| Literature DB >> 33123580 |
Yuqiong Zhou1, Yejia Yu1, Yueqi Shi1, Mengyu Li1, Chi Yang1, Shaoyi Wang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with stage 3 medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) suffer from severe complications. Chemotherapeutic agents and targeted drugs are considered to be associated with the development of MRONJ. However, little is known regarding the association of those agents with stage 3 MRONJ. The purpose of this study is to analyze the comprehensive medication history of patients with advanced-stage MRONJ (stage 2 and stage 3) and evaluate the possible risk factors for stage 3 MRONJ. Patients and Methods. Sixty patients with advanced-stage MRONJ were involved in this retrospective study. Patients with developmental maxillofacial anomalies, previous radiation in the head and neck areas, and jaw bone tumors were excluded from the study. All patients were divided into two groups by their MRONJ stage (stage 2 or stage 3). Demographic and clinical characteristics, comprehensive medication data (bisphosphonates, chemotherapeutic agents, targeted drugs, and immunosuppressive agents), and results of serological biomarkers were recorded and compared between two groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed by SPSS 25.0 for evaluating risk factors of stage 3 MRONJ.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33123580 PMCID: PMC7584964 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5847429
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
2019 MASCC/ISOO/ASCO staging system for MRONJ.
| At risk | No symptoms and signs in patients who have been administered bone-modifying agents |
| Increased risk | No necrotic bone or fistulas that probe to bone but nonspecific symptoms, signs, and radiographic changes |
| Stage 1 | Exposed and necrotic bone or fistulas that probe to bone in patients who are asymptomatic without evidence of infection |
| Stage 2 | Exposed and necrotic bone or fistulas that probe to bone in patients who are symptomatic with or without purulent drainage |
| Stage 3 | Exposed and necrotic bone or fistulas that probe to bone in patients who are symptomatic with infection, and one or more of the following: exposed and necrotic bone extending beyond the region of alveolar bone (i.e., inferior border and ramus in the mandible, maxillary sinus, and zygoma in the maxilla) resulting in pathologic fracture, extraoral fistula, oral antral/oral nasal communication, or osteolysis extending to the inferior border of the mandible of sinus floor |
Abbreviations: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO: Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology/American Society of Clinical Oncology; MRONJ: medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the two groups.
| Variables | Group A: stage 2 ( | Group B: stage 3 ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | ||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 16 | 51.6 | 16 | 55.2 | 0.782 |
| Female | 15 | 48.4 | 13 | 44.8 | |
| Age (years) | |||||
| Range | 61-89 | 60-85 | |||
| Mean ± SD | 70.9 ± 10.0 | 69.1 ± 7.9 | 0.403 | ||
| Smoking | 12 | 38.7 | 15 | 51.7 | 0.311 |
| Primary diseases | |||||
| Breast cancer | 3 | 9.7 | 5 | 17.2 | |
| Multiple myeloma | 3 | 9.7 | 4 | 13.9 | |
| Prostate cancer | 10 | 32.3 | 2 | 6.9 | |
| Pulmonary cancer | 8 | 25.7 | 9 | 31.0 | |
| Renal cancer | 0 | 0 | 4 | 13.9 | |
| Lymphoma | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.4 | |
| Gastric carcinoma | 1 | 3.2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rectum carcinoma | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.4 | |
| Unknown cancer | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.4 | |
| Osteoporosis | 6 | 19.4 | 2 | 6.9 | |
| General diseases | |||||
| Hypertension | 15 | 48.4 | 12 | 41.4 | 0.586 |
| Diabetes | 8 | 25.8 | 10 | 34.5 | 0.464 |
| Renal disease | 2 | 6.5 | 5 | 17.2 | 0.247 |
| Local factors | |||||
| Tooth extraction | 21 | 67.7 | 22 | 75.9 | 0.485 |
| Denture use | 7 | 22.6 | 3 | 10.3 | 0.302 |
| Periodontal disease | 27 | 87.1 | 24 | 82.8 | 0.727 |
| Chemotherapy | 11 | 35.5 | 21 | 72.4 | 0.004∗ |
| Targeted drugs | 7 | 22.6 | 16 | 55.2 | 0.009∗ |
| Endocrine drugs | 13 | 41.9 | 7 | 24.1 | 0.144 |
| Immunosuppressive drugs | 4 | 12.9 | 8 | 27.6 | 0.155 |
| Lesion location | |||||
| Mandible | 25 | 80.6 | 18 | 62.1 | 0.111 |
| Maxilla | 6 | 19.4 | 15 | 51.7 | 0.009∗ |
| Anterior region | 4 | 12.9 | 5 | 17.2 | 0.727 |
| Posterior region | 27 | 87.1 | 24 | 82.8 | 0.727 |
| TTO (months) | |||||
| Range | 16-120 | 11-72 | |||
| Mean ± SD | 28.7 ± 5.16 | 37.4 ± 19.9 | 0.144 | ||
| dTTO (months) | |||||
| Range | 0-36 | 0-21 | |||
| Mean ± SD | 4.5 ± 8.5 | 3.8 ± 5.3 | 0.710 | ||
∗ P values were statistically significant. Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation; TTO: time from first using bisphosphonate to the onset of MRONJ; dTTO: time from last using bisphosphonate to the onset of MRONJ.
