Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis

BACKGROUND: Survivors of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be at an elevated risk of developing second primary cancers (SPCs), but high-risk sites and specific population characteristics remain unclear. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify population-based studies reporting standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of SPCs in NMSC patients. Meta-analyses were performed for non-skin cancer risk and 34 site-specific SPCs. Subgroup analyses were stratified by gender, NMSC category, age, time since NMSC diagnosis, and geographic region. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q-test and I² statistic. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 560371 NMSC survivors and 77507 SPC cases were included. NMSC patients exhibited elevated risks for non-skin SPCs (SIR = 1.20, 95 % CI = 1.13-1.29). The risks were elevated for 20/34 site-specific SPCs. The highest extracutaneous cancer risks were observed in salivary glands (SIR = 4.75), lip (SIR = 2.90), and nose (SIR = 1.96). Subgroup analyses showed that basal cell carcinoma patients had increased risks for more SPC types than squamous cell carcinoma patients (15/30 vs. 9/28 sites analyzed). Patients diagnosed before age 60 showed elevated cancer risks of breast and liver/gallbladder. The SPC risks increased beyond 5 years post-diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Our findings identified high-risk NMSC survivors who would benefit most from enhanced SPC surveillance. Instead of universal screening, we recommend risk-based surveillance for patients diagnosed before age 60, with basal cell carcinoma, or with longer post-diagnosis intervals. This targeted strategy balances early SPC detection with resource use.

BACKGROUND: Despite being the gold standard for chemical plaque treatment, chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) mouthwash has adverse effects that make it necessary to use alternatives. Essential oil (EO) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes effectively reduce plaque and gingivitis. Hence, the aim of this review is to assess and compare the available data on the efficacy of CPC and EO mouthwashes in reducing plaque and gingivitis. METHODS: Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Science Direct, EBSCOhost, Lilacs, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the earliest available year (1990) till January 10, 2025. PICO Strategy: P: Individuals with plaque and gingivitis; I: CPC mouthwash; C: EO mouthwash; O: Reduction in plaque and gingivitis. The review only comprised randomised controlled trials. The risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence were assessed using the RoB-2 Tool and GRADE Tool respectively. RESULTS: After meeting the eligibility requirements, seven full-text publications were assessed for qualitative synthesis and six articles for quantitative synthesis. Overall, there was no significant difference in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis between CPC and EO mouthwashes. At two weeks, however, EO demonstrated a greater reduction in gingivitis (SMD: 4.67 [4.08, 5.26]; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%). Both mouthwashes were equally effective at reducing plaque and gingivitis at one, three, and six months. CONCLUSION: While CPC mouthwash matched EO mouthwash's long-term efficacy, EO mouthwash demonstrated superior short-term anti-gingivitis effects. Both were equally successful in reducing plaque. Depending on the needs of the patient, either can be utilized because of their distinct mechanism of action. Additional research should be done to reduce bias and enhance the methodology. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42025638243.

Research efforts have primarily focused on identifying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in common environmental media like water, air, soil, and biological samples. However, there is limited research on PFAS detection in complex samples such as personal care products, including cosmetics. PFAS are used in cosmetics for emulsification, surfactant action, and stabilization, and have been detected in products such as foundation, powders, and nail polish. The complexity of cosmetic formulations, with various additives, makes the analysis of these samples extremely challenging. This study aimed to explore and develop convenient extraction methods to accurately quantify eight anionic PFAS in mascara products. Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and automated micro solid-phase extraction (µSPE) were evaluated, and quantification was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Six mascara products, including waterproof and non-waterproof types, were analyzed, optimizing methanol-water mixtures as dispersive media to maximize PFAS recovery. Elution solution composition, volume, and dispensing speed were optimized for the µSPE method to ensure quantitative elution of the PFAS from the extraction phase. For the SPME method, the extraction time was optimized to account for the varying diffusion behavior of PFAS in the mixed-phase medium. Both extraction methods were evaluated in terms of greenness and practicality, with SPME achieving the best overall scores. Method validation demonstrated good linearity (0.025 to 25 ng/g) for both protocols, with µSPE providing lower limits of quantification (LOQ) for the most hydrophobic PFAS. 6:2 diPAP was quantified in real samples at concentrations ranging from 1.26 to 3.48 ng/g in 4 of the 9 mascaras tested.