1.Research progress on impact of key proteins associated with DNA damage response on radiosensitivity
Shaorong HUANG ; Lianying FANG ; Hao SUN ; Linping ZHENG ; Yingmin CHEN ; Weiguo LI ; Ya MA
Chinese Journal of Radiological Health 2024;33(6):716-721
At present, the incidence and mortality of tumors are increasing, and the treatment of tumors has attracted much attention. Radiotherapy is a key method for tumor treatment; however, its effectiveness is often constrained by radioresistance. During tumor radiotherapy, DNA damage response (DDR) is a key factor in the radioresistance of tumor cells. Research has shown that the radiosensitivity of tumor cells can be effectively improved by regulating the expression of key proteins in the DDR pathway. Targeting the DDR signaling pathway has become an effective strategy to reduce tumor radioresistance. This article focuses on the mechanisms, clinical research status, limitations, and current challenges associated with the key DDR proteins DNA-PKcs, ATM, ATR, and PARP as therapeutic targets for tumor radiotherapy sensitization, in order to provide a reference for the development of radiotherapy sensitization agents.
3.Multidimensional integration and 360° support on the quality of life in women patients with systemic lupus erythematosus
Cuifen ZHAO ; Junxian MA ; Shaorong CHAO ; Jingjing SUN ; Jie LIU ; Pei WANG ; Yan ZHANG ; Jing WEN ; Qianfeng HE
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing 2020;36(32):2533-2539
Objective:To explore the influence of multidimensional integration and 360° support on the function of family and marriage, and quality of life in women patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.Methods:Totally 196 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of the Air Force Medical University from August 2016 to November 2017 were included. According to random number table method, these patients were divided into observation group and control group as 98 cases each. Conventional care and hospital discharge were used for control group. On the basis of this, multidimensional integration and 360° support were used for patients of observation group. The function of family and marriage, quality of life in patients were assessed before and after 3 months of the intervention. The treatment adherence was evaluated in 3 months and 6 months after intervention.Results:Before intervention, the marriage family function score, marital satisfaction, conflict resolution methods and the relationship with friends and family, husband and wife exchange scores of the observation group were (2.3 ± 0.5), (24.6 ± 6.1), (25.7 ± 7.1), (28.2 ± 6.9), (28.8 ± 6.9) points, respectively. Three months after intervention, these scores were (2.5 ± 0.7), (31.6 ± 5.0), (31.7 ± 5.3), (28.1 ± 6.8), (29.0 ± 7.1) points, respectively. There was statistically significant difference between before and after the intervention ( t values were -2.371 - 8.631, P < 0.01). These scores of control group before the intervention were (2.3 ± 0.6), (24.5 ± 6.2), (25.2 ± 7.2), (32.5 ± 6.0), (33.9 ± 6.3) points, respectively. Three months after intervention, these scores were (2.3 ± 0.4), (24.5 ± 6.2), (26.1 ± 6.9), (29.1± 4.8), (28.5 ± 7.2) points. Significant differeces were found between before and after the intervention in control group ( t values were -3.878-6.323, P < 0.05 or 0.01). There was statistically significant difference between the two groups after the intervention ( t values were 2.675-8.631, P<0.01). As for observation group, planning (62.8 ± 27.2 vs. 75.5 ± 25.4) and intimate relationship (62.8 ± 25.2 vs. 78.2± 24.9) in quality of life were obviously difference before and after 3 months of intervention ( t values were 3.050, 3.639, P < 0.01). As for control group, planning (62.5 ± 27.6 vs. 65.7 ± 24.9) and intimate relationship (65.8 ±25.2 vs. 63.5 ± 23.8) in quality of life were obviously difference before and after 3 months of intervention ( t values were 2.375, 3.132, P < 0.01). There was statistically significant difference between the two groups after the intervention ( t values were 3.050, 3.639, P < 0.01). The treatment adherence of observation group was significant better than control group. After 6 months intervention, the treatment adherece of observation group was 83.67% (82/98), while the treatment adherece of control group was 44.89% (44/98), significant differences were found btween the two groups ( χ2 value was 0.511, P < 0.01). Conclusion:Multidimensional integration and 360° support obviously improved function of family and marriage, improved the understanding of disease, and self-management ability of patients. Therefore, it can increase the treatment adherence and improve quality of life in SLE patients.
4. Effect of humanistic psychological nursing intervention on negative emotion and quality of life in patients with palliative treatment of digestive tract malignancies
Shaorong YANG ; Guowei MA ; Gang YIN
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing 2019;35(36):2864-2868
Objective:
To investigate the effect of clinical psychological nursing intervention on negative emotion and quality of life in patients with palliative treatment of digestive tract malignancies.
Methods:
From June 2016 to June 2018, 100 patients with palliative treatment of digestive tract malignancies admitted to the first people′s hospital of Tianmen city as subjects. According to the random number table, patients were divided into control group and observation group, with 50 in each group. The control group received routine nursing intervention and the observation group received clinical psychological nursing intervention.The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Quality of Life Measurement Scale (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to assess the mental state and quality of life of patients, and the differences of the above indicators before and after intervention were compared.
Results:
After intervention, the HAMD score and HAMA scores in the observation group were (11.22±1.97) and (8.31±1.77), those scores in the control group were (14.58±2.16) and (9.35±2.49), the difference was statistically significant (

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail