The CyberKnife, an acronym for the stereotactic radiosurgery platform, represents an image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy technique. This technology precisely delivers ionizing radiation to tissues, effectively damaging tumor cells, and is suitable for radiotherapy of both intracranial and extracranial tumors. This article reports the first performance of CyberKnife by radiotherapy at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, including a patient with uncontrolled pituitary adenoma after surgery and radiotherapy, and another patient with vertebral metastasis following targeted therapy for lung adenocarcinoma. The application of CyberKnife technology in radiotherapy has achieved highly accurate dose delivery, enabling targeted irradiation of tumor lesions while minimizing damage to surrounding normal tissues, thereby yielding relatively ideal clinical outcomes.

ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of entecavir （ETV） versus tenofovir alafenamide fumarate （TAF） on renal function in previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis B （CHB）. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 167 previously untreated CHB patients who received ETV or TAF treatment for at least 48 weeks at the outpatient service of Department of Infectious Diseases in The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from September 2019 to November 2023， and according to the antiviral drug used， they were divided into ETV group with 117 patients and TAF group with 50 patients. In order to balance baseline clinical data， propensity score matching （PSM） was used for matching and analysis at a ratio of 2∶1， and the two groups were compared in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate （eGFR） and the incidence rate of abnormal renal function at week 48. According to eGFR at week 48， the patients were divided into normal renal function group and abnormal renal function group. The independent-samples t test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups， and the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The multivariate Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the influencing factors for abnormal renal function， and the receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was used to assess the performance of each indicator in predicting abnormal renal function. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function， and the log-rank test was used for comparison. The analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to compare the dynamic changes of eGFR during antiviral therapy in CHB patients. ResultsAfter PSM matching， there were 100 patients in the ETV group and 50 patients in the TAF group. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical data between the ETV group and the TAF group （all P>0.05）， with an eGFR level of 112.29±9.92 mL/min/1.73 m² in the ETV group and 114.72±12.15 mL/min/1.73 m² in the TAF group. There was a reduction in eGFR from baseline to week 48 in both groups， and compared with the TAF group at week 48， the ETV group had a significantly lower eGFR （106.42±14.12 mL/min/1.73 m² vs 112.25±13.44 mL/min/1.73 m²， t=-2.422， P=0.017） and a significantly higher incidence rate of abnormal renal function （17.00% vs 4.00%， χ²=5.092， P=0.024）. After the patients were divided into normal renal function group with 131 patients and abnormal renal function group with 19 patients， the univariate analysis showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in age （Z=-2.039， P=0.041）， treatment drug （ETV/TAF） （χ²=5.092， P=0.024）， and baseline eGFR level （t=4.023， P<0.001）， and the multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that baseline eGFR （odds ratio ［OR］=0.896， 95% confidence interval ［CI］： 0.841 — 0.955， P<0.001） and treatment drug （OR=5.589， 95%CI： 1.136 — 27.492， P=0.034） were independent influencing factors for abnormal renal function. Baseline eGFR had an area under the ROC curve of 0.781 in predicting abnormal renal function in CHB patients， with a cut-off value of 105.24 mL/min/1.73 m²， a sensitivity of 73.68%， and a specificity of 82.44%. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that the patients with baseline eGFR≤105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² had a significantly higher cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function than those with baseline eGFR>105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² （χ²=22.330， P<0.001）， and the ETV group had a significantly higher cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function than the TAF group （χ²=4.961， P=0.026）. With the initiation of antiviral therapy， both the ETV group and the TAF group had a significant reduction in eGFR （F=5.259， P<0.001）， but the ETV group only had a significant lower level of eGFR than the TAF group at week 48 （t=-2.422， P=0.017）； both the baseline eGFR≤105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² group and the baseline eGFR>105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² group had a significant reduction in eGFR （F=5.712， P<0.001）， and there was a significant difference in eGFR between the two groups at baseline and weeks 12， 24， 36， and 48 （t=-13.927， -9.780， -8.835， -9.489， and -8.953， all P<0.001）. ConclusionFor CHB patients initially treated with ETV or TAF， ETV antiviral therapy has a higher risk of renal injury than TAF therapy at week 48.

