Objective: To explore the causal link of cumulative ecological risk and future orientation with health risk behaviors among higher vocational college students, so as to provide reference for reducing and preventing health risk behaviors among higher vocational college students. Methods: A longitudinal follow up study was conducted on 612 students using convenience sampling from 2 vocational colleges in Hunan Province. The Cumulative Ecological Risk Scale, Future Orientation Scale, and Health Risk Behavior Scale were used during three follow up visits (T1: September 2022, T2: June 2023, T3: March 2024), and a cross lagged panel model was constructed to examine the longitudinal causal relationship of cumulative ecological risk, future orientation and health risk behaviors. Analysis of longitudinal intermediary effect between variables by Bootstrap. Results: The cumulative ecological risk scores of T1, T2 and T3 among higher vocational college students were (2.94±1.44,2.99±1.63,3.02±1.54), future orientation scores (40.49±4.71,41.51±5.72,41.06±4.35) and health risk behavior scores (3.73±2.01,3.49±2.00,3.23±2.00). The results of repeated measures ANOVA showed that the future orientation score of T2 was higher than that of T1, and the main effect of measurement time was statistically significant ( F=5.09，P＜0.01,η 2=0.02). The health risk behavior score of T1 was higher than that of T2, and the health risk behavior score of T2 was higher than that of T3, and the main effect of measurement time was statistically significant ( F=10.12，P＜0.01,η 2=0.03).The cross lagged model showed good adaptability, with χ 2/df =7.20 ( P <0.01), relative fitting indicators GFI=0.98, CFI=0.99, TLI=0.96, IFI=0.99, NFI =0.99, and absolute fitting indicator RMSEA =0.06. Among them, the T1, T2 cumulative ecological risk showed negatively predictive effects on T2, T3 future orientation ( β =-0.24, -0.47 ), and T1, T2 cumulative ecological risk positively predicted T2, T3 health risk behavior ( β =0.20, 0.24), while T1, T2 future orientation negatively predicted T2, T3 health risk behavior ( β =-0.25, -0.18) ( P ＜0.01). Bootstrap test analysis found that T2 future orientation had a longitudinal mediating effect ( β=0.04, P ＜0.01) on the T1 cumulative ecological risk and T3 health risk behavior. Conclusions The accumulation of ecological risk among higher vocational college students can positively predict health risk behaviors, while future orientation can negatively predict healthrisk behaviors. Moreover, future orientation plays a longitudinal mediating role between accumulated ecological risks and health risk behaviors.

Chemotherapy is currently the mainstay of systemic management for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but chemoresistance significantly impacts patient outcomes. Our research indicates that Doxorubicin (Dox)-resistant TNBC cells exhibit increased glycolysis and ATP generation compared to their parental cells, with this metabolic shift contributing to chemoresistance. We discovered that ALKBH3, an m¹A demethylase enzyme, is crucial in regulating the enhanced glycolysis in Dox-resistant TNBC cells. Knocking down ALKBH3 reduced ATP generation, glucose consumption, and lactate production, implicating its involvement in mediating glycolysis. Further investigation revealed that aldolase A (ALDOA), a key enzyme in glycolysis, is a downstream target of ALKBH3. ALKBH3 regulates ALDOA mRNA stability through m¹A demethylation at the 3'-untranslated region (3'UTR). This methylation negatively affects ALDOA mRNA stability by recruiting the YTHDF2/PAN2-PAN3 complex, leading to mRNA degradation. The ALKBH3/ALDOA axis promotes Dox resistance both in vitro and in vivo. Clinical analysis demonstrated that ALKBH3 and ALDOA are upregulated in breast cancer tissues, and higher expression of these proteins is associated with reduced overall survival in TNBC patients. Our study highlights the role of the ALKBH3/ALDOA axis in contributing to Dox resistance in TNBC cells through regulation of ALDOA mRNA stability and glycolysis.

