Osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ) in osteoporosis patients has been defined as rare, but the number of reported cases is increasing. We report a case of delayed ONJ diagnosis in a patient, who was being treated with alendronate, developing bone alterations both in maxilla and in mandible. Underestimation of ONJ incidence and missed or delayed ONJ diagnosis in osteoporosis patients might derive from lack of awareness of health providers as well as from an ONJ definition that is too restricted. The more recent definition of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) released in 2014 by the American Association of Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) accept fistula, besides bone exposure, as a major sign of disease, but it seems to be insufficient since it excludes all cases of ONJ disease without bone exposure. A new MRONJ definition is needed to avoid missing or delayed diagnosis.

No abstract

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are administered to Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients with bone lytic lesion. Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ) is a complication reported since 2003 in patients treated with intravenous (IV) BPs such as zoledronic acid and pamidronate, with 6%–26.3% frequency in early literature series, before some preventive measures were recommended. We evaluated the occurrence of ONJ with and without dental preventive measures in MM patients treated with BPs in our centre between 1996 and 2015. Since 2005, MM patients (already under treatment or before treatment) underwent a baseline mouth assessment (dental visit, Rx orthopantomography, and eventual tooth avulsion or dental care if necessary) and were followed by a multidisciplinary team. We reviewed the charts of 119 MM patients receiving IV BPs, classified into 3 groups: (a) “historic group” (21 patients who had started BP treatment in years before the awareness of ONJ); (b) “screening group” (20 patients starting BPs without baseline evaluation); and (c) “prevention group” (78 patients starting therapy only after baseline preventive assessment and eventual dental care measures). ONJ was observed in 3/21 patients (14.2%) from group a, in 2/20 patients (10%) from group b, and in no patients from group c (0%). Notably, the median number of IV BP administrations decreased after 2005. Our data confirmed a meaningful reduction of ONJ risk in MM patients treated with BPs if preventive measures are applied. Both implementation of prevention measures and reduction of cumulative doses of IV BPs could have contributed to a decreased incidence of ONJ.

No abstract

Objectives: To analyse the organisational changes adopted by the Oncology SC during the Covid-19 emergency in order to identify their future applicability as an ordinary model of oncology patient management. Methodology: Application of ministerial recommendations, of the Piedmont and Aosta Valley Oncology Network and of the main scientific societies on the management of oncological patients during the pandemic and in phase 2. Results: During the pandemic, organisational models and pathways were adopted that ensured continuity of care and patient safety and can also be applied in the post-Covid phase. Conclusions: The reorganisation model of Oncology during the Covid-19 emergency was effective and some of the pathways adopted may constitute an ordinary tool of activity.