Impact of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Neurologic, Functional, and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to evaluate the utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and Google Scholar was conducted for literature published through May 12, 2015, to answer key questions associated with the use of MRI in patients with acute SCI. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 796 potentially relevant citations, 8 of which were included in this review. One study used MRI in a protocol to decide on early surgical decompression. The MRI-protocol group showed improved outcomes; however, the quality of evidence was deemed very low due to selection bias. Seven studies reported MRI predictors of neurologic or functional outcomes. There was moderate-quality evidence that longer intramedullary hemorrhage (2 studies) and low-quality evidence that smaller spinal canal diameter at the location of maximal spinal cord compression and the presence of cord swelling are associated with poor neurologic recovery. There was moderate-quality evidence that clinical outcomes are not predicted by SCI lesion length and the presence of cord edema. CONCLUSIONS: Certain MRI characteristics appear to be predictive of outcomes in acute SCI, including length of intramedullary hemorrhage (moderate-quality evidence), canal diameter at maximal spinal cord compression (low-quality evidence), and spinal cord swelling (low-quality evidence). Other imaging features were either inconsistently (presence of hemorrhage, maximal canal compromise, and edema length) or not associated with outcomes. The paucity of literature highlights the need for well-designed prospective studies.

Caregivers' perspectives on oral health problems of end-of-life cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine caregivers' perspectives on oral health problems in cancer patients at the end of life and explore factors that contribute to those perspectives. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational clinical study design was used. We recruited dyads of lay caregivers and patients with advanced cancer who were receiving hospice or palliative care in their homes. Caregivers [N = 104, mean age = 55.4 ± 15.0 years (18-100); n = 50 (48 %) African-American; and n = 80 (77 %) female] completed the proxy version of the Oral Problems Scale to provide their perspectives regarding their care recipients' xerostomia, orofacial pain, and taste change in the past week. RESULTS: More than half of the caregivers reported that care recipients' oral hygiene was a very important responsibility for caregivers, and over 80 % reported that it was very important to evaluate their care recipients' oral problems. However, caregivers reported that they asked their care recipients about oral problems infrequently. There were statistically significant correlations between caregivers' and care recipients' ratings on xerostomia, orofacial pain, taste change, and functional/social impact. Caregivers' age and well-being predicted their awareness of care recipients' oral health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Future research efforts should focus on understanding the challenges that prevented caregivers from translating their awareness of the importance of care recipients' oral health to frequent evaluation and provision of oral care.

