Objective:To investigate the current status of health-promoting lifestyle in patients with chronic low back pain and explore its influencing factors.Methods:Convenience sampling method was adopted to select patients with chronic low back pain who visited a ClassⅢ Grade A hospital in Guangzhou from March to October 2019 as the research object ( n=189) . All patients with chronic low back pain were investigated with the General Information Questionnaire, Health-Promoting Lifestyle ProfileⅡ, Social Support Rate Scale, Low Back Pain Knowledge Questionnaire and the Chronic Disease Self-efficacy Scale. Single factor analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, multiple linear regression analysis were used to explore the influencing factors of health-promoting lifestyle. Results:Among 189 patients with chronic low back pain, the total score of health-promoting lifestyle was (118.68±18.61) , and scores from high to low were stress management (2.59±0.62) , interpersonal support (2.47±0.67) , nutrition (2.35±0.25) , self-actualization (2.33±0.35) , exercise (2.04±0.35) , health responsibility (1.93±0.19) . Single factor analysis showed that there were statistical differences in health-promoting lifestyle scores among chronic low back pain patients with different ages, marital status, co-resident, education level, occupation, body mass index (BMI) and with or without chronic diseases ( P<0.05) . Correlation analysis showed that the health-promoting lifestyle of patients with chronic low back pain was positively correlated with social support ( r=0.358, P<0.01) , self-efficacy ( r=0.418, P<0.01) and disease knowledge ( r=0.369, P<0.01) with statistical differences. Regression analysis indicated that social support, disease knowledge, self-efficacy, age and educational level were the main factors affecting whether patients with chronic low back pain adopted a health-promoting lifestyle ( P<0.05) . Conclusions:Patients with chronic low back pain have poor health-promoting lifestyles, especially in exercise and health responsibility, and health-promoting lifestyles are affected by social support, disease knowledge and self-efficacy. Scientific, professional and personalized health guidance should be strengthened to improve patients ' awareness of disease development, treatment, and control, strengthen patients ' health responsibilities and improve the accuracy of exercise therapy. At the same time, we should provide multi-channel information acquisition methods, encourage family participation, meet patients ' health promotion needs, and enhance their disease management self-efficacy.

Objective:To compare the outcomes of watch&wait (W&W) strategy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieved complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy, with those who obtained pathological complete response (pCR) after total mesorectal excision (TME).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort analysis study. Patients histologically proven with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (stage Ⅱ-Ⅲ) who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible between January 2014 and December 2019. In whom we included patients who had cCR offered management with W&W strategy after completing neoadjuvant therapy and follow-up ≥1 year (W&W group), and patients who did not have cCR but pCR after TME (pCR group). The primary endpoints were 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS), colostomy-free survival (CFS), disease-free survival (DFS), non-local regrowth disease-free survival (NR-DFS), and organ preservation rate. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival analysis and log-rank test was performed. For comparative analysis, we also derived one-to-one paired cohorts of W&W versus pCR using propensity-score matching (PSM).Results:A total of 118 patients were enrolled, 49 of whom had cCR and managed by W&W, 69 had pCR, with a median follow-up period of 49.5 months (12.1-79.9 months). No difference was observed in the 3-year OS (97.1% vs. 96.7%) and 5-year OS (93.8% vs. 90.9%, P=0.696) between the W&W and pCR groups. Patients managed by W&W had significantly better 3-year and 5-year CFS (89.1% vs. 43.5%, P<0.001), better 3-year DFS (83.6% vs. 97.0%) and 5-year DFS (83.6% vs. 91.2%, P=0.047) compared with those achieving pCR. The 3-year NR-DFS (95.9% vs. 97.0%) and 5-year NR-DFS (92.8% vs. 97.0%, P=0.407) did not significantly differ between the W&W and pCR groups. Local regeneration occurred in six cases, and 87.7% of patients had successful rectum preservation in the W&W group. In the PSM analysis (34 patients in each group), absolutely better CFS (90.1% vs. 26.5%, P<0.001) was noted in the W&W group. A median interval of 17.5 weeks was observed for achieving cCR, while only 23.9% of patients achieved cCR within 5 to 12 weeks from radiation completion. Patients with short-course sequential chemoradiotherapy achieved cCR significantly later when compared with those with long-course concurrent chemoradiotherapy (19.0 vs. 9.8 weeks, P<0.001). Conclusions:The oncological outcomes of W&W strategy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer are safe and effective, significantly improving the quality of life. Longer interval for cCR evaluation may improve rectal organ preservation rate.

Objective:To explore the motion and influencing factors of implanted gold markers in guiding liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using abdominal compression.Methods:Twenty patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer or primary hepatocellular carcinoma from January 2016 to December 2019 were included. All patients were treated with SBRT under abdominal compression, with 1-3 gold markers were implanted within 2 cm from the lesion before positioning. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scan was used for treatment planning. The respiratory cycle was divided into 0-90% respiratory phase images based on the respiratory signal, which were reconstructed by the system (Pinnacle 3 version 9.1; Philips Medical System, Madison, WI, USA), and cone beam CT validation images before radiation exposure were obtained. The liver volume was divided into 3 parts: within 2 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, 2-5 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, and>5 cm from the main hepatic portal vein. The motion of different tumor locations was evaluated. Results:The average intrafractional motion amplitude was (2.63±2.81) mm in the cranial-caudal (CC) direction, (1.35±1.23) mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, and (0.76±0.88) mm in the left-right (LR) direction, respectively. The average interfractional motion amplitude was (3.45±3.06) mm, (2.64±2.60) mm, and (2.23±2.07) mm, respectively. Both the intra-or inter-fractional motion amplitudes in the CC direction were the highest, followed by those in the AP and LR direction (all P<0.001). The motion varied at different tumor locations. The longer distance from the main hepatic portal vein, the larger the intrafractional motion (all P<0.05). To cover the 95% population-based confidence interval, the internal target volume (ITV) was suggested to include the expansion of 3.9 mm, 5.2 mm and 7.9 mm in the LR, AP and CC direction. The expansion of 4.3 mm, 4.4 mm and 6.1 mm was delivered within 2 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, and 3.5 mm, 7.3 mm and 9.7 mm>5 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, respectively. The expansion varied significantly depending on the tumor location, whereas the motion in the CC direction was the largest regardless of the tumor location. The longer distance of the tumor from the main portal vein, the larger expansion in the CC direction. The expansion of tumor > 5 cm from the main portal vein in the AP direction was larger than that of inner parts. Conclusion:Liver tumors at different locations require individual external expansion of ITV.

Objectives:To assess the prognostic impact of the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score following neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), as well as its value in guiding decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy.Methods:Between August 2015 and August 2018, patients were eligible from the STELLAR phase III trial (NCT02533271) who received short-course radiotherapy plus consolidation chemotherapy and for whom the NAR score could be calculated. Based on the NAR score, patients were categorized into low (＜8), intermediate (8-16), and high (＞16) groups. The Kaplan-Meier method, log rank tests, and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate the impact of the NAR score on disease-free survival (DFS).Results:Out of the 232 patients, 24.1%, 48.7%, and 27.2% had low (56 cases), intermediate (113 cases), and high NAR scores (63 cases), respectively. The median follow-up period was 37 months, with 3-year DFS rates of 87.3%, 68.3%, and 53.4% ( P＜0.001) for the low, intermediate, and high NAR score groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the NAR score (intermediate NAR score: HR, 3.10, 95% CI, 1.30-7.37, P=0.011; high NAR scores: HR=5.44, 95% CI, 2.26-13.09, P＜0.001), resection status ( HR, 3.00, 95% CI, 1.64-5.52, P＜0.001), and adjuvant chemotherapy ( HR, 3.25, 95% CI, 2.01-5.27, P＜0.001) were independent prognostic factors for DFS. In patients with R0 resection, the 3-year DFS rates were 97.8% and 78.0% for those with low and intermediate NAR scores who received adjuvant chemotherapy, significantly higher than the 43.2% and 50.6% for those who did not ( P＜0.001, P=0.002). There was no significant difference in the 3-year DFS rate (54.2% vs 53.3%, P=0.214) among high NAR score patients, regardless of adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions:The NAR score is a robust prognostic indicator in LARC following neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy, with potential implications for subsequent decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy. These findings warrant further validation in studies with larger sample sizes.

Objectives:To assess the prognostic impact of the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score following neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), as well as its value in guiding decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy.Methods:Between August 2015 and August 2018, patients were eligible from the STELLAR phase III trial (NCT02533271) who received short-course radiotherapy plus consolidation chemotherapy and for whom the NAR score could be calculated. Based on the NAR score, patients were categorized into low (＜8), intermediate (8-16), and high (＞16) groups. The Kaplan-Meier method, log rank tests, and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate the impact of the NAR score on disease-free survival (DFS).Results:Out of the 232 patients, 24.1%, 48.7%, and 27.2% had low (56 cases), intermediate (113 cases), and high NAR scores (63 cases), respectively. The median follow-up period was 37 months, with 3-year DFS rates of 87.3%, 68.3%, and 53.4% ( P＜0.001) for the low, intermediate, and high NAR score groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the NAR score (intermediate NAR score: HR, 3.10, 95% CI, 1.30-7.37, P=0.011; high NAR scores: HR=5.44, 95% CI, 2.26-13.09, P＜0.001), resection status ( HR, 3.00, 95% CI, 1.64-5.52, P＜0.001), and adjuvant chemotherapy ( HR, 3.25, 95% CI, 2.01-5.27, P＜0.001) were independent prognostic factors for DFS. In patients with R0 resection, the 3-year DFS rates were 97.8% and 78.0% for those with low and intermediate NAR scores who received adjuvant chemotherapy, significantly higher than the 43.2% and 50.6% for those who did not ( P＜0.001, P=0.002). There was no significant difference in the 3-year DFS rate (54.2% vs 53.3%, P=0.214) among high NAR score patients, regardless of adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions:The NAR score is a robust prognostic indicator in LARC following neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy, with potential implications for subsequent decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy. These findings warrant further validation in studies with larger sample sizes.