Objective: To explore the relationship of sleep quality and emotional regulation difficulties in middle school students, and to analyze its mediating role of daytime dysfunction, social rejection and selfcontrol ability, so as to provide a scientific reference for improving middle school students mental health. Methods: From October to November, 2023, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Adolescent Social Rejection Questionnaire, Brief Selfcontrol Scale and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scaleshort Form (DERS-16) were used to assess 806 students recruited from four middle schools in Bengbu City by a convenient cluster random sampling method. And model-6 of PROCESS and 5 000 Bootstraps were used to make a chainmediating model analysis. Results: Daytime dysfunction was positively correlated with sleep quality(r=0.57), social rejection(r=0.19), selfcontrol(r=0.29, P＜0.01). Selfcontrol was positively correlated with emotional regulation difficulties(r=0.54, P<0.01).Poor sleep quality showed a significant positive association with on daytime dysfunction, and daytime dysfunction further affected social rejection, selfcontrol ability and emotional regulation difficulties (β=0.86, 0.60, 1.27, 1.56, P<0.05). Meanwhile, daytime dysfunction, social rejection and selfcontrol played a serial mediating role in the relationship between sleep quality and emotional regulation difficulties (Estimate=0.11,95%CI=0.04-0.20,P<0.05). Conclusion The study reveals the complex relationship between sleep quality and emotional regulation difficulties in middle school students and provides a new theoretical basis for adolescent sleep improvement and mental health interventions.

Orthodontically induced tooth root resorption (OIRR) is a serious complication during orthodontic treatment. Stimulating cementum repair is the fundamental approach for the treatment of OIRR. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) might be a potential therapeutic agent for OIRR, but its effects still lack direct evidence, and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. This study aims to explore the potential involvement of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in mediating the anabolic effects of intermittent PTH and contributing to cementum repair, as identifying lncRNA-disease associations can provide valuable insights for disease diagnosis and treatment. Here, we showed that intermittent PTH regulates cell proliferation and mineralization in immortalized murine cementoblast OCCM-30 via the regulation of the Wnt pathway. In vivo, daily administration of PTH is sufficient to accelerate root regeneration by locally inhibiting Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Through RNA microarray analysis, lncRNA LITTIP (LGR6 intergenic transcript under intermittent PTH) is identified as a key regulator of cementogenesis under intermittent PTH. Chromatin isolation by RNA purification (ChIRP) and RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP) assays revealed that LITTIP binds to mRNA of leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein coupled receptor 6 (LGR6) and heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K (HnRNPK) protein. Further co-transfection experiments confirmed that LITTIP plays a structural role in the formation of the LITTIP/Lgr6/HnRNPK complex. Moreover, LITTIP is able to promote the expression of LGR6 via the RNA-binding protein HnRNPK. Collectively, our results indicate that the intermittent PTH administration accelerates root regeneration via inhibiting Wnt pathway. The lncRNA LITTIP is identified to negatively regulate cementogenesis, which activates Wnt/β-catenin signaling via high expression of LGR6 promoted by HnRNPK.
Mice ; Animals ; Cementogenesis ; Wnt Signaling Pathway ; beta Catenin/metabolism* ; Heterogeneous-Nuclear Ribonucleoprotein K/metabolism* ; RNA, Long Noncoding/genetics* ; Parathyroid Hormone ; Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled/metabolism*

Objective:To analyze the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with unknown etiology of portal hypertension and investigate the efficacy of endoscopic management of gastroesophageal varices in these patients.Methods:Patients with unknown etiology of portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices who received liver biopsy between January, 2017 and January, 2020 in Zhongshan Hospital were included. The characteristics of pathology, portal computed tomography (CT) angiography, and endoscopy were recorded and follow-up for the occurrence of bleeding after treatment.Results:A total of 31 patients were included and divided into cirrhosis with unknown etiology group ( n=10) and non-cirrhotic portal hypertension group ( n=21). Patients in the non-cirrhotic group were younger [28.0(29.5-49.5) vs 58.5(43.5-65.8), P=0.004] and mostly male (71.4%), and fewer comorbidities including diabetes (4.8% vs 40.0%, P=0.027). The features of pathology finding including vasculopathy, cholestasis, and hepatic sinusoidal dilatation as well as the Sarin classification and bleeding rate of gastroesophageal varices, proportion of patients receiving endoscopic treatment were shown similar between the two groups ( P>0.05). The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was significantly lower in the non-cirrhotic group [4.5(2.8-12.8)mmHg vs 12(8-18)mmHg, P=0.018]. Among them, 21 patients received endoscopic treatment, and the bleeding rate had no difference between these two groups after endoscopic treatment ( P=0.751). Conclusions:Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension in a predominantly young male population has similar clinicalpathological characteristics when compared to cirrhotic portal hypertension with unknown etiology. HVPG can not reflect the actual portal pressure in these patients. Endoscopic treatment is the effective treatment option for the prevention of variceal bleeding.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective: To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture-level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing "watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of "watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′s exact test for categorical variables. Results: Forty-eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3-year disease-free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty-five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over-treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%,70/77) and DWI-MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty-six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long-term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty-one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty-four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty-two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus-preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty-nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty-six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow-up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty-one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty-six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non-operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non-operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective: To analyze and explore the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with "double hit" multiple myeloma (MM) . Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 89 MM patients in our department of Shanghai Changzheng Hospital from 2010-2016. All patients were assayed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and TP53 gene sequencing, based on Dr. Walker BA proposed the "double hit" MM concept, and then the clinical features and prognosis were evaluated. Results: In the results, 15 (16.85%) cases harbored "double hit" showed the median PFS of 8.4 months and the median OS 22.2 months, which was significantly lower than non-"double hit" patients with median PFS 14.2 months and the median OS 39.2 months, respectively (P<0.05) . Multivariate analysis displayed that the "double hit" was an independent poor prognostic factor on PFS (HR=2.171, 95%CI 1.206-3.907, P=0.010) and OS (HR=4.106, 95%CI 2.116-7.969, P<0.001) . Moreover, "double hit" MM patients had the higher adverse prognosis risk, which showed the shorter median OS and PFS than stage III of R-ISS patients (PFS 8.4 vs 11.8 months; OS 22.2 vs 24.3 months, P<0.05, respectively) . Conclusion Patients with "double hit" MM have a very poor clinical prognosis. Prospective clinical studies are urgently needed to improve these extra high risk patients.

Objective To investigate the resection of chest wall tumor and the reconstruction of it.Methods Retrospectively summarize the diagnosis and treatment of 91 cases of chest wall tumors in our hospital from January 2008 to November 2017.There are 55 males and 36 females and the ages ranged from 7 to 78 years,with a median age of 43 years.82 cases were operated for the first time,and 9 cases were reoperated.The postoperative pathology showed that the benign were 52 cases and malignant were 39 cases.The largest benign tumor was 15 cm × 10 cm × 3 cm and the largest malignant tumor was 30 cm × 20 cm × 15 cm.Local excision was performed in 66 cases and extended resection in 25 cases.After the resection,ilium,titanium mesh,Dacron mesh and Matrix reconstruction system were selected for reconstruction of chest wall respectivly.Results All the operation was successful and without death.Local resection was performed in all of benign tumor and in 15 cases of malignant tumor,extended resection was performed in the other 24 malignant tumor cases.After the local resection,the soft tissue was sutured directly to reconstruct the chest wall.The enlarged resection of the bone was performed by reconstructing the bony chest with different materials.In the soft tissue reconstruction,1 cases were treated with myocutaneous flap,and the other 23 cases were sutured directly.Postoperative chest wall integrity is stable,no chest wall floating and abnormal breathing.1 patients received ventilator supportion,and 2 patients had wound infection.The chest wall defect caused by benign tumor has good quality of life,no recurrence.After resection of the malignant tumor of the chest wall,2 died,and the rest were still alive.Conclusion Local resection is the main therapeutic method of benign chest wall tumor,and malignant chest wall tumor is mostly enlarged excision.Bone remodeling after extended resection plays an important role in the reconstruction of chest wall.It is necessary to select appropriate materials for reconstruction.Matrix titanium sternal or rib reconstruction system fixed reliably and the follow-up in a short term were also satisfactory.