Objective:To develop the training syllabus of palliative care for general practitioners.Methods:Twenty-nine experts in fields of general practice and hospice care from different teaching hospitals and community health service centers were invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi consultation from April 2022 and August 2022. Based on results of Delphi consultation a preliminary training syllabus was established through data analysis, synthesis and process.Results:Of the 29 experts, 11 (37.9%) were male with age of (52.9±8.9) years and working experience of (17.0±7.2) years. The expert activity coefficient of the two rounds of consultation was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), authority coefficient was 0.815 and 0.870, and opinion coordination coefficient was 0.359 and 0.515, respectively ( P<0.05). The training syllabus comprised of 4 first-grade indicators, 19 second-grade indicators and 58 third-grade indicators. The weight coefficients of the 4 first-grade indicators, namely objective of training, theory courses and theoretical knowledge, clinical base rotation contents and requirements, community base rotation content and requirements, were 0.251, 0.251, 0.250 and 0.248, respectively. Conclusions:A preliminary training syllabus of palliative care for general practitioner has been developed in this study, which provide a basis for standardized training of community palliative care.

Objective:To compare the short- and mid-term clinical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic radical resection of right- and left-sided colon cancer.Methods:In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data on patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic radical resection of right and left sided-colon cancer performed by two senior physicians in the Department of Gastro-Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University between January 2015 and December 2023 were collected. The patients were allocated to robotic ( n=117) or laparoscopic groups ( n=267). Propensity score matching in a ratio of 1∶1 was implemented to minimize the impact of imbalances in baseline information between the two groups. Propensity score matching left 228 patients in the study cohort, with 114 in each group. The participants were aged (60.8±12.1) and (60.3±13.1) years and the body mass indices were (23.1±3.0) kg/m 2 and (23.1±2.8) kg/m 2 in the robotic and laparoscopic groups respectively. After matching, relevant perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and 3-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, the differences in baseline information between the two groups were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). After matching, in the robotic surgery group, radical resection of right- versus left-sided colon cancer had been performed on 80 and 34 patients, respectively; compared with 78 and 36, respectively, in the laparoscopic surgery group. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had a longer operative time ( [209.8±48.4] minutes vs. [186.7±46.9] minutes, t=3.665, P<0.001), higher hospitalization cost ( [88657.8±18548.1] yuan vs. [61179.5±13822.7] yuan, t=12.683, P<0.001), and lower rate of postoperative complications (7.9% [9/114] vs. 17.5% [20/114], χ 2=4.780, P=0.029); these differences are statistically significant. The robotic group tended to have a lower conversion rate than the laparoscopic group (0 vs. 4.4% [5/114]); however, this difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ 2=3.272, P=0.070). The amount of intraoperative bleeding, time to first passage of flatus, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade), number of resected lymph nodes, and number of positive lymph nodes did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P>0.05). Furthermore, the differences between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in 3-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 82.8%, P=0.863) and overall survival (83.1% vs. 86.5%, P=0.921) were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic radical resection of right and left-sided colon cancer is safe and feasible and an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Although robotic surgery has a longer operative time and higher hospitalization costs than laparoscopic surgery, it has a lower rate of postoperative complications, and a 3-year survival outcome comparable to that of laparoscopic surgery.

Objective:To compare the short- and mid-term clinical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic radical resection of right- and left-sided colon cancer.Methods:In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data on patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic radical resection of right and left sided-colon cancer performed by two senior physicians in the Department of Gastro-Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University between January 2015 and December 2023 were collected. The patients were allocated to robotic ( n=117) or laparoscopic groups ( n=267). Propensity score matching in a ratio of 1∶1 was implemented to minimize the impact of imbalances in baseline information between the two groups. Propensity score matching left 228 patients in the study cohort, with 114 in each group. The participants were aged (60.8±12.1) and (60.3±13.1) years and the body mass indices were (23.1±3.0) kg/m 2 and (23.1±2.8) kg/m 2 in the robotic and laparoscopic groups respectively. After matching, relevant perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and 3-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, the differences in baseline information between the two groups were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). After matching, in the robotic surgery group, radical resection of right- versus left-sided colon cancer had been performed on 80 and 34 patients, respectively; compared with 78 and 36, respectively, in the laparoscopic surgery group. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had a longer operative time ( [209.8±48.4] minutes vs. [186.7±46.9] minutes, t=3.665, P<0.001), higher hospitalization cost ( [88657.8±18548.1] yuan vs. [61179.5±13822.7] yuan, t=12.683, P<0.001), and lower rate of postoperative complications (7.9% [9/114] vs. 17.5% [20/114], χ 2=4.780, P=0.029); these differences are statistically significant. The robotic group tended to have a lower conversion rate than the laparoscopic group (0 vs. 4.4% [5/114]); however, this difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ 2=3.272, P=0.070). The amount of intraoperative bleeding, time to first passage of flatus, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade), number of resected lymph nodes, and number of positive lymph nodes did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P>0.05). Furthermore, the differences between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in 3-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 82.8%, P=0.863) and overall survival (83.1% vs. 86.5%, P=0.921) were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic radical resection of right and left-sided colon cancer is safe and feasible and an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Although robotic surgery has a longer operative time and higher hospitalization costs than laparoscopic surgery, it has a lower rate of postoperative complications, and a 3-year survival outcome comparable to that of laparoscopic surgery.

Objective:To develop standards of hospice care specialized clinical training base for general practitioners.Methods:Twenty nine experts in fields of general practice and hospice care were invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi expert consultation from April 2022 to August 2022. Based the results of Delphi consultations the standards of clinical training base for general practitioner hospice care specialized training were developed through data analysis, synthesis and process.Results:The age of 29 consulting experts was (52.9±8.9) years old, and their working years were (17.0±7.2) years, 69.0% (20/29) of them had senior professional titles. In the two rounds of expert consultation, the expert positive coefficient was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), the expert authority coefficient was 0.791 and 0.830, and the expert opinion coordination coefficient W of the importance of all indicators was 0.177 and 0.296, respectively ( χ2=133.54 , 223.46; P<0.01). Finally, a set of clinical base standards for general practitioner hospice care specialized training was established, which consisted of 4 first-level indicators and 23 second-level indicators. The 4 first-level indicators were basic conditions, teaching conditions, teacher conditions and teaching management, with the weight coefficients of 0.250, 0.250, 0.251 and 0.253, respectively. Conclusions:The clinical training base standards of hospice care specialized training for general practitioners have been established in this study, which will be helpful in selecting appropriate hospitals as the specialized clinical training base for general practitioners.

Objective:To develop standards of hospice care community training base for general practitioners.Methods:Twenty-nine experts in general practice and hospice care from different teaching hospitals and community health service centers were invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi consultation from April to August 2022. Based on the consultations a set of standards of hospice care community training base was developed.Results:The age of experts was 38-75 (52.9±8.9) years, and their working years were 5-32 (17.0±7.2)years. In the two rounds of expert consultation, the expert positive coefficient was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), the expert authority coefficient was 0.791 and 0.830, and the expert opinion coordination coefficient W of the importance of all indicators was 0.137 and 0.289, respectively ( χ2=114.83, 226.94; P<0.05). A set of hospice care community training base standards for general practitioner was established, which consisted of 4 first-level indicators and 27 second-level indicators. The 4 first-level indicators were basic conditions, teaching conditions, teacher conditions and teaching management, with the weight coefficients of 0.247, 0.248, 0.250 and 0.252, respectively. Conclusion:The standards developed in this study may be used for constructing and evaluating hospice care community training base for general practitioners.

Objective:To construct an evaluation index system for community hospice comfort care.Methods:This was a cross-sectional study. Two rounds of expert consultations were conducted using modified Delphi method from June to September 2023, 14 experts in the field of palliative care nursing were invited to participate in the consultations. Based on the consultation results, an evaluation index system for comfort care of community hospice was preliminarily developed.Results:All consultation experts were females, with an average age of (48±8) years; 9 held senior professonal titles, and 12 had more than 5 years of palliative care-related working experiencs. The positive coefficient of correspondence in two rounds of consultations was 100%, and the degree of authority was 0.841 and 0.834, respectively. The expert coordination coefficients for the importance of secondary indicators were 0.281 (χ 2=182.65) and 0.284 (χ 2=132.98), and the expert coordination coefficients for the operability of secondary indicators were 0.231 (χ 2=150.12) and 0.252 (χ 2=118.01), respectively. The constructed evaluation index system of hospice comfort care consisted of 5 primary indexes and 32 secondary indexes. The five primary indexes were environmental comfort, physiological comfort, psychological comfort, spiritual comfort and social comfort with a weight coefficient of 0.202 3, 0.205 3, 0.205 3, 0.199 4 and 0.187 7, respectively. Conclusion:An evaluation index system for comfort care in community hospice has been preliminarily developed in this study, after validation it would provide a reference for assessing the comfort needs of patients with palliative care.