Figure 1Distribution of different complications in patients with stage 3 MRONJ. Among the patients with maxillary lesions, the involvement of the maxillary sinus and nasal base and the occurrence of facial fistula and pathological fracture were calculated. Except for facial fistula and pathological fracture, the involvement of the mandibular canal, inferior board, and ramus in the mandible was recorded. The proportion of each complication was calculated, respectively.
The utilization of different medications between the two groups.
| Medication | Group A: stage 2 ( | Group B: stage 3 ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean ± SD |
| Mean ± SD | ||
| Bisphosphonates | |||||
| Zoledronic acid | 25 (80.6) | 35.0 ± 20.3 | 28 (96.9) | 29.3 ± 18.2 | 0.285 |
| Alendronate | 6 (19.4) | 75.0 ± 38.0 | 1 (3.1) | 90.0 | 0.104 |
| Routes | |||||
| IV | 25 (80.6) | 28 (96.9) | |||
| Oral | 6 (19.4) | 1 (3.1) | |||
| Chemotherapy | |||||
| Paclitaxel | 0 | 0 | 3 (7.1) | 7.3 ± 4.2 | |
| Cisplatin | 5 (27.7) | 6.2 ± 1.5 | 11 (26.2) | 11.2 ± 7.3 | |
| Pemetrexed | 6 (33.3) | 5.5 ± 1.4 | 11 (26.2) | 11.5 ± 7.2 | |
| Tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil | 2 (11.1) | 10.0 ± 2.0 | 2 (4.8) | 21.5 ± 20.5 | |
| Gemcitabine | 0 | 0 | 1 (2.4) | 25.0 | |
| Nedaplatin | 1 (5.6) | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cyclophosphamide (IV) | 0 | 0 | 2 (4.8) | 4.5 ± 0.5 | |
| Cyclophosphamide (O) | 1 (5.6) | 24.0 | 2 (4.8) | 25.0 ± 15.6 | |
| Vindesine | 0 | 0 | 3 (7.1) | 5.3 ± 0.8 | |
| Docetaxel | 1 (5.6) | 6.0 | 4 (9.5) | 9.6 ± 2.3 | |
| Bortezomib | 2 (11.1) | 67.5 ± 9.5 | 3 (7.1) | 16.3 ± 2.6 | |
| 2Count | 11 (35.4) | 16.3 ± 21.4 | 21 (72.4) | 14.6 ± 9.7 | 0.771 |
| Targeted drugs | |||||
| Apatinib | 3 (23.0) | 19.0 ± 16.0 | 1 (4.5) | 15.0 | |
| Rituximab (time) | 0 | 0 | 2 (9.2) | 9.5 ± 7.5 | |
| Erlotinib | 1 (7.7) | 50.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Icotinib | 3 (23.1) | 30.0 ± 6.5 | 2 (9.2) | 28.0 ± 7.0 | |
| Bevacizumab | 1 (7.7) | 24.0 | 2 (9.2) | 22.0 ± 10.0 | |
| Gefitinib | 3 (23.1) | 10.0 ± 2.0 | 5 (22.7) | 40.3 ± 25.7 | |
| Osimertinib | 1 (7.7) | 6.0 | 3 (13.6) | 12.0 ± 3.0 | |
| Sunitinib | 0 | 0 | 3 (13.6) | 45.7 ± 12 | |
| Anlotinib | 0 | 0 | 1 (4.5) | 3.0 | |
| Pazopanib | 0 | 0 | 1 (4.5) | 8.0 | |
| Axitinib | 0 | 0 | 1 (4.5) | 5.0 | |
| Sorafenib | 0 | 0 | 1 (4.5) | 72.0 | |
| Afatinib | 1 (7.7) | 3.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2Count | 7 (22.6) | 37.9 ± 18.5 | 16 (55.2) | 32.9 ± 23.4 | 0.629 |
| Immunosuppressive drugs | |||||
| Thalidomide | 2 (40.0) | 66.0 + 42.0 | 3 (27.2) | 23.3 ± 9.29 | |
| GCs | 2 (40.0) | NA | 7 (63.6) | NA | |
| Anti-PD-1 | 1 (20.0) | 1.0 | 1 (9.0) | 3.0 | |
1 P values of medication duration or time were calculated. 2Count: the total number of patients administered with chemotherapy or targeted drugs and the total time or duration of these medications in the two groups were counted. ∗P values were statistically significant. The percentage of 2count (%) was the total number of patients receiving chemotherapy or targeted drugs divided by the total number of patients in different groups. SD: standard deviation; NA: not applicable.
