In view of the few studies on the influence of Armillaria spp. infection on the content of the chemical components in different parts of Polyporus umbellatus sclerotia, this study determined the biomass of P. umbellatus sclerotia and the contents of ergosterol, polyporusterone A, polyporusterone B and polysaccharide in the separated cavity wall of the sclerotia and the uninfected part of the sclerotia in different harvesting years under the conditions of A. gallica and A. mellea infection respectively. According to the difference of content and dynamic changes of the polysaccharide and the steroid substances, the superior Armillaria sp. was screened to obtain the best harvest years of P. umbellatus. Using HPLC and UV-VIS spectrophotometry methods, the contents of ergosterol, polyporusterone A, polyporusterone B and polysaccharide in P. umbellatus sclerotia infected by the two Armillaria spp. in different years were determined. In addition, the differentially expressed genes related to P. umbellatus polysaccharide synthesis were screened according to the transcriptomic data of different parts of P. umbellatus after A. mellea infection. With the increase of years, the biomass of sclerotia infected by different Armillaria spp. had significant differences, and there were significant differences in the four components of sclerotia. The four components of the separated cavity wall of the sclerotia were significantly higher than those of the uninfected part. The best harvest time was the third year after cultivation. Transcriptomic analysis showed that the infection of Armillaria spp. could significantly promote polysaccharide synthesis, which provided a basis for polysaccharide content determination at the molecular level. The study clarified the influence of different Armillaria spp. infection on the accumulation of chemical components of P. umbellatus sclerotia, laying a foundation for exploring the symbiosis mechanism and provided a scientific clue for screening superior Armillaria sp. and guiding the artificial cultivation of P. umbellatus sclerotia.

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) serves as a treasure trove of ancient knowledge, holding a crucial position in the medical field. However, the exploration of TCM's extensive information has been hindered by challenges related to data standardization, completeness, and accuracy, primarily due to the decentralized distribution of TCM resources. To address these issues, we developed a platform for TCM knowledge discovery (TCMKD, https://cbcb.cdutcm.edu.cn/TCMKD/). Seven types of data, including syndromes, formulas, Chinese patent drugs (CPDs), Chinese medicinal materials (CMMs), ingredients, targets, and diseases, were manually proofread and consolidated within TCMKD. To strengthen the integration of TCM with modern medicine, TCMKD employs analytical methods such as TCM data mining, enrichment analysis, and network localization and separation. These tools help elucidate the molecular-level commonalities between TCM and contemporary scientific insights. In addition to its analytical capabilities, a quick question and answer (Q&A) system is also embedded within TCMKD to query the database efficiently, thereby improving the interactivity of the platform. The platform also provides a TCM text annotation tool, offering a simple and efficient method for TCM text mining. Overall, TCMKD not only has the potential to become a pivotal repository for TCM, delving into the pharmacological foundations of TCM treatments, but its flexible embedded tools and algorithms can also be applied to the study of other traditional medical systems, extending beyond just TCM.

Surgical operation is the main treatment of oral and maxillofacial tumors.Dysphagia is a common postoperative complication.Swal-lowing disorder can not only lead to mis-aspiration,malnutrition,aspiration pneumonia and other serious consequences,but also may cause psychological problems and social communication barriers,affecting the quality of life of the patients.At present,there is no systematic evalua-tion and rehabilitation management plan for the problem of swallowing disorder after oral and maxillofacial tumor surgery in China.Combining the characteristics of postoperative swallowing disorder in patients with oral and maxillofacial tumors,summarizing the clinical experience of ex-perts in the field of tumor and rehabilitation,reviewing and summarizing relevant literature at home and abroad,and through joint discussion and modification,a group of national experts reached this consensus including the core contents of the screening of swallowing disorders,the phased assessment of prognosis and complications,and the implementation plan of comprehensive management such as nutrition management,respiratory management,swallowing function recovery,psychology and nursing during rehabilitation treatment,in order to improve the evalua-tion and rehabilitation of swallowing disorder after oral and maxillofacial tumor surgery in clinic.

