No abstract

Background The aim of this study was to assess the survival outcomes of cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CPB) versus cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone (CPA) in postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced cervical cancer (CC). Methods Consecutive postmenopausal women who experienced CPB or CPA were identified retrospectively from our medical centre during 2015–2019. Follow-up visits occurred 1 and 3 months after starting CPB or CPA. Afterwards, this assessment was conducted every 3 months for 1 year and then yearly thereafter. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs). Results Two hundred forty-six postmenopausal women were included (CPB, n = 124; CPA, n = 122). The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 24 months (range, 2–32). At the final follow-up, a significant difference was detected in terms of median OS (16.4 months [95% CI, 15.3–17.1] for CPB vs. 12.3 months [95% CI, 10.2–13.5] for CPA; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49–0.99; p = 0.001), and the median PFS was longer in the CPB group than in the CPA group (9.2 months [95% CI, 8.3–10.7] vs. 7.9 months (95% CI, 6.1–8.6) (HR 0.62, 95% CI, 0.47–0.82; p < 0.001). There were significant differences in the number of AEs between the groups (hypertension grade ≥ 2 [p < 0.001], neutropenia grade ≥ 4 [p < 0.001], and thrombosis/embolism grade ≥ 3 [p = 0.030]). Conclusions Among postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced CC, those who received CPB experienced superior survival benefits compared to those who received CPA. The safety profile for CPB was controllable despite the long duration of CPB use.

No abstract

Objective To assess the accuracy of half-way digital mucosa-supported implant guides (HDMIGs) for edentulous jaws. Methods Ninety-five consecutive patients (859 implants) with edentulous jaws who underwent implant placement using an HDMIG from July 2012 to June 2018 were retrospectively identified. The primary endpoint was implant-related complications (nerve injury and unexpected perforation), and the secondary endpoints were the faciolingual distance, mesiodistal distance, buccolingual angle, and mesiodistal angle. Follow-ups occurred at 1 month, 2 months, and then every 2 months following implant placement. Results Twenty-seven (28.4%) patients met the exclusion criteria, leaving 68 eligible patients (636 implants) for the final analysis. The median follow-up was 24 months (range, 18–27 months). No patients developed nerve injury, revision, or unexpected perforation. At the final follow-up, the mean faciolingual distance was 0.65 ± 0.16 mm, the mean mesiodistal distance was 1.16 ± 0.61 mm, the mean buccolingual angle was 4.04° ± 2.26°, and the mean mesiodistal angle was 3.75° ± 2.56°. In the comparison of the first month after surgery and the last follow-up, no significant differences were detected in any of the four measured variables. Conclusion Use of an HDMIG may be a convenient and safe method to ensure correct implantation.