Objective:To compare the prognostic impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) versus D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with stage III right-sided colon cancer.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Clinical data of 263 patients with stage III colon cancer undergoing right hemicolectomy in the Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (January 1, 2016 to August 8, 2023) were included. Of the 263 patients, 152 underwent CME and 111 received D2 dissection. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline characteristics between the two groups. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or Student's t-test; categorical variables were compared using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Log-Rank test was used to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to analyze prognostic factors, with subgroup analyses performed.Results:Patients undergoing CME surgery were younger (proportion >75 years: 4.6% vs. 25.2%, P<0.001), had a lower burden of comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 1: 25.0% vs. 36.9%, P=0.045), The rates of open surgery and converted open surgery were lower [0.6% (1/152) vs. 4.5% (5/111) and 0.6% (1/152) vs. 2.7% (3/111), respectively; P=0.040].They also had a higher rate of receiving adjuvant therapy (92.7% vs. 76.0%, P<0.001). In terms of short-term postoperative outcomes, the CME group had a greater number of harvested lymph nodes (median: 30 vs. 25, P<0.001) and less blood loss (median: 20 ml vs. 20 ml, P=0.041). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the number of metastatic lymph nodes, operation time, and the incidence of postoperative complications. Survival analysis demonstrated significantly longer DFS in the CME group both before and after PSM. CME was an independent favorable prognostic factor for DFS (pre-PSM: HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.31-0.91, P=0.022; post-PSM: HR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.97, P=0.042). No significant difference in OS was detected between the two groups across models. The subgroup analysis based on clinicopathological features revealed DFS benefits associated with CME in patients with tumor deposits (HR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.18-0.94, P=0.035), moderately-to-well-differentiated adenocarcinoma(HR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26-0.90, P=0.023), proficient mismatch repair tumors (HR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.32-0.94, P=0.030), and pN2 stage disease (HR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.19-0.95, P=0.036). Conclusion:An extended lymph node dissection, as exemplified by CME, may confer a DFS advantage in patients with stage III right-sided colon cancer, especially those exhibiting a substantial burden of lymph node metastases.

Objective:To compare the prognostic impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) versus D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with stage III right-sided colon cancer.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Clinical data of 263 patients with stage III colon cancer undergoing right hemicolectomy in the Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (January 1, 2016 to August 8, 2023) were included. Of the 263 patients, 152 underwent CME and 111 received D2 dissection. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline characteristics between the two groups. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or Student's t-test; categorical variables were compared using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Log-Rank test was used to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to analyze prognostic factors, with subgroup analyses performed.Results:Patients undergoing CME surgery were younger (proportion >75 years: 4.6% vs. 25.2%, P<0.001), had a lower burden of comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 1: 25.0% vs. 36.9%, P=0.045), The rates of open surgery and converted open surgery were lower [0.6% (1/152) vs. 4.5% (5/111) and 0.6% (1/152) vs. 2.7% (3/111), respectively; P=0.040].They also had a higher rate of receiving adjuvant therapy (92.7% vs. 76.0%, P<0.001). In terms of short-term postoperative outcomes, the CME group had a greater number of harvested lymph nodes (median: 30 vs. 25, P<0.001) and less blood loss (median: 20 ml vs. 20 ml, P=0.041). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the number of metastatic lymph nodes, operation time, and the incidence of postoperative complications. Survival analysis demonstrated significantly longer DFS in the CME group both before and after PSM. CME was an independent favorable prognostic factor for DFS (pre-PSM: HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.31-0.91, P=0.022; post-PSM: HR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.97, P=0.042). No significant difference in OS was detected between the two groups across models. The subgroup analysis based on clinicopathological features revealed DFS benefits associated with CME in patients with tumor deposits (HR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.18-0.94, P=0.035), moderately-to-well-differentiated adenocarcinoma(HR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26-0.90, P=0.023), proficient mismatch repair tumors (HR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.32-0.94, P=0.030), and pN2 stage disease (HR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.19-0.95, P=0.036). Conclusion:An extended lymph node dissection, as exemplified by CME, may confer a DFS advantage in patients with stage III right-sided colon cancer, especially those exhibiting a substantial burden of lymph node metastases.

