Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 2996    
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 564-570

Contribution of antiangiogenic agents to the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in combination with antiresorptive agents: Preliminary results in a comparative prospective report of 59 oncologic cases


1 Department of Stomatology—Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU Saint Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
2 Department of Otolaryngolology—Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Saint Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
3 Department of Stomatology—Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU Saint Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium; Department of Otolaryngolology—Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Saint Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Didier Dequanter
Department of Stomatology-Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU Saint Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels
Belgium
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_110_22

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this preliminary study was to evaluate in an oncological population the association risk of antiangiogenic (AA) agents to antiresorptive (AR) agents on the incidence and the severity of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, we reviewed the medical records and clinical variables of 59 consecutive oncologic patients who developed MRONJ. For all patients, we retrieved the following variables: age, gender, alcohol and tobacco use, type of cancer, use of corticosteroids for >3 months, history of diabetes, MRONJ staging, combination of AR and AA agents, dental history (surgery, prosthesis) or spontaneous, site of MRONJ, delay between AR and AA first intake, and MRONJ development. Patients were divided into two groups according to drugs therapy they underwent: group 1 (G1) including patients treated with AR agents alone and group 2 (G2) including patients receiving antiresorptive–antiangiogenic drugs (AR+AA). The degree and the therapeutical success were defined as primary outcomes and the number, the localization, and the delay in onset of the lesions as secondary outcomes. In order to identify predictive factors of osteonecrosis-free interval time, univariate and multivariate Cox regression was performed. Statistical tests were carried out using the IBM® SPSS® Statistics software. All reported P-values are two-tailed and were considered to be significant when less than 0.05. Results: Among the 47 patients who received AR agent alone (group 1), the mean treatment duration before diagnosis of MRONJ was 39.2 months. In the second group (n = 12), patients developed MRONJ with a comparable mean time of 55 months (P = 0.16). According to the staging of MRONJ at the time of diagnosis, no significant difference (P = 0.736) was observed between the two groups. Moreover, the treatment applied was not statistically different in both the groups and was successful in 36.17% of the patients in group 1 and 58.33% of the patients in group 2. No statistically difference was reported in both the groups (P = 0.16). After statistical analysis, no significant difference in terms of MRONJ localization (P = 0.13) was observed. Finally, the incidence of spontaneous MRONJ was comparable in both the groups. Statistical analysis revealed that total time of treatment was the only factor associated with poor osteonecrosis-free interval time (hazard ratio 0.99; P = 0.001). Interestingly, the combination of an AA and AR agent was not a significant predictor factor of the interval time before the diagnosis of osteonecrosis. Additionally, corticosteroid use, diabetes mellitus, and dental consultation before treatment were not statistically related to poorer osteonecrosis-free interval time rates. Conclusion: In our preliminary study, neither the mean treatment time duration before the diagnosis of MRONJ nor the dose delivered was different in both the groups (AR vs. AR+AA). Moreover, no significant difference was observed between both the groups regarding the localization and the staging of MRONJ at the time of diagnosis. Interestingly, our results demonstrated that the risk of spontaneous MRONJ is statistically comparable in the AR and AR–AA groups. Additionally, the addition of an AA agent did not influence the treatment applied in the two groups of patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed220    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal