Objective: To explore the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treatment of thyroid benign nodules. Methods: We analyze 573 patients with thyroid benign nodules from June 2014 to September 2017 treated by RFA at Department Ⅱof Thyroid Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. Among these patients, there were 75 males and 498 females, with a median age of 45 years old. All patients were diagnosed as thyroid benign nodules by ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy before RFA. A total of 750 benign tumors were treated. To evaluate the thyroid function of the patients before RFA and 3 months after it, and to observe the changes of thyroid benign nodules by ultrasound at 3, 6, 12 months after RFA. The paired t-test was used to compare the measurement data with normal distribution, and Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used to compare the measurement data with non-normal distribution. To calculate the volume change and reduction rate of thyroid benign nodules. Results: RFA was successfully completed in all patients, the volume reduction rate was 67%(48%, 83%) in the 3rd month after RFA, in the 6th month was 81%(67%, 91%), in the 12th month was 89%(80%, 95%). Eighteen patients felt pain during RFA, but the pain was alleviated after stopping ablation. Three patients′ tone decreased, but recovered in a week. Hoarseness occurred in 6 patients and recovered in 3 months. Three patients had neck hemorrhage, which was managed with simple compression of the neck. Conclusions RFA is an effective and safe treatment for thyroid benign nodules and has obvious advantages such as less invasiveness, having no influence in thyroid functions. It is clinically prospective for application.

BACKGROUND:Satellite cells are a specific population of adult stem cells contained in skeletal muscle that promote the regenerative reconstruction of injured skeletal muscle,but their specific mechanisms are not well established. OBJECTIVE:To review the regulatory role of satellite cells during skeletal muscle regeneration and the mechanism of interaction between satellite cells and their ecological niche signals,aiming to provide new research ideas and perspectives based on the summary of existing knowledge. METHODS:Web of Science,PubMed,CNKI,WanFang,and VIP databases were searched for literature published between January 2002 and June 2022.English search terms were"muscle,skeletal muscle,muscle injury,stem cells,satellite cells,muscle repair".Chinese search terms were"skeletal muscle,skeletal muscle regeneration,skeletal muscle reconstruction,satellite cells,ecological niche".The 66 included papers were organized and analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:(1)Satellite cells exist in skeletal muscle and contribute to both the formation of new muscle fibers after injury and the effective growth of existing adult muscle fibers.(2)After the activation of quiescent satellite cells in satellite cells,the steps of satellite cell proliferation,differentiation and fusion to form muscle fibers during skeletal muscle regeneration are influenced by their intrinsic regulatory effects of different mechanisms.(3)Satellite cells can interact with myofibers,extracellular matrix,skeletal muscle junctions,fibroblast progenitor cells,immune cells and endothelial cells in the ecological niche signal to promote satellite cell activation,proliferation and differentiation to achieve effective skeletal muscle regeneration.(4)Possible breakthroughs in future research include:the division pattern of satellite cells in the body;the mechanisms regulating satellite cell transfer;the specific timing of satellite cell differentiation or self-renewal in vivo;and the interaction mechanisms between satellite cells and skeletal muscle junctions.(5)This review may provide some theoretical reference values for the field of injury reconstruction of skeletal muscle and its innovation.

OBJECTIVETo explore the clinicopathological characteristics, efficacy, and prognostic factors for patients with rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor(GIST).

METHODSClinicopathological and follow-up data of 61 patients with rectal GIST in our department from January 1990 to October 2012 were analyzed retrospectively and pathology specimens were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to investigate the influencing factors of prognosis with Log-rank test and Cox regression model.

RESULTSThere were 42 male and 19 female patients with a median age of 59 years old. Eighteen cases(29.5%) were confirmed preoperatively as GIST by biopsy and 46 cases were diagnosed as GIST by first pathological examination. Fifteen cases(24.6%) were revised as GIST after re-examination of specimes among whom 14 cases had been diagnosed as leiomyoma or sarcoma, and 1 as neurolemmoma. Tumor location was above peritoneal reflection in 12 cases(19.7%) and below peritoneal reflection in 49(80.3%). Fifty-two patients underwent surgery, including 21 extended resections(lymph nodes clearance and combined organs resection simultaneously) and 31 local resections(tumor rejection or partial resection of rectal wall). Eleven patients received preoperative imatinib(400 mg/d). Forty-one cases received imatinib therapy after operation or biopsy diagnosis, including 25 cases who received palliative treatment for postoperative recurrence. Median follow-up time was 55(6 to 391) months and follow-up longer than 2 years was carried out in 46 patients. Overall survival rates of 1-, 2-, 3- , 5-year were 98%, 95.6%, 86.0% and 73.7% respectively. There were no significant differences between local resection group(96.4%, 92%, 83.3% and 77.3%) and extended resection group (100%, 94.7%, 89.50% and 82.6%)(χ(2)=0.004, P=0.947). Univariate analysis showed that survival was only associated with recurrence and metastasis (χ(2)=4.292, P=0.038). Multivariate Cox analysis showed postoperative survival was not associated with any factors(all P>0.05). The 3-year survival rate of patients with postoperative recurrence or metastasis receiving imatinib therapy was better as compared to those who did not received imatinib(82.7% vs. 71.4%).

