OBJECTIVE: The inability to propel a bolus of food successfully from the posterior part of the oral cavity to the oropharynx is defined as transfer dysphagia. The present case series describes the varied presentation of transfer dysphagia due to focal dystonia and highlights the importance of early detection by following up on strong suspicions. METHODS: We describe seven cases of transfer dysphagia due to focal dystonia. Transfer dysphagia as a form of focal dystonia may appear as the sole presenting complaint or may present with other forms of focal dystonia. RESULTS: Four out of seven patients had pure transfer dysphagia and had previously been treated for functional dysphagia. A high index of suspicion, barium swallow including videofluoroscopy, associated dystonia in other parts of the body and response to drug therapy with trihexyphenidyl/tetrabenazine helped to confirm the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Awareness of these clinical presentations among neurologists and non-neurologists can facilitate an early diagnosis and prevent unnecessary investigations.
Barium ; Deglutition Disorders ; Diagnosis ; Drug Therapy ; Dystonia ; Dystonic Disorders ; Early Diagnosis ; Humans ; Mouth ; Oropharynx

Ad26COVS1 ; COVID-19 ; Humans ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Thrombocytopenia ; Thrombosis/prevention & control* ; Vaccination

Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results: Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.

Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results: Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.

Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results: Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.