Objective:To systematically summarize and comparatively analyze the development, establishment and usage of oncology drugs speedy review approaches in China and in the United States between 2012 and 2021.Methods:Based on National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, the development and current status of the speedy review approaches were consulted and summarized. Approved oncology drugs in China and in the United States (87 in China, 118 in the United States) over the past decade were analyzed using chi-square test for group comparison.Results:Five speedy approaches have been established in China and in the United States, three of which are the same, priority review, conditional approval or accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy. The rest two are special review and approval, special examination and approval in China, and fast track and real-time oncology review in the United States. Compared to the United States, speedy review approaches in China set up late (1992 vs. 2005). The overall utilization rates of the oncology drugs speedy review approaches were similar between the China and United States (90.8% vs. 92.4%, P=0.800) in the previous 10 years, and priority review have highest utilization rates in both China and the United States without significant group difference (77.0% vs. 82.2%, P=0.381); relatively low utilization rates of conditional approval (31.0% vs. 44.9%, P=0.041) and breakthrough therapy (2.3% vs. 50.0%, P＜0.001) were seen in China. 52.9% of new drugs applied for special examination and approval in China and 40.7% of new drugs applied for fast track in the United States. Overall, the priority review both in China and the United States are stable, with a similar average annual utilization rate (84.8% vs. 83.7%); accelerated approval and breakthrough therapies in the United States fluctuate wildly, but the situation is tending towards stability in the last 3 years. Conclusions:Both China and the United States have established a relatively complete accelerated review system, with an overall utilization rate over 90%; China's accelerated review started late, although the overall utilization rate is close to that of the United States. The utilization rates of conditional approval and breakthrough therapy are still relatively low. Flexible usage of speedy review approaches, gaining regulatory recognition to use alternative endpoints, achieving real-time review and guidance are keys to accelerate new drug development in China.

Objective:To systematically summarize and comparatively analyze the development, establishment and usage of oncology drugs speedy review approaches in China and in the United States between 2012 and 2021.Methods:Based on National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, the development and current status of the speedy review approaches were consulted and summarized. Approved oncology drugs in China and in the United States (87 in China, 118 in the United States) over the past decade were analyzed using chi-square test for group comparison.Results:Five speedy approaches have been established in China and in the United States, three of which are the same, priority review, conditional approval or accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy. The rest two are special review and approval, special examination and approval in China, and fast track and real-time oncology review in the United States. Compared to the United States, speedy review approaches in China set up late (1992 vs. 2005). The overall utilization rates of the oncology drugs speedy review approaches were similar between the China and United States (90.8% vs. 92.4%, P=0.800) in the previous 10 years, and priority review have highest utilization rates in both China and the United States without significant group difference (77.0% vs. 82.2%, P=0.381); relatively low utilization rates of conditional approval (31.0% vs. 44.9%, P=0.041) and breakthrough therapy (2.3% vs. 50.0%, P＜0.001) were seen in China. 52.9% of new drugs applied for special examination and approval in China and 40.7% of new drugs applied for fast track in the United States. Overall, the priority review both in China and the United States are stable, with a similar average annual utilization rate (84.8% vs. 83.7%); accelerated approval and breakthrough therapies in the United States fluctuate wildly, but the situation is tending towards stability in the last 3 years. Conclusions:Both China and the United States have established a relatively complete accelerated review system, with an overall utilization rate over 90%; China's accelerated review started late, although the overall utilization rate is close to that of the United States. The utilization rates of conditional approval and breakthrough therapy are still relatively low. Flexible usage of speedy review approaches, gaining regulatory recognition to use alternative endpoints, achieving real-time review and guidance are keys to accelerate new drug development in China.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs. Results: The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively. Conclusion Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs. Results: The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively. Conclusion Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs. Results: The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively. Conclusion Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs. Results: The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively. Conclusion Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs. Results: The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively. Conclusion Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.