Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the association between clinical characteristics and development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients who underwent dental examinations before the initiation of treatment with denosumab or zoledronic acid, which are bone-modifying agents (BMAs), for bone metastases. Additionally, the clinical outcomes of patients who developed MRONJ were evaluated along with the time to resolution of MRONJ. Methods The medical charts of patients with cancer who received denosumab or zoledronic acid for bone metastases between January 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were excluded if they did not undergo a dental examination at baseline. Results Among the 374 included patients, 34 (9.1%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the denosumab group than in the zoledronic acid (27/215 [12.6%] vs 7/159 [4.4%], P = 0.006) group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment, older age, and tooth extraction before and after starting BMA treatments were significantly associated with developing MRONJ. The time to resolution of MRONJ was significantly shorter for patients who received denosumab (median 26.8 months) than for those who received zoledronic acid (median not reached; P = 0.024). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that treatment with denosumab, age > 65 years, and tooth extraction before and after starting BMA treatments are significantly associated with developing MRONJ in patients undergoing treatment for bone metastases. However, MRONJ caused by denosumab resolves faster than that caused by zoledronic acid.

No abstract

No abstract

Telephone number: +81-86-235-6705 FAX number: +81-86-235-6709 SUMMARY Typical MR images of ameloblastomas on T2-weighted image (WI) or short inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) show multiple bright high-signal-intensity loci on a high-signal-intensity background. Unilocular cystic-type ameloblastomas show homogeneously bright high signal intensity on T2WI or STIR as a water-like signal intensity. Therefore, it is difficult to distinguish unilocular cystic-type ameloblastoma from other cystic lesions such as keratocystic odontogenic tumors, radicular cysts (residual cysts) and dentigerous cysts only on the basis of MRI signal intensity. In the present study, we evaluated whether contrast-enhanced (CE)-T1WI and dynamic CE-MRI (DCE-MRI) could provide additional information for differential diagnosis in unilocular cystic-type ameloblastoma. Images from 12 cases of suspected unilocular cystic-type ameloblastoma were evaluated in the present study. Of them, 5 had areas suspected of indicating a solid component on T1WI and T2WI (or STIR). Ten had undergone additional CE-T1WI and DCE-MRI. On 5 of 10 cases of CE-T1WI, a tiny enhancement area was detected. On 6 of 10 DCE-images, a time-course enhanced area which was suspected to be a solid component was detected. CE-T1WI was helpful in the diagnosis of ameloblastoma because the tiny enhanced areas were taken to indicate possible solid components. Moreover, the rim-enhancement area on CE-T1WI could be divided into small regions of interest, and some of these showed slightly increased enhancement on DCE-MRI, which was taken to indicate a solid component and/or intramural nodule with focal invasion of ameloblastoma tissue. DCE-MRIs of the 4 remaining cases, which provided no clues to the diagnosis of ameloblastoma in the manner of the above descriptions, showed thicker rim enhancement than odontogenic cysts. Thus, CE-T1WI and DCE-MRI were helpful in the differential diagnosis of unilocular cystic-type ameloblastomas with homogeneously bright high signal intensity on T2WI or STIR.

Purpose This study evaluated the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients with cancer who received denosumab or zoledronic acid (ZA) for treating bone metastasis. Methods The medical records of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not undergo a dental examination at baseline were excluded. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the risk of developing MRONJ between the denosumab and ZA groups. Propensity score matching was used to control for baseline differences between patient characteristics and compare outcomes for both groups. Results Among the 799 patients enrolled, 58 (7.3%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the denosumab group than in the ZA group (9.6% [39/406] vs. 4.8% [19/393], p = 0.009). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 2.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65–5.25; p < 0.001) and tooth extraction after starting ZA or denosumab (HR, 4.26; 95% CI, 2.38–7.44; p < 0.001) were significant risk factors for MRONJ. Propensity score–matched analysis confirmed that the risk of developing MRONJ was significantly higher in the denosumab group than in the ZA group (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.17–5.01; p = 0.016). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that denosumab poses a significant risk for developing MRONJ in patients treated for bone metastasis, and thus these patients require close monitoring.

No abstract

The DCE-MRI parameters of minor salivary gland tumors contributed little to their differential diagnosis compared with those for major salivary gland tumors. During the diagnosis of minor salivary gland tumors, Tmax is useful for distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors.

Purpose Switch from zoledronic acid (ZA) to denosumab may increase the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) owing to the additive effect of denosumab on the jawbone and residual ZA activities. We evaluated the risk of developing MRONJ in patients who received ZA, denosumab, or ZA-to-denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases. Methods The medical charts of patients with cancer who received denosumab or ZA for bone metastases were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not undergo a dental examination at baseline were excluded. Primary endpoint was the evaluation of the risk of developing MRONJ in the ZA-to-denosumab group. Secondary endpoints were probability of MRONJ and the relationship between risk factors and the time to the development of MRONJ. Results Among the 795 patients included in this study, 65 (8.2%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the ZA-to-denosumab group than in the ZA group [7/43 (16.3%) vs. 19/350 (5.4%), p = 0.007]. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment [hazard ratio (HR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.37–4.39; p = 0.002], ZA-to-denosumab treatment (HR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.63–10.54, p = 0.005), tooth extraction after starting ZA or denosumab (HR, 4.86; 95% CI, 2.75–8.36; p < 0.001), and concomitant use of antiangiogenic agents (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06–2.96; p = 0.030) were significant risk factors for MRONJ. Conclusion Our results suggest that switching from ZA to denosumab significantly increases the risk for developing MRONJ in patients with bone metastases.