ObjectiveTo observe the treatment effects in 48 cases of advanced lung cancer patients,with the immune therapy of the dendritic cells loading of tumor autologous antigen (DCTAA) combining with the cells induced factor of the killer cells(CIK)from the matched umbilical cord blood cells.MethodsThe peripheral blood mononuclear cell(PBMC)from the matched umbilical cord blood cells was seperated,and induced to CIK and DC with some cytokines in vitro, such as CD3McAb, IL-2, IFN-γ IL-1α, etc. After 12 to 15 days, the amplified CIK cells obtained were obtained, with the strict quality control, infused the CIK cells to the patients body back in six times,about(5-8)×109 CIK cells in each time.In the fifth day of the cultivation,DETAA cells were loaded and DCTAA cells were collected in the eighth day,and then hypodermic injection was done. The patient' s general situation after the immune treatment was observed, such as the size of the tumors, clinical symptom score, the quality of life and immune indexes. Karnofsky score, weight, toxic side effects and the patient's survival were also studied.ResultsIn the 48 cases with the DCTAA-CIK treatment, complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR)was 37 cases, the overall remission rate was 77.1％. The improvement rate of clinical symptom scores was from 78.9 ％ to 84.7 ％, the increasing rate of Karnofsky score was 89.6 ％ (43/48). 1-year survival reached to 80.6 ％. There were significant difference in little toxic side effects(P ＜ 0.01). The proportion of CD3, CD4 and NK cells in peripheral blood cells increased significantly (P ＜ 0.01) after DCTAA-CIK cells treatment[(42.21±6.12)％, (24.42±3.01)％, 0.99±0.34, (24.98±3.02) ％; (71.58±7.64) ％, (37.25±2.13) ％, 1.62±0.45, (35.23±4.11) ％](t = 6.34, 5.67, 0.25, 4.43, P ＜0.01).ConclusionThe DCTAA-CIK immune therapy is benefit for advanced lung cancer,not only improve the immune function but also ameliorate the clinical symptoms.

Objective:To investigate perspectives and changes in treatment selection by Chinese surgeons since introduction of the watch-and-wait approach after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.Methods:A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a questionnaire distributed through the "Wenjuanxing" online survey platform. The survey focused on the recognition and practices of Chinese surgeons regarding the strategy of watch-and-wait after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer and was disseminated within the China Watch-and-Wait Database (CWWD) WeChat group. This group targets surgeons of deputy chief physician level and above in surgical, radiotherapy, or internal medicine departments of nationally accredited tumor-specialist or comprehensive hospitals (at provincial or municipal levels) who are involved in colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment. From 13 to 16 December 2023, 321 questionnaires were sent with questionnaire links in the CWWD WeChat group. The questionnaires comprised 32 questions encompassing: (1) basic physician characteristics (including surgical volume); (2) assessment methods and criteria for clinical complete response (cCR); (3) patients eligible for watch-and-wait; (4) neoadjuvant therapies and other measures for achieving cCR; (5) willingness to implement watch-and-wait and factors influencing that willingness; (6) risks and monitoring of watch-and-wait; (7) subsequent treatment and follow-up post watch-and-wait; (8) suggestions for development of the CWWD. Descriptive statistics were employed for data analysis, with intergroup comparisons conducted using the χ 2 or Fisher's exact probability tests. Results:The response rate was 31.5%, comprising 101 responses from the 321 individuals in the WeChat group. Respondents comprised 101 physicians from 70 centers across 23 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions nationwide, 85.1% (86/101) of whom represented provincial tertiary hospitals. Among the respondents, 87.1% (88/101) had implemented the watch-and-wait strategy. The approval rate (65.6%, 21/32) and proportion of patients often informed (68.8%, 22/32) were both significantly higher for doctors in oncology hospitals than for those in general hospitals (27.7%, 18/65; 32.4%, 22/68) (χ 2=12.83, P<0.001; χ 2=11.70, P=0.001, respectively). The most used methods for diagnosing cCR were digital rectal examination (90.1%, 91/101), colonoscopy (91.1%, 92/101), and rectal T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (86.1%, 87/101). Criteria used to identify cCR comprised absence of a palpable mass on digital rectal examination (87.1%, 88/101), flat white scars or new capillaries on colonoscopy (77.2%, 78/101), absence of evident tumor signals on rectal T2-weighted sequences or T2WI low signals or signals equivalent to the intestinal wall (83.2%, 84/101), and absence of tumor hyperintensity on diffusion-weighted imaging with no corresponding hypointensity on apparent diffusion coefficient maps (66.3%, 67/101). As for selection of neoadjuvant regimen and assessment of cCR, 57.4% (58/101) of physicians preferred a long course of radiotherapy with or without induction and/or consolidation capecitabine + oxaliplatin, whereas 25.7% (26/101) preferred immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy and concurrent radiotherapy. Most (96.0%, 97/101) physicians believed that the primary lesion should be assessed ≤12 weeks after completion of radiotherapy. Patients were frequently informed about the possibility of achieving cCR after neoadjuvant therapy and the strategy of watch-and-wait by 43.6% (44/101) of the responding physicians and 38.6% (39/101) preferred watch-and-wait for patients who achieved cCR or near cCR after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. Capability for multiple follow-up evaluations (70.3%, 71/101) was a crucial factor influencing physicians' choice of watch-and-wait after cCR. The proportion who patients who did not achieve cCR and underwent surgical treatment was lower in provincial tertiary hospitals (74.2%, 23/31) than in provincial general hospitals (94.5%, 52/55) and municipal hospitals (12/15); these differences are statistically significant (χ 2=7.43, P=0.020). The difference between local recurrence and local regrowth was understood by 88.1% (89/101) of respondents and 87.2% (88/101) agreed with monitoring every 3 months for 5 years. An increase in local excision or puncture rates to reduce organ resections in patients with pCR was proposed by 64.4% (65/101) of respondents. Conclusion:Compared with the results of a previous survey, Chinese surgeons' awareness of the watch-and-wait concept has improved significantly. Oncologists in oncology hospitals are more aware of the concept of watch-and-wait.

