Risk of cancer in patients with sleep apnea: comparison of surgery versus CPAP in a long-term follow-up study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to obtain a comprehensive view of the risk of developing cancer in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and to compare this risk between patients receiving continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy versus upper airway surgery (UAS). METHODS: We used both local data and a global-scale federated data research network, TriNetX, to access electronic medical records, including those of patients diagnosed with OSA from health-care organizations (HCOs) worldwide. We used propensity score matching and the score-matched analyses of data for 5 years of follow-up, RESULTS: We found that patients who had undergone UAS had a similar risk of developing cancer than those who used CPAP [hazard ratio of 0.767 (95% CI 0.559-1.053; P = 0.100)]. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the large data sets collected from HCOs in Europe and globally lead us to conclude that in patients with OSA, neither CPAP nor UAS were associated with the development of cancer better than in non-treated patients.

Reply to: Letter to the Editor of Journal of Otolaryngology regarding "Risk of diabetes in patients with sleep apnea: comparison of surgery versus CPAP in a long-term follow-up study".

A recent Letter published, in the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery in response to our original article "Risk of diabetes in patients with sleep apnea: comparison of surgery versus Continous Positive Airway Pressure in a long-term follow-up study" raised some issues we would like to address here. However, we thank the authors for their effort and time in analyzing our manuscript and we want to facilitate a balanced discussion on this topic with our reply.

Adenomyosis in Pregnancy-Should It Be Managed in High-Risk Obstetric Units?

BACKGROUND: Uterine adenomyosis is an increasingly frequent disorder. Our study aimed to demonstrate the presence of obstetric complications in the population affected by this condition to demonstrate the need for follow-up in high-risk obstetric units. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data for the study were obtained from TriNetX, LLC, between 2010 and 2020. The outcomes analyzed were intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm delivery, cesarean delivery, hypertension, abruption placentae, and spontaneous abortion. Seven thousand six hundred and eight patients were included in the cohort of pregnant patients with adenomyosis, and 566,153 women in the cohort of pregnant patients without any history of endometriosis. RESULTS: Upon calculating the total risk of presenting any of these problems during pregnancy, we obtained an OR = 1.521, implying that a pregnancy with adenomyosis was 52.1% more likely to present some complication. We found: IUGR OR = 1.257 (95% CI: 1.064-1.485) (p = 0.007); preterm delivery OR = 1.422 (95% CI: 1.264-1.600) (p = 0.0001); cesarean delivery OR = 1.099 (95% CI: 1.002-1.205) (p = 0.046); hypertensive disorders OR = 1.177 (95% CI: 1.076-1.288) (p = 0.0001); abruption placentae OR = 1.197 (95% CI: 1.008-1.422) (p = 0.040), and spontaneous abortion OR = 1.529 (95% CI: 1.360-1.718) (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the review carried out and the data we obtained on increased risk provide sufficient evidence to recommend that patients with adenomyosis should be managed in obstetric high-risk units.