Cervical degenerative disease: systematic review of economic analyses.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform an evidence-based synthesis of the literature assessing the cost-effectiveness of surgery for patients with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical DDD is a common cause of clinical syndromes such as neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and myelopathy. The appropriate surgical intervention(s) for a given problem is controversial, especially with regard to quality-of-life outcomes, complications, and costs. Although there have been many studies comparing outcomes and complications, relatively few have compared costs and, more importantly, cost-effectiveness of the interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry database, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for full economic evaluations published through January 16, 2014. Identification of full economic evaluations that were explicitly designed to evaluate and synthesize the costs and consequences of surgical procedures or surgical intervention with nonsurgical management in patients with cervical DDD were considered for inclusion, based on 4 key questions. RESULTS: Five studies were included, each specific to 1 or more of our focus questions. Two studies suggested that cervical disc replacement may be more cost-effective compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Two studies comparing anterior with posterior surgical procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy suggested that anterior surgery was more cost-effective than posterior surgery. One study suggested that posterior cervical foraminotomy had a greater net economic benefit than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in a military population with unilateral cervical radiculopathy. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention compared with nonoperative treatment of cervical myelopathy or radiculopathy, although it is acknowledged that existing studies demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention for these 2 clinical entities. CONCLUSION: A paucity of high-quality economic literature exists regarding cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention for cervical DDD. Future research is necessary to validate the findings of the few studies that do exist to guide decisions for surgery by the physician and patient with respect to cost-effectiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Alternative procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy, skip laminectomy: evaluation of comparative effectiveness and safety.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform an evidence synthesis of the literature assessing the efficacy of arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy without fusion, and skip laminectomy to treat symptomatic cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditionally, patients with symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression due to degenerative disease have been treated with anterior or posterior approaches or both. Recent reports suggest that there are several nontraditional management strategies that merit attention. The anterior procedures include decompression and anterior reconstruction with an artificial disc and oblique corpectomy without fusion. A posterior option is decompression, using the skip laminectomy technique. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for literature published through October 15, 2012, on human studies published in the English language containing abstracts to answer the following key questions: (1) Is there evidence that artificial disc replacement after neural decompression results in equal or improved outcomes compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion for CSM? (2) Describe the outcomes of oblique corpectomy without fusion for CSM? (3) Is there evidence that skip laminectomy results in equal or improved outcomes compared with laminoplasty for CSM? RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 141 unique, potentially relevant citations, which were evaluated against the inclusion/exclusion criteria set a priori. A total of 10 studies were selected for inclusion. For question 1, 2 studies suggested that neurological outcomes favored artificial disc replacement compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, whereas functional and pain outcomes were inconsistently reported. For question 2, 5 reported case series suggested favorable neurological, functional, and pain outcomes associated with oblique corpectomy in subjects with CSM, compared with the pretreatment condition. For question 3, 3 studies comparing laminoplasty with skip laminectomy suggested similar neurological outcomes between treatment groups, although functional and pain outcomes were inconsistently reported. CONCLUSION: A paucity of high-quality literature exists regarding treatment outcomes associated with arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy without fusion, and skip laminectomy for symptomatic CSM. Comparative prospective studies with long-term follow-up and standardized outcome measures are needed to assess treatment outcomes associated with these alternative techniques appropriately. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION 1: No recommendation can be made from comparative literature regarding treatment outcomes comparing ADR with ACDF for CSM. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Insufficient. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. RECOMMENDATION 2: No recommendation can be made from comparative literature regarding treatment outcomes comparing laminoplasty with skip laminectomy for CSM. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: Oblique corpectomy is an option in selected cases of CSM. It should not be considered a first-line treatment strategy because of the relatively high morbidity associated with this procedure.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: methodological approaches to evaluate the literature and establish best evidence.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of methods. OBJECTIVE: To provide a detailed description of the methods undertaken in the articles in this focus issue pertaining to cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and to describe the process used to develop summary statements and clinical recommendations regarding factors associated with the mechanisms, diagnosis, progression, and treatment of CSM and OPLL. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We present methods used in conducting the systematic, evidence-based reviews and development of expert panel summary statements and clinical recommendations of the mechanisms, diagnosis, progression, and treatment of CSM and OPLL. Our intent is that clinicians will combine the information from these systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and primary research studies with an understanding of their own capacities and experience to better manage patients with CSM or OPLL and consider future research for the diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. METHODS: For the systematic reviews, which make up the bulk of the studies in this focus issue, a systematic search and critical review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published on the mechanisms, diagnosis, progression, and treatment of CSM and OPLL. Articles were screened for relevance using a priori criteria and relevant articles were critically reviewed. Whether an article was included for review depended on whether the study question was descriptive, one of therapy, or one of prognosis. The strength of evidence for the overall body of literature in each topic area was determined by 2 independent reviewers considering risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision of results using a modification of the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Findings from articles meeting inclusion criteria were summarized. From these summaries, summary statements or clinical recommendations were formulated among subject experts through a modified Delphi process using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Methods for the 2 primary research studies and the narrative reviews are also reviewed. RESULTS: Because of the nature of questions that needed to be addressed, not all studies in this focus issue were amenable to systematic review. As a result, this focus issue consists of several different article types, including 1 research protocol, 2 primary research studies, 2 narrative literature reviews, 7 systematic reviews, and 3 articles that combine a systematic review component with either a narrative section (n = 2) or a provider survey (n = 1). In general, the strength of evidence ratings ranged from insufficient to moderate. Summary statements or clinical recommendations were made according to available evidence and study type: 16 summary statements were made across 8 articles, and 17 clinical recommendations were made across 9 articles. Three articles had both summary statements and clinical recommendations, 5 had summary statements only, 6 had clinical recommendations only, and 1 (the research protocol) was not amenable to either. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and primary research studies were undertaken to understand the mechanisms, diagnosis, progression, and treatment of CSM and OPLL and to provide summary statements and clinical recommendations. This article reports the methods used in the studies in this focus issue. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: The objectives of this focus issue were met using a variety of article and study designs, each of which has some unique methodological aspects associated with it. The reader should refer to the full article in this issue for additional details specific to that topic. The methods for systematic review follow accepted standards for rigor and, together with the application of Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation, are intended to allow for transparency in the process for creating the clinical recommendation.

