Oral management strategies for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer

Kawashita, Yujo; Soutome, Sakiko; Umeda, Masahiro; Saito, Toshiyuki

doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.02.001

Cited by 76 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment is performed in most situations employing surgery or radiotherapy, and there may be cases that require both association therapy. Radiotherapy uses a beam of ionizing radiation and aims to destroy tumor cells, minimizing damage to normal cells [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of ionizing radiation on surface properties of current restorative dental materials

Amorim

Veríssimo

Ribeiro

et al. 2021

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the impact of radiotherapy on surface properties of restorative dental materials. A conventional resin composite—CRC (Aura Enamel), a bulk-fill resin composite—BFRC (Aura Bulk-fill), a conventional glass ionomer cement—CGIC (Riva self cure), and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement—RMGIC (Riva light cure) were tested. Forty disc-shaped samples from each material (8 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness) (n = 10) were produced according to manufacturer directions and then stored in water distilled for 24 h. Surface wettability (water contact angle), Vickers microhardness, and micromorphology through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after exposition to ionizing radiation (60 Gy) were obtained. The data were statistically evaluated using the two-way ANOVA and Tukey posthoc test (p < 0.05). Baseline and post-radiation values of contact angles were statistically similar for CRC, BFRC, and RMGIC, whilst post-radiation values of contact angles were statistically lower than baseline ones for CGIC. Exposition to ionizing radiation statistically increased the microhardness of CRC, and statistically decreased the microhardness of CGIC. The surface micromorphology of all materials was changed post-radiation. Exposure to ionizing radiation negatively affected the conventional glass ionomer tested, while did not alter or improved surface properties testing of the resin composites and the resin-modified glass ionomer cement tested.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of ionizing radiation on surface properties of current restorative dental materials

Amorim

Veríssimo

Ribeiro

et al. 2021

J Mater Sci: Mater Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…by chewing paraffin blocks, ranging between 1.0-3.0 mL/min. Values below 0.7 mL/min after masticatory stimulation are considered deficient, signaling the occurrence of hyposalivation in the individual 10 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salivary Flow Analysis of Head and Neck Irradiated Patients

Baldo

Freitas

Carvalho³

et al. 2021

J. Health Scie.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to analyze the salivary flow of irradiated patients for the head and neck cancer treatment after the conclusion of their treatment, and to compare it to the salivary flow of a group of non-irradiated patients. The salivary flow measurement was performed using the stimulated saliva analysis technique by masticatory action. The data collected were organized in planning using the Microsoft Excel program and then analyzed through the program IBM SPSS 20.0. The independent T-test was used to compare the median values between the groups that had normal distribution. 54 patients were evaluated, 18 from Group 1, of irradiated patients with an average time of ending radiotherapy of 11 months; and 36 patients from Group 2, with non-cancerous and non-irradiated patients. The mean salivary flow of Group 1 patients was 0.39 (± 0.85) and 100% of the patients expelled less than 3.5mL of saliva after stimulation for five minutes. Among the patients from Group 2, the mean salivary flow was 3.22 (± 2.65), and 77.78% of the patients had a salivary stimulation of less than 3.5 mL. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.004). Through the methodology used, a high prevalence of hyposalivation was observed in patients irradiated in head and neck for cancer treatment even after months of the treatment conclusion and among patients without cancer and not submitted to radiotherapy. However, a deficiency in saliva production was statistically higher among patients irradiated in the head and neck. Keywords: Neoplasms. Radiotherapy. Saliva. Xerostomia. ResumoEste estudo teve como objetivo analisar o fluxo salivar de pacientes irradiados no tratamento do câncer de cabeça e pescoço após a conclusão de seu tratamento, e compará-lo com o fluxo salivar de um grupo de pacientes não irradiados. A medição do fluxo salivar foi realizada utilizando a técnica de análise de saliva estimulada por ação masticatória. Os dados coletados foram organizados no planejamento utilizando o programa Microsoft Excel e, em seguida, analisados através do programa IBM SPSS 20.0. O teste T independente foi utilizado para comparar os valores medianos entre os grupos que apresentaram distribuição normal. Foram avaliados 54 pacientes, 18 do Grupo 1, de pacientes irradiados com tempo médio de término da radioterapia de 11 meses; e 36 pacientes do Grupo 2, com pacientes não cancerosos e não irradiados. O fluxo salivar médio dos pacientes do Grupo 1 foi de 0,39 (± 0,85) e 100% dos pacientes expeliram menos de 3,5 mL de saliva após estimulação por cinco minutos. Entre os pacientes do Grupo 2, o fluxo salivar médio foi de 3,22 (± 2,65), e 77,78% dos pacientes apresentaram estimulação salivar inferior a 3,5 mL. Essa diferença foi estatisticamente significante (p = 0,004). Por meio da metodologia utilizada, observou-se alta prevalência de hiposalivação em pacientes irradiados na cabeça e pescoço para tratamento de câncer mesmo após meses da conclusão do tratamento e entre pacientes sem câncer e não submetidos à radioterapia. No entanto, a deficiência na produção de saliva foi estatisticamente maior entre os pacientes irradiados na cabeça e pescoço. Palavras-chave: Neoplasias. Radioterapia. Saliva. Xerostomia.

show abstract

“…Various review articles have focused on different treatment options for HNCs such as surgery (14)(15)(16), RT (17)(18)(19)(20), CT (21)(22)(23)(24), and immunotherapies (25)(26)(27). This article will specifically focus on analyzing biotherapeutic antibodies that are currently approved or being examined in different clinical trials.…”

Section: Incidence Etiology and Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotherapeutic Antibodies for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer: Current Approaches and Future Considerations of Photothermal Therapies

Qaraghuli

2020

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a heterogeneous disease that includes a variety of tumors originating in the hypopharynx, oropharynx, lip, oral cavity, nasopharynx, or larynx. HNC is the sixth most common malignancy worldwide and affects thousands of people in terms of incidence and mortality. Various factors can trigger the development of the disease such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and repetitive viral infections. HNC is currently treated by single or multimodality approaches, which are based on surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and biotherapeutic antibodies. The latter approach will be the focus of this article. There are currently three approved antibodies against HNCs (cetuximab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab), and 48 antibodies under development. The majority of these antibodies are of humanized (23 antibodies) or human (19 antibodies) origins, and subclass IgG1 represents a total of 32 antibodies. In addition, three antibody drug conjugates (ADCs: telisotuzumab-vedotin, indatuximab-ravtansine, and W0101) and two bispecific antibodies (GBR 1372 and ABL001) have been under development. Despite the remarkable success of antibodies in treating different tumors, success was limited in HNCs. This limitation is attributed to efficacy, resistance, and the appearance of various side effects. However, the efficacy of these antibodies could be enhanced through conjugation to gold nanoparticles (GNPs). These conjugates combine the high specificity of antibodies with unique spectral properties of GNPs to generate a treatment approach known as photothermal therapy. This approach can provide promising outcomes due to the ability of GNPs to convert light into heat, which can specifically destroy cancer cells and treat HNC in an effective manner.

show abstract

Oral management strategies for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer

Cited by 76 publications

References 66 publications

Effects of ionizing radiation on surface properties of current restorative dental materials

Effects of ionizing radiation on surface properties of current restorative dental materials

Salivary Flow Analysis of Head and Neck Irradiated Patients

Biotherapeutic Antibodies for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer: Current Approaches and Future Considerations of Photothermal Therapies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About