Objective:To explore the impact on safety and prognosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer participating in surgical clinical research.Methods:This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a randomized controlled trial (RELARC study) conducted by the colorectal surgery group at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in which laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) was compared with D2 radical resection for the management of right-sided colon cancer. The eligibility criteria were age 18–75 years, biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma, tumor located between the cecum and right 1/3 of the transverse colon, enhanced chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans suggesting tumor stage T2–T4N0M0 or TanyN+ M0, and having undergone radical surgical treatment from January 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion factors included multiple primary colorectal cancers, preoperative stage T1N0 or enlarged central lymph nodes, tumor involving surrounding organs requiring their resection, definite distant metastasis or otherwise unable to undergo R0 resection, history of any other malignant tumors within previous 5 years, intestinal obstruction, perforation, or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency surgery, and assessed as unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery. Patients who had participated in the RELARC study were included in the RELARC group, whereas those who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in the RELAEC study were included in the control group. The main indicators studied were the patient's baseline data, surgery and perioperative conditions, pathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and postoperative follow-up (including average frequency of follow-up within the first 3 years) and survival (including 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) and 3-year overall survival rate (OS). Differences in these indicators between the RELARC and control groups were compared.Results:The study cohort comprised 290 patients, 173 in the RELARC group (RELARC-CME group, 82; RELARC-D2 group, 91) and 117 in the control group (CME control group, 72; D2 control group, 45). There was a significantly higher proportion of overweight patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2) in the RELARC-CME than in the CME control group (67.1% [55/82] vs. 33.3% [24/72], χ 2=17.469, P<0.001). There were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (all P>0.05). No significant disparities were found between the CME and D2 groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, combined organ resection, intraoperative blood transfusion, or intraoperative complications (all P>0.05). There was a trend toward Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications in the RELARC-CME group (24.4% [20/82]) than in the CME control group (18.1% [13/72]); however, this difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.914, P=0.339). Similarly, the difference in this rate did not differ significantly between the RELARC-D2 group (25.3% [23/91]) and D2 control group (24.4% [11/45], χ 2=0.011, P=0.916). The median duration of postoperative follow-up was significantly shorter in the RELARC groups than in the corresponding control groups. Specifically, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-CME and 7.2 (6.0, 9.0) months in the CME control group ( Z=-10.608, P<0.001). Similarly, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-D2 group as opposed to 8.3 (6.6, 9.0) months in the D2 control group ( Z=-10.595, P<0.001). The 3-year DFS rate (91.5%) and OS rate (96.3%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-CME group than in the CME control group (84.7% and 90.3%, respectively). The 3-year DFS rate (87.9%) and OS rate (96.7%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-D2 group than in the D2 control group (81.8% and 88.6%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Subgroup analysis according to pathological stage revealed that patients in the RELARC-D2 group with pN0 stage achieved a significantly superior 3-year OS rate than did those in the D2 control group (100% vs. 88.9%, P=0.008). We identified no statistically significant differences in survival rates between the remaining subgroups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:A high-quality surgical clinical trial with close follow-up can achieve perioperative safety and a trend toward improved survival outcomes.