Frequency, timing, and predictors of neurological dysfunction in the nonmyelopathic patient with cervical spinal cord compression, canal stenosis, and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and survey. OBJECTIVE: To perform an evidence synthesis of the literature and obtain information from the global spine care community assessing the frequency, timing, and predictors of symptom development in patients with radiographical evidence of cervical spinal cord compression, spinal canal narrowing, and/or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) but no symptoms of myelopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence for a marker to predict symptom development remains sparse, and there is controversy surrounding the management of asymptomatic patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the English language literature and an international survey of spine surgeons to answer the following key questions in patients with radiographical evidence of cervical spinal cord compression, spinal canal narrowing, and/or OPLL but no symptoms of myelopathy: (1) What are the frequency and timing of symptom development? (2) What are the clinical, radiographical, and electrophysiological predictors of symptom development? (3) What clinical and/or radiographical features influence treatment decisions based on an international survey of spine care professionals? RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 388 citations. Applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria narrowed this to 5 articles. Two of these dealt with the same population. For patients with spinal cord compression secondary to spondylosis, one study reported the frequency of myelopathy development to be 22.6%. The presence of symptomatic radiculopathy, cervical cord hyperintensity on magnetic resonance imaging, and prolonged somatosensory- and motor-evoked potentials were reported in one study as significant independent predictors of myelopathy development. In contrast, the lack of magnetic resonance imaging hyperintensity was found to be a positive predictor of early myelopathy development (≤ 12-mo follow-up). For subjects with OPLL, frequency of myelopathy development was reported in 3 articles and ranged from 0.0% to 61.5% of subjects. One of these studies reported canal stenosis of 60% or more, lateral deviated OPLL, and increased cervical range of motion as significant predictors of myelopathy development. In a survey of 774 spine surgeons, the majority deemed the presence of clinically symptomatic radiculopathy to predict progression to myelopathy in nonmyelopathic patients with cervical stenosis. Survey responses pertaining to 3 patient case vignettes are also presented and discussed in the context of the current literature. CONCLUSION: On the basis of these results, we provide a series of evidence-based recommendations related to the frequency, timing, and predictors of myelopathy development in asymptomatic patients with cervical stenosis secondary to spondylosis or OPLL. Future prospective studies are required to refine our understanding of this topic. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: Patients with cervical canal stenosis and cord compression secondary to spondylosis, without clinical evidence of myelopathy, and who present with clinical or electrophysiological evidence of cervical radicular dysfunction or central conduction deficits seem to be at higher risk for developing myelopathy and should be counseled to consider surgical treatment. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Moderate. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: STATEMENT 1: On the basis of the current literature, for patients with cervical canal stenosis and cord compression secondary to spondylosis, without clinical evidence of myelopathy, approximately 8% at 1-year follow-up and 23% at a median of 44-months follow-up develop clinical evidence of myelopathy. STATEMENT 2: For patients with cervical canal stenosis and cord compression secondary to spondylosis, without clinical evidence of myelopathy, the absence of magnetic resonance imaging intramedullary T2 hyperintensity has been shown to predict early myelopathy development (<12-mo follow-up) and the presence of such signal has been shown to predict late myelopathy development (mean 44-mo follow-up). In light of this discrepancy, no definite recommendation can be made surrounding the utility of this finding in predicting myelopathy development. STATEMENT 3: For patients with OPLL but without myelopathy, no recommendation can be made regarding the incidence or predictors of progression to myelopathy.