Objective:To establish selection criteria of community mentors for postgraduates in general medicine.Methods:A subject index system of selection criteria of community tutors for general practice postgraduates was drafted and refined based on literature retrieving and in-depth interviews during January to December 2020. Twenty experts in general practice related fields were invited for two rounds of Delphi consultation. Analytic hierarchy process was used to calculate index weight coefficient and consistency test; and the developed selection criteria were evaluated.Results:Through the in-depth interviews with 11 general practice faculty and 11 general practice postgraduates, the following five first-level thematic frameworks were refined: (1) the professional qualities; (2) the basic qualities; (3) the clinical ability; (4) the teaching ability; (5) the scientific research ability. After two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the selection criteria of community tutors for postgraduates in general practice were finally constructed, including 5 first-level indicators (professional quality, basic quality, medical practice ability, teaching and guidance ability, academic research ability) and 28 second-level indicators. The positive coefficients of experts were 85% and 100%; the expert authority coefficients were 0.825 and 0.860; and the expert opinion coordination coefficients were 0.486 and 0.515, respectively (all P<0.05). the weight coefficients of the five first-level indicators were 0.345, 0.210, 0.138, 0.210 and 0.097, respectively. Conclusion:The criteria and index system on the selection of community mentors for general practice postgraduates has been successfully developed in the study.

Objective:To investigate the application value of Da Vinci robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) for local resection of rectal neoplasms.Methods:The retros-pective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 7 rectal neoplasms patients undergoing R-TAMIS in Daping Hospital of Army Medical University from June 2017 to March 2021 were collected. There were 3 males and 4 females, aged (60±7)years. Observation indicators: (1) intraoperative situations; (2) postoperative recovery; (3) postoperative histopatholo-gical examinations; (4) follow-up. Follow-up was conducted using telephone interview or outpatient examination to detect readmission of patients within postoperative 30 days, tumor recurrence and metastasis and survival of patients. Follow-up was performed at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months and once every 6 months thereafter up to April 2021. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(range). Count data were described as absolute numbers. Results:(1) Intraoperative situations. All the 7 patients underwent R-TAMIS successfully without conversion to laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery. Of the 7 patients, 2 cases underwent full-thickness rectal resection and 5 cases underwent submucosal dissection of tumor. The rectal wounds were not sutured in 2 cases because of large lesions, and the rectal wounds were sutured with synthetic sutures in 5 cases after resection of lesions. Transanal drainage tube was placed in 2 cases and not in 5 cases. The volume of intra-operative blood loss of the 7 patients was 15(range, 2?50)mL. The total operation time of the 7 patients was (91.4±18.4)minutes, including (19.1±2.3)minutes for transanal platform placement and Da Vinci robotic surgical system installation, and (72.3±16.6)minutes for operation. There was no intraoperative complication such as urethral injury. (2) Postoperative recovery. All the 7 patients started water drinking and out-of-bed activities at postoperative day 1 and liquid food intake at postoperative day 2. The time to postoperative first flatus of the 7 patients was 1(range, 1?3)days. The two cases with transanal drainage underwent removing of transanal drainage at postoperative day 2. There was no postoperative complication and the duration of postoperative hospital stay of the 7 patients was 3(range, 3?9)days. (3) Postoperative histopathological examinations. Of the 7 patients, 3 cases had villous adenoma, 2 cases had villous adenoma combined with high grade intraepithelial neoplasia, local canceration and tumor invasion into submucosa (stage SM1), 1 case had villous adenoma combined with high grade intraepithelial neoplasia, local canceration and tumor localized in the inner mucosa (stage Tis) and 1 case had moderately differentiated adeno-carcinoma with tumor invasion into superficial muscle layer (stage T2). All the 7 patients had negative surgical margins with none of tumor cell remained in the base. (4) Follow-up. All the 7 patients were followed up for 18(range, 1?42)months. One of the 7 patients showed rectal adenocarcinoma with tumor invasion into superficial muscle layer by the postoperative histopathological examina-tion and was recommended for remedial radical surgery. The patient refused further surgery and underwent 3 courses of oral capecitabine chemotherapy. The other 6 patients did not receive postoperative chemotherapy. None of 7 patients underwent readmission within postoperative 30 days, and no patient had tumor local recurrence, distant metastasis or death during the follow-up.Conclusion:R-TAMIS for local resection of rectal neoplasms is safe and feasible for patients with rectal adenoma and early rectal cancer, with reliable short-term efficacy and short-term oncological efficacy.