Figure 2The utilization of chemotherapy in different cancer types between two groups. MRONJ patients with administration of chemotherapeutic agents in group A and group B were 11 and 21, respectively. The proportion of every cancer type (%) was the number of different cancer types of patients receiving chemotherapy divided by the total number of MRONJ patients receiving chemotherapy
The laboratory examination results for the two groups.
| Variables | Group A: stage 2 ( | Group B: stage 3 ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | ||
| Serum Ca | 2.12 ± 0.24 | 1.57-2.32 | 2.21 ± 0.11 | 2.02-2.38 | 0.277 |
| Serum P | 1.20 ± 0.14 | 0.99-1.46 | 1.16 ± 0.22 | 0.85-1.63 | 0.654 |
| Serum Mg | 0.90 ± 0.20 | 0.74-1.15 | 0.83 ± 0.12 | 0.78-1.38 | 0.323 |
| PTH | 45.29 ± 18.07 | 9.46-167.34 | 51.01 ± 41.68 | 22.54-80.42 | 0.720 |
| CRP | 26.91 ± 63.62 | 0.40-107.00 | 31.15 ± 34.23 | 1.28-184.00 | 0.844 |
| Calcitonin | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.02-0.68 | 0.03 ± 0.02 | 0.01-0.06 | 0.286 |
| 25-Hydroxy vitamin D | 16.83 ± 9.77 | 8.17-36.60 | 17.85 ± 9.42 | 6.17-38.20 | 0.815 |
| Osteocalcin | 14.02 ± 3.77 | 7.31-41.00 | 15.60 ± 9.33 | 6.63-17.93 | 0.656 |
| PINP | 39.24 ± 20.30 | 11.98-136.10 | 47.64 ± 33.63 | 19.76-84.95 | 0.533 |
|
| 0.31 ± 0.14 | 0.12-1.34 | 0.40 ± 0.31 | 0.15-0.60 | 0.447 |
| ALP | 69 ± 22 | 34-93 | 111 ± 69 | 41-232 | 0.089 |
Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation; PTH: parathyroid hormone; CRP: C-reactive protein; PINP: carboxyl-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen; β-CTX: beta collagen degradation products; ALP: alkaline phosphatase.
Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis.
| Variable |
| Crude OR | Adjusted OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Model 1 | |||||
| Chemotherapy | 0.044∗ | 4.77 | 3.43 | 1.03 | 11.38 |
| Targeted drugs | 0.040∗ | 4.22 | 3.69 | 1.06 | 12.80 |
| Maxilla | 0.026∗ | 4.46 | 4.26 | 1.19 | 15.23 |
| Model 2 | |||||
| Chemotherapy | 0.013∗ | — | 4.26 | 1.35 | 13.40 |
| Maxilla | 0.028∗ | — | 3.91 | 1.16 | 13.19 |
| Model 3 | |||||
| Targeted drugs | 0.013∗ | — | 4.58 | 1.38 | 15.16 |
| Maxilla | 0.012∗ | — | 4.85 | 1.42 | 16.61 |
The first model contained chemotherapy, targeted drugs, and maxillary lesions. The second model included chemotherapy and maxillary lesions. The third model contained targeted drugs and maxillary lesions. OR, 95% CI, and P values were calculated with the conditional multivariate logistic regression models according to likelihood ratio criteria. OR was mutually adjusted for variables in each model. ∗P values were statistically significant. Abbreviations: OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.