The outcomes of manipulation or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy or exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database, and bibliographies of key articles, which compared spinal manipulation or mobilization therapy with physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. Articles were included based on predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality rating scheme. Results From 197 citations, 7 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no differences in pain improvement when comparing spinal manipulation to exercise, and there were inconsistent reports of pain improvement in subjects who underwent mobilization therapy versus physical therapy. No disability improvement was reported between treatment groups in studies of acute or chronic neck pain patients. No functional improvement was found with manipulation therapy compared with exercise treatment or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy groups in patients with acute pain. In chronic neck pain subjects who underwent spinal manipulation therapy compared to exercise treatment, results for short-term functional improvement were inconsistent. Conclusion The data available suggest that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences in pain, disability, patient-rated treatment improvement, treatment satisfaction, health status, or functional improvement when comparing manipulation or mobilization therapy to physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. This systematic review is limited by the variability of treatment interventions and lack of standardized outcomes to assess treatment benefit.

Outcomes in adult scoliosis patients who undergo spinal fusion stopping at L5 compared with extension to the sacrum.

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Adult scoliosis is a common disorder that is associated with significantly higher pain, functional impairment, and effect on quality of life than those without scoliosis. Surgical spinal fusion has led to quantifiable improvement in patient's quality of life. However, for patients undergoing long lumbar fusion, the decision to stop the fusion at L5 or to extend to S1, particularly if the L5-S1 disc is healthy, remains controversial. Objective The aim of the study is to evaluate if fusion stopping at L5 increases the comparative rates of revision, correction loss, and/or poor functional outcomes compared with extension to the sacrum in adult scoliosis patients who require spinal fusion surgery. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database and bibliographies of key articles that evaluated adult scoliosis patients who required spinal fusion surgery and compared outcomes for fusions to the sacrum versus stopping at L5. Articles were included on the basis of predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality-rating scheme. Results From 111 citations, 26 articles underwent full-text review, and 3 retrospective cohort studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Revision rates in subjects who underwent spinal fusion to L5 (20.8-23.5%) were lower in two studies compared with those with fusion extending to the sacrum (19.0-58.3%). Studies that assessed deformity correction used different measures, making comparison across studies difficult. No significant differences were found in patient-reported functional outcomes across two studies that used different measures. Conclusion The limited data available suggest that differences in revision rates did not consistently reach statistical significance across studies that compared spinal fusion to L5 versus extension to sacrum in adult scoliosis patients.