Objective:To investigate perspectives and changes in treatment selection by Chinese surgeons since introduction of the watch-and-wait approach after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.Methods:A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a questionnaire distributed through the "Wenjuanxing" online survey platform. The survey focused on the recognition and practices of Chinese surgeons regarding the strategy of watch-and-wait after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer and was disseminated within the China Watch-and-Wait Database (CWWD) WeChat group. This group targets surgeons of deputy chief physician level and above in surgical, radiotherapy, or internal medicine departments of nationally accredited tumor-specialist or comprehensive hospitals (at provincial or municipal levels) who are involved in colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment. From 13 to 16 December 2023, 321 questionnaires were sent with questionnaire links in the CWWD WeChat group. The questionnaires comprised 32 questions encompassing: (1) basic physician characteristics (including surgical volume); (2) assessment methods and criteria for clinical complete response (cCR); (3) patients eligible for watch-and-wait; (4) neoadjuvant therapies and other measures for achieving cCR; (5) willingness to implement watch-and-wait and factors influencing that willingness; (6) risks and monitoring of watch-and-wait; (7) subsequent treatment and follow-up post watch-and-wait; (8) suggestions for development of the CWWD. Descriptive statistics were employed for data analysis, with intergroup comparisons conducted using the χ 2 or Fisher's exact probability tests. Results:The response rate was 31.5%, comprising 101 responses from the 321 individuals in the WeChat group. Respondents comprised 101 physicians from 70 centers across 23 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions nationwide, 85.1% (86/101) of whom represented provincial tertiary hospitals. Among the respondents, 87.1% (88/101) had implemented the watch-and-wait strategy. The approval rate (65.6%, 21/32) and proportion of patients often informed (68.8%, 22/32) were both significantly higher for doctors in oncology hospitals than for those in general hospitals (27.7%, 18/65; 32.4%, 22/68) (χ 2=12.83, P<0.001; χ 2=11.70, P=0.001, respectively). The most used methods for diagnosing cCR were digital rectal examination (90.1%, 91/101), colonoscopy (91.1%, 92/101), and rectal T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (86.1%, 87/101). Criteria used to identify cCR comprised absence of a palpable mass on digital rectal examination (87.1%, 88/101), flat white scars or new capillaries on colonoscopy (77.2%, 78/101), absence of evident tumor signals on rectal T2-weighted sequences or T2WI low signals or signals equivalent to the intestinal wall (83.2%, 84/101), and absence of tumor hyperintensity on diffusion-weighted imaging with no corresponding hypointensity on apparent diffusion coefficient maps (66.3%, 67/101). As for selection of neoadjuvant regimen and assessment of cCR, 57.4% (58/101) of physicians preferred a long course of radiotherapy with or without induction and/or consolidation capecitabine + oxaliplatin, whereas 25.7% (26/101) preferred immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy and concurrent radiotherapy. Most (96.0%, 97/101) physicians believed that the primary lesion should be assessed ≤12 weeks after completion of radiotherapy. Patients were frequently informed about the possibility of achieving cCR after neoadjuvant therapy and the strategy of watch-and-wait by 43.6% (44/101) of the responding physicians and 38.6% (39/101) preferred watch-and-wait for patients who achieved cCR or near cCR after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. Capability for multiple follow-up evaluations (70.3%, 71/101) was a crucial factor influencing physicians' choice of watch-and-wait after cCR. The proportion who patients who did not achieve cCR and underwent surgical treatment was lower in provincial tertiary hospitals (74.2%, 23/31) than in provincial general hospitals (94.5%, 52/55) and municipal hospitals (12/15); these differences are statistically significant (χ 2=7.43, P=0.020). The difference between local recurrence and local regrowth was understood by 88.1% (89/101) of respondents and 87.2% (88/101) agreed with monitoring every 3 months for 5 years. An increase in local excision or puncture rates to reduce organ resections in patients with pCR was proposed by 64.4% (65/101) of respondents. Conclusion:Compared with the results of a previous survey, Chinese surgeons' awareness of the watch-and-wait concept has improved significantly. Oncologists in oncology hospitals are more aware of the concept of watch-and-wait.