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of early diagnosis by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) combined with mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy in the treatment of biliary ischemia after liver transplantation. Methods Clinical data of 9 recipients presenting with biliary ischemia detected by CEUS within 4 weeks after liver transplantation and diagnosed with non-anastomotic biliary stricture (NAS) within postoperative 1 year were retrospectively analyzed. In the conventional treatment group, 4 recipients were treated with conventional treatment including liver protection, cholagogic therapy and interventional therapy. In MSC treatment group, 5 recipients received intravenous infusion of MSC at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks after biliary ischemia detected by CEUS on the basis of conventional therapy. The interventional treatment and clinical prognosis within 1 year after liver transplantation were analyzed between two groups. Results Two recipients in the MSC treatment group required interventional therapy, which was initially given at 7-9 months after liver transplantation for 1-2 times. All recipients in the conventional treatment group required interventional therapy, which was initially delivered at postoperative 1-3 months for 2-6 times, earlier than that in the MSC treatment group. Within 1 year following liver transplantation, diffuse bile duct injury occurred in 2 recipients in MSC treatment group, and no graft dysfunction was observed. In the conventional treatment group, all recipients developed diffuse bile duct injury, and 2 recipients presented with graft dysfunction. Conclusions Early diagnosis of biliary ischemia after liver transplantation by CEUS combined with MSC therapy may delay and reduce the requirement of interventional therapy for NAS, and also improve clinical prognosis of the recipients.

Objective:To evaluate 5-years breast cancer-specific survival (CCS) by age, and the relationship of age at diagnosis and the risk of breast cancer mortality.Methods:Medical records of 3 470 resident patients diagnosed with primary, invasive female breast cancer between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2010 in four hospitals in Beijing were reviewed and collected. All patients were followed up until December 31, 2018 to acquire survival outcome. Five-years breast CCS of the five subgroups was estimated by the life-table method. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios ( HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of different levels of age stratification and breast cancer mortality, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) model was used to detect the dose-response relationship. Results:The median diagnosis age among 3 470 female breast cancer patients was 53.2 years. There were 1 289 patients in the age-group of 45~54 years, with the highest proportion of 37.15%. However, only 126 patients occurred in the age-group of less than 35 years, with the lowest proportion of 3.63%. A total of 528 (15.22%) patients died of breast cancer during the study period. Overall 5-year CCS was 90.72% (95% CI: 89.74%~91.70%), 88.68% (95% CI: 83.09%~94.27%) and 87.05% (95% CI: 84.27%~89.82%) for all of the patients, aged less than 35 years and those aged 65 years and older. Compared with patients with diagnosis age of 45~54 years, the multivariate-adjusted HRs for breast cancer mortality associated with patients in age-group of <35 years and those in the age-group of ≥65 years were 1.72 (95% CI: 1.06~2.81) and 1.89 (95% CI: 1.43~2.49), respectively. In addition, patients aged ≥65 years had significantly higher risk of breast cancer mortality in Luminal subtypes, with HR of 1.70 (95% CI: 1.17~2.46) for Luminal A breast cancer and HR of 3.84 (95% CI: 1.74~8.49) for Luminal B breast cancer. RCS analysis exhibited a non-linear ( "J-shaped" ) relationship between diagnosis age of female breast cancer and the risk of breast cancer mortality (nonlinear P<0.000 1). In addition, patients aged ≥65 years had significantly higher risk of breast cancer mortality in Luminal subtypes, with HR of 1.70 (95% CI: 1.17~2.46) for Luminal A breast cancer and HR of 3.84 (95% CI: 1.74~8.49) for Luminal B breast cancer. RCS analysis exhibited a non-linear ( "J-shaped" ) relationship between diagnosis age of female breast cancer and the risk of breast cancer mortality (nonlinear P<0.000 1). Conclusion:Age at diagnosis is an important prognostic factor for female breast cancer, with worse outcome for both young and old patients.