• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제17권8호
• /
• pp.3945-3951
• /
• 2016

Background: Whether concurrent chemotherapy treatment is superior to radiotherapy alone as an adjuvant regimen for postoperative cervical carcinoma with risk factors remains controversial. Materials and Methods: A literature search strategy examined Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Internet Web, the Chinese Biomedical Database and the Wanfang Database. Article reference lists and scientific meeting abstracts were also screened. Controlled trials comparing concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in postoperative cervical cancer were included. The methodological quality of non-randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Randomized controlled studies were evaluated with the Cochrane handbook. A meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3. Results: A total of 1,073 patients from 11 clinical trials were analysed, with 582 patients in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy group and 491 patients in the radiotherapy group. Hazard ratios (HR) of 0.47 (95% CI 0.31-0.72) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.35-0.72) were observed for overall survival and progression-free survival, indicating a benefit from the additional use of concurrent chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that cervical cancer with high risk factors significantly benefitted from concurrent chemotherapy when examining overall survival (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.67) and progression-free survival (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70), but patients with intermediate risk factors showed no benefit from concurrent chemotherapy in overall survival (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.28-10.41) and progression-free survival (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.19-6.14). No significant differences were observed for grade 3-4 anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 3.87, 95% CI 0.69-21.84), grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (RR 3.04, 95% CI 0.88-10.58), grade 3-4 vomiting or nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.27-10.96), or grade 3-4 diarrhoea (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.83). Significant differences were observed for grade 3-4 neutropenia in favour of the radiotherapy group (RR 7.23, 95% CI 3.94-13.26). Conclusions: In conclusion, concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves survival in postoperative cervical cancer with high risk factors but not in those with intermediate risk factors.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제21권5호
• /
• pp.413-429
• /
• 2021

Background: Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of productivity on a global scale. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ketamine on migraines and other primary headache disorders compared to placebo and other active interventions, such as midazolam, metoclopramide/diphenhydramine, and prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine. Methods: An electronic search of databases published up to February 2021, including Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies, as well as literature and systematic reviews found through the search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine in the treatment of migraine/headache disorders compared to the placebo. The authors assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. Results: The initial search strategy yielded 398 unduplicated references, which were independently assessed by three review authors. After evaluation, this number was reduced to five RCTs (two unclear risk of bias and three high risk of bias). The total number of patients in all the studies was 193. Due to the high risk of bias, small sample size, heterogeneity of the outcomes reported, and heterogeneity of the comparison groups, the quality of the evidence was very low. One RCT reported that intranasal ketamine was superior to intranasal midazolam in improving the aura attack severity, but not duration, while another reported that intranasal ketamine was not superior to metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in reducing the headache severity. In one trial, subcutaneous ketamine was superior to saline in migraine severity reduction; however, intravenous (I.V.) ketamine was inferior to I.V. prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine in another study. Conclusion: Further double-blind controlled studies are needed to assess the efficacy of ketamine in treating acute and chronic refractory migraines and other primary headaches using intranasal and subcutaneous routes. These studies should include a long-term follow-up and different ketamine dosages in diagnosed patients following international standards for diagnosing headache/migraine.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.183-205
• /
• 2021

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effectiveness of maxillary stabilization splint (SS) therapy to reduce headache (HA) intensity and HA frequency in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)-HA comorbidity. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using full-arch coverage, hard resin, and maxillary SS therapy were included. Electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, MEDLINE through PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched. The risk of bias was analyzed based on Cochrane's handbook. The search yielded 247 references up to January 28, 2020. Nine RCTs were included at a high risk of bias. The comparison groups included other splints, counseling, jaw exercises, medications, neurologic treatment, and occlusal equilibration. Four studies reported a statistically significant reduction in HA intensity, and five studies reported significant improvement in HA frequency from baseline at 2-12 months in patients with TMD-HA comorbidity treated with a full-arch hard maxillary SS. HA frequency in tension-type HA (TTH) comorbid with TMD diagnoses of myofascial pain (MFP) or capsulitis/synovitis improved significantly with SS than that with full-arch maxillary non-occluding splint (NOS) in two studies. Comparison groups receiving hard partial-arch maxillary splint nociceptive trigeminal inhibition (NTI) showed statistically significant improvements in HA intensity in patients with mixed TMD phenotypes of MFP and disc displacement comorbid with "general HA." Comparison groups receiving partial-arch maxillary resilient/soft splint (Relax) showed significant improvements in both HA intensity and frequency in patients with HA concomitant with MFP. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the improvement of pain intensity at 2-3 months with comparison of the splints (partial-arch soft [Relax], hard [NTI], and full-arch NOS) or splint use compliance at 6-12 months with comparison of the splints (partial-arch Relax and full-arch NOS) versus the SS groups in patients with various TMD-HA comorbidities. In conclusion, although SS therapy showed a statistically significant decrease in HA intensity and HA frequency when reported, the evidence quality was low due to the high bias risk and small sample size. Therefore, further studies are required.