CONCLUSIONSRectal GIST are more common in the lower rectum. Surgery is the main treatment for rectal GIST. Local complete resection is the mainstay treatment. Extensive resection and lymph node clearance may not improve survival. Imatinib can improve the prognosis of patients with recurrence or metastasis.

Benzamides ; Female ; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors ; therapy ; Humans ; Imatinib Mesylate ; Male ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Piperazines ; Prognosis ; Pyrimidines ; Rectal Neoplasms ; pathology ; therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Survival Rate

Objective To explore the clinicopathological characteristics, efficacy, and prognostic factors for patients with rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Methods Clinicopathological and follow-up data of 61 patients with rectal GIST in our department from January 1990 to Oc tober 2012 were analyzed retrospectively and pathology specimens were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to investigate the influencing factors of prognosis with Log-rank test and Cox regression model. Results There were 42 male and 19 female patients with a median age of 59 years old. Eighteen cases (29.5%) were confirmed preoperatively as GIST by biopsy and 46 cases were diagnosed as GIST by first pathological examination. Fifteen cases (24.6%) were revised as GIST after re-examination of specimes among whom 14 cases had been diagnosed as leiomyoma or sarcoma, and 1 as neurolemmoma. Tumor location was above peritoneal reflection in 12 cases (19.7%) and below peritoneal reflection in 49 (80.3%). Fifty-two patients underwent surgery, including 21 extended resections(lymph nodes clearance and combined organs resection simultaneously) and 31 local resections (tumor rejection or partial resection of rectal wall). Eleven patients received preoperative imatinib(400 mg/d). Forty-one cases received imatinib therapy after operation or biopsy diagnosis, including 25 cases who received palliative treatment for postoperative recurrence. Median follow-up time was 55 (6 to 391) months and follow-up longer than 2 years was carried out in 46 patients. Overall survival rates of 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-year were 98%, 95.6%, 86.0%and 73.7%respectively. There were no significant differences between local resection group (96.4%, 92%, 83.3%and 77.3%) and extended resection group (100%, 94.7%, 89.50%and 82.6%) (χ2=0.004, P=0.947). Univariate analysis showed that survival was only associated with recurrence and metastasis (χ2=4.292, P=0.038). Multivariate Cox analysis showed postoperative survival was not associated with any factors (all P>0.05). The 3-year survival rate of patients with postoperative recurrence or metastasis receiving imatinib therapy was better as compared to those who did not received imatinib (82.7%vs. 71.4%). Conclusions Rectal GIST are more common in the lower rectum. Surgery is the main treatment for rectal GIST. Local complete resection is the mainstay treatment. Extensive resection and lymph node clearance may not improve survival. Imatinib can improve the prognosis of patients with recurrence or metastasis.

Objective To explore the clinicopathological characteristics, efficacy, and prognostic factors for patients with rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Methods Clinicopathological and follow-up data of 61 patients with rectal GIST in our department from January 1990 to Oc tober 2012 were analyzed retrospectively and pathology specimens were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to investigate the influencing factors of prognosis with Log-rank test and Cox regression model. Results There were 42 male and 19 female patients with a median age of 59 years old. Eighteen cases (29.5%) were confirmed preoperatively as GIST by biopsy and 46 cases were diagnosed as GIST by first pathological examination. Fifteen cases (24.6%) were revised as GIST after re-examination of specimes among whom 14 cases had been diagnosed as leiomyoma or sarcoma, and 1 as neurolemmoma. Tumor location was above peritoneal reflection in 12 cases (19.7%) and below peritoneal reflection in 49 (80.3%). Fifty-two patients underwent surgery, including 21 extended resections(lymph nodes clearance and combined organs resection simultaneously) and 31 local resections (tumor rejection or partial resection of rectal wall). Eleven patients received preoperative imatinib(400 mg/d). Forty-one cases received imatinib therapy after operation or biopsy diagnosis, including 25 cases who received palliative treatment for postoperative recurrence. Median follow-up time was 55 (6 to 391) months and follow-up longer than 2 years was carried out in 46 patients. Overall survival rates of 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-year were 98%, 95.6%, 86.0%and 73.7%respectively. There were no significant differences between local resection group (96.4%, 92%, 83.3%and 77.3%) and extended resection group (100%, 94.7%, 89.50%and 82.6%) (χ2=0.004, P=0.947). Univariate analysis showed that survival was only associated with recurrence and metastasis (χ2=4.292, P=0.038). Multivariate Cox analysis showed postoperative survival was not associated with any factors (all P>0.05). The 3-year survival rate of patients with postoperative recurrence or metastasis receiving imatinib therapy was better as compared to those who did not received imatinib (82.7%vs. 71.4%). Conclusions Rectal GIST are more common in the lower rectum. Surgery is the main treatment for rectal GIST. Local complete resection is the mainstay treatment. Extensive resection and lymph node clearance may not improve survival. Imatinib can improve the prognosis of patients with recurrence or metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunization schedules are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous immunization schedules. METHODS: Multiple databases with relevant studies were searched with an end date of October 31, 2021, and a website including a series of Coronavirus disease 2019 studies was examined for studies before March 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different heterologous and homologous regimens among adults that reported immunogenicity and safety outcomes were reviewed. Primary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies against the original strain and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In all, 11 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and nine were ultimately included in the NMA. Among participants who received two doses of CoronaVac, another dose of mRNA or a non-replicating viral vector vaccine resulted in a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than a third CoronaVac 600 sino unit (SU); a dose of BNT162b2 induced the highest geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 15.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.53-24.39. Following one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination, a dose of mRNA-1273 generated a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than BNT162b2 alone (GMR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64), NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.16-2.21), or ChAdOx1 (GMR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59). Following one dose of ChAdOx1, a dose of mRNA-1273 was also more effective for improving antibody levels than ChAdOx1 (GMR = 11.09; 95% CI: 8.36-14.71) or NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08-3.91). No significant difference in the risk for SAEs was found in any comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to vaccination with two doses of CoronaVac, a dose of BNT162b2 as a booster substantially enhances immunogenicity reactions and has a relatively acceptable risk for SAEs relative to other vaccines. For primary vaccination, schedules including mRNA vaccines induce a greater immune response. However, the comparatively higher risk for local and systemic adverse events introduced by mRNA vaccines should be noted. REGISTRATION PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; No. CRD42021278149.
Adult ; Humans ; BNT162 Vaccine ; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Immunization Schedule ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects* ; Viral Vaccines ; mRNA Vaccines ; Antibodies, Neutralizing ; Antibodies, Viral

