, steroids, and replacement of ZA with denosumab. RESULTS: Seventeen patients (10.6%) developed ONJ. Multiple regression analysis indicated a significant difference in rate of ONJ associated with replacement of ZA with denosumab (odds ratio = 3.81; 95% confidence interval 1.04-13.97; P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Replacing ZA with denosumab is a risk factor for the development of ONJ. Both binding of bisphosphonate to bone and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κ B ligand inhibition could additively increase the risk of ONJ. We bring the replacement of ZA with denosumab to the attention of clinical oncologists.