Objective:To explore the impact on safety and prognosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer participating in surgical clinical research.Methods:This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a randomized controlled trial (RELARC study) conducted by the colorectal surgery group at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in which laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) was compared with D2 radical resection for the management of right-sided colon cancer. The eligibility criteria were age 18–75 years, biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma, tumor located between the cecum and right 1/3 of the transverse colon, enhanced chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans suggesting tumor stage T2–T4N0M0 or TanyN+ M0, and having undergone radical surgical treatment from January 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion factors included multiple primary colorectal cancers, preoperative stage T1N0 or enlarged central lymph nodes, tumor involving surrounding organs requiring their resection, definite distant metastasis or otherwise unable to undergo R0 resection, history of any other malignant tumors within previous 5 years, intestinal obstruction, perforation, or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency surgery, and assessed as unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery. Patients who had participated in the RELARC study were included in the RELARC group, whereas those who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in the RELAEC study were included in the control group. The main indicators studied were the patient's baseline data, surgery and perioperative conditions, pathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and postoperative follow-up (including average frequency of follow-up within the first 3 years) and survival (including 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) and 3-year overall survival rate (OS). Differences in these indicators between the RELARC and control groups were compared.Results:The study cohort comprised 290 patients, 173 in the RELARC group (RELARC-CME group, 82; RELARC-D2 group, 91) and 117 in the control group (CME control group, 72; D2 control group, 45). There was a significantly higher proportion of overweight patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2) in the RELARC-CME than in the CME control group (67.1% [55/82] vs. 33.3% [24/72], χ 2=17.469, P<0.001). There were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (all P>0.05). No significant disparities were found between the CME and D2 groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, combined organ resection, intraoperative blood transfusion, or intraoperative complications (all P>0.05). There was a trend toward Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications in the RELARC-CME group (24.4% [20/82]) than in the CME control group (18.1% [13/72]); however, this difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.914, P=0.339). Similarly, the difference in this rate did not differ significantly between the RELARC-D2 group (25.3% [23/91]) and D2 control group (24.4% [11/45], χ 2=0.011, P=0.916). The median duration of postoperative follow-up was significantly shorter in the RELARC groups than in the corresponding control groups. Specifically, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-CME and 7.2 (6.0, 9.0) months in the CME control group ( Z=-10.608, P<0.001). Similarly, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-D2 group as opposed to 8.3 (6.6, 9.0) months in the D2 control group ( Z=-10.595, P<0.001). The 3-year DFS rate (91.5%) and OS rate (96.3%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-CME group than in the CME control group (84.7% and 90.3%, respectively). The 3-year DFS rate (87.9%) and OS rate (96.7%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-D2 group than in the D2 control group (81.8% and 88.6%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Subgroup analysis according to pathological stage revealed that patients in the RELARC-D2 group with pN0 stage achieved a significantly superior 3-year OS rate than did those in the D2 control group (100% vs. 88.9%, P=0.008). We identified no statistically significant differences in survival rates between the remaining subgroups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:A high-quality surgical clinical trial with close follow-up can achieve perioperative safety and a trend toward improved survival outcomes.

Advanced radiotherapy technology enables the dose to more accurately conform to the tumor target area of the patient, providing accurate treatment for the patient, but the gradient of the patient's radiation dose at the tumor edge is getting larger, which putting forward higher requirements for radiotherapy dose verification. The dose verification system software KylinRay-Dose4D can verify the patient's pre-treatment plan and the in vivo/on-line dose during the patient's treatment, providing important reference for the physicist to modify the radiotherapy plan and ensuring that the patient receives accurate treatment. This study introduces the overall design and key technologies of KylinRay-Dose4D, and tests the pre-treatment plan dose checking calculation and 2D/3D dose verification through clinical cases. The test results showed that the 2D/3D gamma pass rate (3 mm/3%) of KylinRay-Dose4D reconstructed dose compared with TPS plan dose and measured dose is larger than 95%, which indicating that the reconstructed dose of KylinRay-Dose4D meets the requirement of clinical application.
Humans ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods* ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods* ; Software ; Neoplasms ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Radiometry/methods*

Objective:To evaluate and summarize the best evidence of energy and protein intake targets and calculation in adult critically ill patients, and to provide evidence-based basis for critical nutrition management.Methods:Evidence related to energy and protein intake targets and calculation of adult critically ill patients, including guideline, expert consensus, systematic review and evidence summary, were systematically searched in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, BMJ Best Practice, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), Web of Science, SinoMed, Medive, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, VIP database, Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) from January 2012 to June 2022. Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the included literatures using the JBI Evidence-based Health Care Center evaluation tool and the Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ), extracted and summarized the best evidence for the nutritional intake goal and calculation of adult critically ill patients, and described the evidence.Results:A total of 18 literatures were included, including 5 clinical guidelines, 8 expert consensus, 3 systematic reviews and 2 evidence summaries. After literature quality evaluation, 18 articles were all enrolled. The evidence was summarized from the four aspects, including energy target calculation method, dose body weight, energy and protein intake target, and calculation method, 24 pieces of the best evidence were finally formed.Conclusions:The best evidence of energy and protein intake targets and calculation for critically ill patients was summarized based on evidence-based. Clinical medical staff can choose indirect calorimetry to calculate energy goals when equipment is available. Patient's height, body weight should be recorded accurately, dose body weight can be determined by body mass index (BMI). Meanwhile, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) loss, fat-free body weight, simple formulas and other methods should be used to continuously evaluate and adjust protein intake targets, to achieve the purpose of optimizing intensive nutrition support.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.04.013.].