Standardized reporting is a crucial factor affecting the use of patient guidelines （PGs）， particularly in the reporting and presentation of recommendations. This paper introduced the current status of PG reporting， including the research on PG content and presentation formats， and provided comprehensive recommendations for PG reporting from aspects such as overall framework， recommendations， presentation format， and readability. First， the presentation of PG recommendations should include clearly defined clinical questions， recommendations and their rationale， and guidance on how patients should implement the interventions； for specific content in the PG， such as level of evidence， level of recommendation， it is recommended to explain in text the reasons for giving different levels of recommendation， i.e.， to present the logic behind giving the level of recommendation to the patient； additional information needed in the recommendation framework should be supplemented by tracing references or authoritative textbooks and literature that support the recommendations. Subsequently， the PG text should be written based on the Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines （RIGHT-PVG） reporting framework. Finally， to enhance readability and comprehension， it is recommended to refer to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool （PEMAT） for translating PG content. To enhance the readability of PGs， it is suggested to present the PG content in a persona-lized and layered manner.

Since the concept of patient versions of guidelines （PVGs） was introduced into China， several PVGs have been published in China， but we found that there is a big difference between the concept of PVG at home and abroad， and the reason for this difference has not been reasonably explained， which has led to ambiguity and even misapplication of the PVG concept by guideline developers. By analyzing the background and purpose of PVGs， and the understanding of the PVG concept by domestic scholars， we proposed the term patient guidelines （PGs）. This refers to guidelines developed under the principles of evidence-based medicine， centered on health issues that concern patients， and based on the best available evidence， intended for patient use. Except for the general attribute of providing information or education， which is typical of common health education materials， PGs also provide recommendations and assist in decision-making， so PGs include both the patient versions of guidelines （PVG） as defined by the Guidelines International Network （GIN） and "patient-directed guidelines"， i.e. clinical practice guidelines resulting from the adaptation or reformulation of recommendations through clinical practice guidelines.

At present， the process and methodology of patient guidelines （PGs） development varies greatly and lacks systematic and standardised guidance. In addition to the interviews with PG developers， we have sorted out the relevant methodology for the adaptation and development of existing clinical practice guideline recommendations and facilitated expert deliberations to achieve a consensus， so as to finally put forward a proposal for guidance on the process and methodology for the development of PGs. The development of PGs can be divided into the preparation stage， the construction stage， and the completion stage in general， but the specific steps vary according to the different modes of development of PGs. The development process of Model 1 is basically the same as the patient version of the guideline development process provided by the International Guidelines Network， i.e.， team formation， screening of recommendations， guideline drafing， user testing and feedback， approval and dissemination. The developer should also first determine the need for and scope of translating the clinical practice guideline into a patient version during the preparation phase. Model 2 adds user experience and feedback to the conventional clinical practice guideline development process （forming a team， determining the scope of the PG， searching， evaluating and integrating evidence， forming recommendations， writing the guideline， and expert review）. Based on the different models， we sort out the process and methods of PG development and introduce the specific methods of PG development， including how to identify the clinical problem and how to form recommendations based on the existing clinical practice guidelines， with a view to providing reference for guideline developers and related researchers.