Objective:To investigate the changes of respiratory function and lung volume after bariatric surgery using spiral CT three-dimensional imaging technology.Methods:Using the prospective study method, the medical records of 30 subjects undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in the Eighth Department of General Surgery, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University from Jan. 2023 to Jun. 2024 were collected. Among them, 12 were males and 18 were females, aged from 20 to 45 years, with the average age of 31.1 years old. Chest CT scans were completed within 1 week before surgery and 6 months after surgery. The subject′s CT plain scan reconstructed thin-layer images of the mediastinal window were transferred to a GE workstation, and the lung volumes of both lungs and each lobe and the tracheal wall area of the five bronchial segments (RB1, RB4, RB10, LB1 + 2 and LB10) were calculated as a percentage of the airway cross-sectional area (WA%), and the posterior intercostal position corresponding to the diaphragm was recorded. Paired t-test and rank-sum test were used to compare preoperative and postoperative differences.Results:Compared with pre-operation, the subject′s body mass index decreased significantly 6 months after bariatric surgery [(42.22±7.31) kg/m 2vs (30.12±5.59) kg/m 2,t=7.31, P<0.001)]. Except for left lower lobe [(1.15±0.23) L vs (1.27±0.24) L, t=1.97, P=0.054] and right middle lobe [(0.57±0.16) L vs (0.83±0.16) L, t=1.38, P=0.172], the remaining lung parts were significantly larger after surgery than before surgery: right upper lobe [(0.80±0.17) L vs (0.94±0.19) L, t=2.79, P=0.007], right lower lobe [(1.08±0.14) L vs (1.22±0.19) L, t=3.23, P=0.002], left upper lobe [(1.12±0.20) L vs (1.24±0.23) L, t=2.26, P=0.014]. Overall, right lung volume [(2.44±0.33) L vs (2.79±0.41) L, t=3.62, P=0.001], left lung volume [(2.27±0.36) L vs (2.52±0.39) L, t=2.53, P=0.014] and total lung volume [(4.71±0.60) L vs (5.30±0.71) L, t=3.48, P=0.001] all increased significantly at 6 months after surgery compared with before surgery. All five segments of bronchus (WA%) were significantly reduced after surgery than before surgery: RB1: [(62.82±4.66) vs (66.85±3.99), t=3.60, P=0.001]; RB4: [(61.24±5.28) vs (64.31±5.51), t=2.20, P=0.031]; RB10: [(60.03±4.64) vs (62.97±5.73), t=2.18, P=0.033]; LB1+ 2: [(63.61±5.05) vs (67.90±4.30), t=3.54, P=0.001]; LB10: [(58.73±6.49) vs (62.01±5.06), t=2.17, P=0.034)]. The posterior intercostal position corresponding to the diaphragm dropped from an average of 7-8 intercostal spaces to 8-9 intercostal spaces, with a significant difference (rank mean 22.77 vs 38.23, Z=-3.67, P<0.001). Conclusion:Bariatric surgery can significantly reduce weight, reduce the pressure of chest and abdominal, improve lung compliance, reduce the internal pressure of the chest, lower the diaphragm, expand the lung volume and airway cross-sectional area, restore the original airway anatomy and respiratory physiology, so it can effectively improve the respiratory function and lung structure abnormalities caused by obesity.

Objective:To assess the effectiveness of a 6-month Ba Duan Jin exercise program in improving the balance of community-dwelling older adults.Methods:A two arms, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in 1 028 community residents aged 60-80 years in 40 communities in 5 provinces of China. Participants in the intervention group (20 communities, 523 people) received Ba Duan Jin exercise 5 days/week, 1 hour/day for 6 months, and three times of falls prevention health education, and the control group (20 communities, 505 people) received falls prevention health education same as the intervention group. The Berg balance scale (BBS) score was the leading outcome indicator, and the secondary outcome indicators included the length of time of standing on one foot (with eyes open and closed), standing in a tandem stance (with eyes open and closed), the closed circle test, and the timed up to test.Results:A total of 1 028 participants were included in the final analysis, including 731 women (71.11%) and 297 men (28.89%), and the age was (69.87±5.67) years. After the 3-month intervention, compared with the baseline data, the BBS score of the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group by 3.05 (95% CI: 2.23-3.88) points ( P<0.001). After the 6-month intervention, compared with the baseline data, the BBS score of the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group by 4.70 (95% CI: 4.03-5.37) points ( P<0.001). Ba Duan Jin showed significant improvement ( P<0.05) in all secondary outcomes after 6 months of exercise in the intervention group compared with the control group. Conclusions:This study showed that Ba Duan Jin exercise can improve balance in community-dwelling older adults aged 60-80. The longer the exercise time, the better the improvement.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.