Adjacent segment pathology following cervical motion-sparing procedures or devices compared with fusion surgery: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To critically review and summarize the literature comparing motion preservation devices to fusion in the cervical spine to determine whether the use of these devices decreases the development of radiographical (RASP) or clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP) compared with fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Historically, surgical treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease presenting as radiculopathy and/or myelopathy with anterior cervical decompression and fusion has yielded excellent results. Controversy remains whether RASP and CASP requiring treatment is due to fusion-altered biomechanics and kinematics versus natural history. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for literature published through February 2012 on human randomized control trials or cohort studies published in the English language containing abstracts to answer the following key questions: (1) Is there evidence that total disc replacement (TDR) is associated with a lower risk of RASP or CASP compared with fusion? (2) Is there evidence that other procedures that do not involve arthrodesis or other motion-sparing devices are associated with a lower risk of RASP or CASP compared with fusion? (3)Is one type of motion preservation device or procedure associated with a lower risk of RASP or CASP compared with others? RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 276 citations, of which 73 unique, potentially relevant citations that were evaluated against the inclusion/exclusion criteria set a priori. A total of 14 studies were selected for inclusion. For question 1, RASP was variably reported in studies that compared total disc replacement (TDR) to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), and risk differences for reoperation due to CASP ranged from 1.0% to 4.8%, with no statistically significant differences between groups. For question 2, no studies comparing motion preservation devices to ACDF met our inclusion criteria. For question 3, one study comparing motion-sparing devices found the risk of RASP to be similar between groups. CONCLUSION: A paucity of high-quality literature comparing motion-preserving devices or treatment methods to fusion or other motion-preserving techniques or devices (with RASP and/or CASP as an outcome using consistent definitions) exists. Independently funded, blinded long-term follow-up prospective studies would be able to delineate the true effects regarding incidence of RASP and CASP and treatment of CASP. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: 1. There is no significant difference in development of RASP and CASP after C-TDR versus ACDF at short- to mid-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Moderate. Strength of Statement: Strong. Recommendation 1: No recommendation can be made from comparative literature of nonarthroplasty motion preservation device or techniques compared with fusion regarding the risk of RASP or CASP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Insufficient. Strength of Statement: Strong. Recommendation 2: No recommendation can be made from direct comparative literature of various motion preservation devices or techniques regarding the risk of RASP or CASP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Insufficient. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Conducting research with end-of-life populations: overcoming recruitment challenges when working with clinical agencies.

Conducting end-of-life (EOL) research can present numerous challenges associated with recruitment and retention of research subjects. Such issues may result from working with a variety of clinical settings or the uniqueness of the patient population. The purposes of this article were to describe recruitment challenges in EOL research when collaborating with different types of clinical agencies and to discuss strategies that are being used to overcome these recruitment issues.

Risk factors for development of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction that may be asymptomatic or may present with severe symptoms. Since CSM has an insidious manifestation, identification of risk factors associated with this condition may aid clinicians in monitoring high-risk patients and implementing appropriate management strategies. OBJECTIVE: To assess sociodemographic, clinical, radiographic, and genetic risk factors associated with presence of CSM in patients 18 years or older. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Databases, and bibliographies of key articles to assess risk factors associated with CSM. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality-rating scheme. RESULTS: From 486 citations, eight articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Larger vertebral body and smaller spinal canal and Torg/Pavlov ratio were associated with CSM diagnosis, while gender was not associated with a CSM diagnosis across multiple studies. There were inconsistent reports with respect to increased age as a risk factor for CSM diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The limited data available suggests that inherent anatomical features that may contribute to congenital cervical stenosis may be associated with CSM. This systematic review is limited by the small number of high-quality studies evaluating prognostic factors for CSM. The overall strength of evidence for all risk factors evaluated is low.

Assessment of willingness to provide diabetes education and counseling in a dental school clinic.

Diabetes mellitus is a major public health concern for the U.S. population because of its high prevalence and long-term health implications. The purpose of this study was to apply the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to assess dental faculty member and student willingness to provide diabetes education and counseling to patients in a dental school. A survey was administered to dental students (n=101 respondents) and faculty members (n=39 respondents), and summary scores for seven diabetic educational activities and TPB constructs were calculated and analyzed. Participants were most willing to refer a patient to a physician for treatment and provide basic information about diabetes and oral health, and they were least willing to provide basic information about diabetic medications. Importance, self-efficacy, and barriers constructs predicted willingness to perform diabetic educational or counseling activities. Our findings suggest that, when developing innovative approaches to expand diabetic education and counseling in our dental education environment, programs should demonstrate how diabetic counseling can improve patients' health and should include diabetic management skills-building in the curriculum.

Model for the First NIH-funded Center of Excellence in End-of-Life Research.