Cholesterol is an important precursor of many endogenous molecules. Disruption of cholesterol homeostasis can cause many pathological changes, leading to liver and cardiovascular diseases. CYP1A is widely involved in cholesterol metabolic network, but its exact function has not been fully elucidated. Here, we aim to explore how CYP1A regulates cholesterol homeostasis. Our data showed that CYP1A1/2 knockout (KO) rats presented cholesterol deposition in blood and liver. The serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol were significantly increased in KO rats. Further studies found that the lipogenesis pathway (LXRα-SREBP1-SCD1) of KO rats was activated, and the key protein of cholesterol ester hydrolysis (CES1) was inhibited. Importantly, lansoprazole can significantly alleviate rat hepatic lipid deposition in hypercholesterolemia models by inducing CYP1A. Our findings reveal the role of CYP1A as a potential regulator of cholesterol homeostasis and provide a new perspective for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.04.013.].

Objective:To investigate whether there are differences in clinical pregnancy and perinatal outcomes among different protocols for artificial insemination by donor (AID) in female patients aged ≤35 years.Methods:This retrospective cohort study analyzed clinical data of patients who underwent AID at the Reproductive Medicine Center of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2021. Based on ovulation induction therapy, patients were divided into 4 groups: natural cycle (NC) group, letrozole (LE)/clomiphene (CC) group, gonadotropin (Gn) group and LE/CC combined with Gn (LE/CC+Gn) group. The clinical outcomes, incidence of complications, and offspring health were compared among these groups, and logistic regression analysis was employed to investigate the effects of different protocols on the clinical and perinatal outcomes of AID cycles.Results:In NC group, LE/CC group, Gn group and LE/CC+Gn group, the cycle cancellation rate [0.5% (11/2 147), 1.1% (12/1 045), 1.6% (9/549), 3.2% (9/315), P<0.001], the clinical pregnancy rate [31.5% (673/2 136), 35.8% (370/1 033), 42.8% (231/540), 38.2% (117/306), P<0.001], the multiple pregnancy rate [0.7% (5/673), 3.2% (12/370), 3.5% (8/231), 6.8% (8/117), P<0.001], the abortion rate [12.8% (86/673), 9.2% (34/370), 5.2% (12/231), 8.5% (10/117), P=0.008] and the live birth rate [27.2% (581/2 136), 31.4% (324/1 033), 40.0% (216/540), 34.3% (105/306), P<0.001] were statistically significant, while the differences among the four groups in the ectopic pregnancy rate, the preterm birth rate, and the overdue birth rate were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After adjusting for confounding factors, the differences were not statistically significant in all indicators compared with the NC group (all P>0.05), except for the miscarriage rate in the LE/CC+Gn group, which was significantly higher than that in the NC group (a OR=2.141, 95% CI: 1.12-4.09; P=0.021). For patients who have been using the same treatment protocol, the cumulative pregnancy rate and the cumulative live birth rate in the NC group and the LE/CC group increased with the increase of assisted reproductive cycles, and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.001). Regardless of whether confounding factors were adjusted, there were no statistically significant differences in neonatal mortality rate, low birth weight rate, normal birth weight rate, macrosomia rate, and male-to-female ratio among the groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:In AID cycles with female patients aged ≤35 years, stimulated cycles had similar pregnancy outcomes to natural cycles and did not increase the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes or multiple pregnancies. Choosing the LE/CC stimulation protocol can improve the cumulative pregnancy rate of patients with abnormal ovarian follicle development or ovulation function.