Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis and lacks clinical biomarkers. Exosomes are extracellular vesicles that facilitate cell–cell communication by distributing macromolecules, such as small RNAs (smRNAs). We assessed the potential of exosome-derived small RNAs (Ex-smRNAs) as PDAC biomarkers. Methods: Peripheral blood was collected from 51 patients with PDAC and 15 control individuals. Exosomes were isolated using an aqueous two-phase system. Ex-smRNAs were analyzed using smRNA sequencing. smRNA-mediated target gene regulation was verified via The Cancer Genome Atlas analysis and in vitro transfection and wound-healing assays using PDAC organoids. Results: The total Ex-smRNA count was substantially reduced in patients with PDAC compared with that in control individuals. The levels of microRNAs (miRNAs) miR-125a-5p, miR-30e-5p, miR-16-2-3p, miR-98-5p, and the let-7 family were significantly suppressed, whereas that of miR-6731-5p was significantly elevated. Let-7c-5p and miR-98-5p were found to interact with the long non-coding RNA OLMALINC to regulate their common target genes, BACH1 and CCND1, thus controlling PDAC proliferation and migration. The expressions of CARS1-AS1 and miR-142-5p were upregulated in treatment-responsive patients.Multivariable Cox regression analyses, adjusting for potential prognostic factors such as sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and tumor size and stage, revealed that CARS1-AS1 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.73; P = 0.0061) and miR-142-5p (adjusted HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61–1.01; P = 0.0581) were associated with improved overall survival. Conclusions We identified potential Ex-smRNA biomarkers involved in PDAC progression and prognosis that reflect key molecular alterations in PDAC and may serve as clinically relevant biomarkers for disease monitoring.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.