Centers of excellence are widely acknowledged as a mechanism to promote scientific advances in a particular field of science, but until recently there have been no end-of-life or palliative care research centers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this article is to describe aims, framework, and organizational structure of the first NIH-funded Center of Excellence on end-of-life research, the Center for End-of-Life Transition Research (CEoLTR), and the advances in end-of-life research that the CEoLTR will facilitate. The teams of researchers involved in the CEoLTR have grown impressively since it was funded in 2007. Collectively, the teams are on target to accomplish all of the original goals for this five year award.

A systematic review of oral fungal infections in patients receiving cancer therapy.

PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review were to determine, in patients receiving cancer therapy, the prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization, to determine the impact on quality of life and cost of care, and to review current management strategies for oral fungal infections. METHODS: Thirty-nine articles that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were independently reviewed by two calibrated reviewers, each using a standard form. Information was extracted on a number of variables, including study design, study population, sample size, interventions, blinding, outcome measures, methods, results, and conclusions for each article. Areas of discrepancy between the two reviews were resolved by consensus. Studies were weighted as to the quality of the study design, and recommendations were based on the relative strength of each paper. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization. RESULTS: For all cancer treatments, the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection was found to be 7.5% pre-treatment, 39.1% during treatment, and 32.6% after the end of cancer therapy. Head and neck radiotherapy and chemotherapy were each independently associated with a significantly increased risk for oral fungal infection. For all cancer treatments, the prevalence of oral colonization with fungal organisms was 48.2% before treatment, 72.2% during treatment, and 70.1% after treatment. The prophylactic use of fluconazole during cancer therapy resulted in a prevalence of clinical fungal infection of 1.9%. No information specific to oral fungal infections was found on quality of life or cost of care. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increased risk of clinically significant oral fungal infection during cancer therapy. Systemic antifungals are effective in the prevention of clinical oral fungal infection in patients receiving cancer therapy. Currently available topical antifungal agents are less efficacious, suggesting a need for better topical agents.

Anxiety, depression, and pain: differences by primary cancer.

GOALS OF WORK: Disease-related cancer pain is a multidimensional phenomenon. Psychological factors that may alter pain perception in cancer patients have not been well studied. The study purpose was to explore differences in pain, anxiety, and depression by type of primary cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients (80% male, mean age 60.5 +/- 11.5 years) undergoing radiation treatment for head/neck (HNC, n = 93), lung (LC, n = 146), or prostate (PC, n = 63) cancers, patients reported pain quality, pattern, and intensity with the McGill Pain Questionnaire. They also completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Comparative statistics, correlation coefficients, and multivariate regression analysis were performed. MAIN RESULTS: Worst pain intensity was significantly greater in LC subjects compared to HNC (p < 0.05) and PC (p < 0.001). Pain quality ratings were significantly greater for individuals with LC compared to PC (p < 0.05), and the regression analyses indicated that pain quality ratings were partially predicted by having LC. Depression levels approached clinical significance and were greatest for individuals with LC. Catastrophizing was correlated with high levels of depression (p < 0.01) and anxiety (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with cancer undergoing radiation treatment experienced clinically significant levels of unrelieved cancer pain despite standard pain management. Pain intensity and quality ratings were greatest for LC individuals and may contribute to symptoms of depression. Catastrophizing may contribute to psychological factors which may impact the pain experience. Tailored treatments that meet cancer patients' psychosocial and medical needs may result in improved pain management and functional ability.

Multiple sclerosis: an update for oral health care providers.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. The disease mostly affects young adults and is increasing in prevalence and incidence. Multiple sclerosis is characterized by periods of activity and remission which, after numerous relapses, cause permanent neurologic deficits. Diagnosis of MS is based on patient history and clinical examination supplemented by the findings of radiologic and laboratory tests. Numerous motor and sensory disturbances occur in MS and may present in the orofacial region. This medical management update highlights issues that are important to the oral health care provider, including orofacial manifestations of MS and dental considerations for patients with MS.