Currently, localized pulpalgia is listed as a rare manifestation of chemotherapy treatments in patients with malignant tumors. The neuropathy originated from neurotoxicity of anticancer drugs is usually described as a diffuse jaw pain or numbness in orofacial structures. This article reports localized tooth pain as a possible outcome of administrating high dosage chemotherapy drugs particularly in the last cycles of application.

Background: The rate of recurrence and mortality in high-risk prostate cancer remains high. On the other hand, the use of chemotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer has improved overall survival of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone on increasing survival of patients with high risk localized prostate cancer Methods: This is a systematic review study. Databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase were searched. The terms used include prostate cancer, adenocarcinoma, neoadjuvant, chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, systemic therapy. Of the various types of articles, only oiginal research studies that specifically focused on neoadjuvant chemotherapy (not chemotherapy with target therapy, immunotherapy, or hormone therapy) were identified. Inclusion criteria included study type (original research studies) and sample type (high-risk localized prostate cancer patients) and outcome type (patient survival). Results: A total of 17 original research studies were identified. All of these studies were phase one or phase two. Docetaxel was the most commonly used chemotherapy drug. Also, the most common regimen used was the use of docetaxel alone. The rate of decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (>50%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was reported in 24 to 58% of patients. PSA declines of less than 50% after neoadjuvant chemotherapy occurred in 40 to 100% of patients. No studies reported a complete pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, the relative pathologic response and reduced tumor volume were seen in the majority of patients. All of these studies showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in high-risk prostate cancer patients, was almost well tolerated and that the complications were mostly mild (grade 1 and 2). Grade 3 and 4 complications were negligible. A 2-year recurrence-free survival of up to 68. 5% and a 5-year recurrence-free survival of up to 49% were reported. The overall 5-year survival also ranged from 35 to 48%. Conclusion: The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone has not clearly increased the survival of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, and there is controversy in studies.

Background: Limited data exists to support the benefit from second-linechemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Factors that predictsurvival following progression after first-line platinum-based regimens in patientstreated outside clinical trials are not clear. This study intends to evaluate differentprognostic factors and the impact of second-line chemotherapy on survival. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with metastatic urothelial carcinomawho experienced disease progression following first-line platinum-based regimens formetastases. These patients received treatment and follow up visits at a single institution. The effect of demographic, disease characteristics, and second-line therapy on overallsurvival was examined through univariate and multivariate cox-regression analyses. Results: There were 64 patients included. A total of 27 (42%) patients did not receivesecond-line chemotherapy because of poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Groupperformance status, 20 (31%) received combination chemotherapy (platinum-based in17), and 17 (27%) received a single agent chemotherapy. The median overall survivalfrom the date of documented progression after first-line therapy was 5. 0 months. Inmultivariate analysis, a correlation existed between poor overall survival and performancestatus of ≥ 1 (HR: 5. 74, 95% CI: 1. 4-45. 57, P=0. 036), no second-line chemotherapy(HR: 2. 72, 95% CI: 1. 39-5. 31, P=0. 003), and ≥ 2 metastatic sites (HR: 5. 19, 95% CI: 1. 74-15. 44, P<0. 001). Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinomawere not eligible for second-line chemotherapy because of poor performance status. Use of second-line chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performancestatus, and number of metastatic sites were important determinants of survival.

Background: Cancer or neoplasia is recognized as abnormal, uncontrolled growth of cells. New cases of cancer reported everyday. Development of medical science led to diagnostic and treatment methods for cancer. Many drugs are used in cancer chemotherapy and can treat a wide range of cancers. These drugs work in different ways and can lead to deficiency of immune cells and humoral responses. So it is expected that people treating with these drugs show higher rates of parasitic infections. This study was done to compare intestinal parasitic infections in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with healthy ones and with cancer patients that were not undergoing chemotherapy.Methods: In this case-control study three groups of people were selected. First group were 250 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy for at least 1 month. Second group were 250 healthy people with immunocompetency. Third group were 100 cancer patients not that undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy. We take a stool specimen from each person. Specimens examined by direct (for diarrheal ones) and formalin-ether (for all). In order to investigate the presence of Cryptosporidium parvum, we take a thin smear from each specimen and stained it by Zeil Nelson method.Results: Frequency of intestinal parasitic infections in first, second and third group were 24.8%, 33.6% and 28%; respectively; but differences were not statistically significant (P=0.09%). In another investigation of intestinal parasites in three groups, infection rate of E.hartmani in second group and G.lamblia in first group was significantly higher. Infection rates of other parasites were not significantly different. Overally in three groups, most frequent parasites were B.hominis 12.8%, E.coli 11.7% and G.lamblia 4.3%, Cryptosporidium infection was not seen.Conclusion: Despite our hypothesis, prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections in three groups were not significantly different. Drugs used in cancer chemotherapy may have suppressive effects on parasites or kill them. In another hand, cancer patients despite their depressed immunity may show parasitic infection less than expected because of less exposure to parasites due to special medical care.

chemotherapy is defined as the use of chemicals to treat any disease, but the term has come to be applied most commonly to the use of drugs to treat cancer. Cancer is an abnormal growth or proliferation of cells that tends to invade locally or spread to distant parts of the body.How chemotherapy is given• oral (by mouth)• injection (intramuscular or subcutaneous)• intravenous (IV)• intra-arterial (into the arteries)• Intr alesional (directly into the tumor)• Intr aperitoneal (into the peritoneal cavity)• Intr athecal (into the spinal fluid)• topically (applied to the skin)• In large oncology centers, HD's are usually prepared in the pharmacy or centralized drug preparation area However, in small hospitals, outpatient treatment areas, and physicians' offices they have been prepared by physicians or nurses without appropriate engineering controls and protective. I n article we explain many of guidelines for preparation and how can protect ourselves of bad side effect in during chemotherapy preparation.