[摘 要] 目的：评估放疗作为原位疫苗的联合治疗模式在晚期软组织肉瘤（STS）患者中的有效性和安全性。方法：回顾性分析2020年12月至2024年9月期间在南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院肿瘤中心接受联合治疗模式的12例晚期STS患者的临床资料。12例患者均接受了联合治疗。放疗主要以大分割为主。靶向治疗：安罗替尼10例、阿帕替尼2例。免疫治疗以PD-1抗体为主。主要研究终点为疾病控制率（DCR），次要研究终点为客观有效率（ORR）及安全性。结果：接受联合治疗的12例STS患者中有0例CR，4例PR，7例SD，1例PD。ORR为33%，DCR为91.7%，其中靶病灶的DCR为100%。12例患者中，9例出现Ⅰ~Ⅱ级不良反应。最常发生的血液学不良反应是贫血（6例）、肝功能检查结果异常（3例）。最常发生的非血液学不良反应是尿蛋白（5例）、高血压（4例）、甲状腺功能异常（3例）、厌食（3例）、恶心呕吐（2例）；仅2例发生Ⅲ级血液毒性，有1例发生Ⅲ级气胸。结论：放疗作为原位疫苗的联合治疗模式在晚期STS患者中展现出较高的DCR，且未出现严重不良反应。该联合治疗模式具有良好的有效性与安全性。

Immunomodulatory cancer therapy is witnessing the rise of viral immunotherapy. The oncolytic influenza A virus, although promising in preclinical investigations, remains to be implemented in clinical practice. Recent progress in genetic engineering, coupled with experiential insights, offers opportunities to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of the influenza A virus. This review explores the use of the influenza virus, its attenuated forms, and associated vaccines in cancer immunotherapy, highlighting their respective advantages and challenges. We further elucidate methods for engineering influenza viruses and innovative approaches to augment them with cytokines or immune checkpoint inhibitors, aiming to maximize their clinical impact. Our goal is to provide insights essential for refining influenza A virus-based viral tumor immunotherapies.
Humans ; Neoplasms/immunology* ; Immunotherapy/trends* ; Influenza A virus/immunology* ; Oncolytic Virotherapy/trends* ; Animals ; Cancer Vaccines/therapeutic use* ; Oncolytic Viruses ; Genetic Engineering ; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use*

The American College Gastroenterology(ACG)recently released the 2024 edition of Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis.The guidelines first discuss the diagnosis,etiology,severity,and early management of acute pancreatitis,as well as the management of complications,especially pancreatic necrosis,and then the guidelines propose the clinical decisions such as antibiotics,nutrition,endoscopy,radiology,and surgical intervention.This article makes an excerpt of the key concepts and recommendations in the guidelines.

Objective:To analyze the risk factors of clinically significant bleeding in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).Methods:The clinical data of SAP patients who were managed at Changhai Hospital affiliated to Naval Medical University from January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-nine SAP patients with clinically significant bleeding were classified to form the bleeding group. There were 23 males and 6 females, aged (56.25±14.01) years old. Another 116 SAP patients with similar general data but with no clinically significant bleeding during the same hospitalization period were included to form the non-bleeding group based on a ratio of 1∶4. There were 94 males and 22 females, aged (56.14±13.96) years old in this non-bleeding group. The general data, modified CT severity index (MCTSI), bedside index for severity of acute pancreatitis (BISAP) and other clinical data of the two groups were collected to determine the risk factors of bleeding in SAP patients.Results:Of the 29 patients with bleeding, 6 had gastrointestinal bleeding, 14 had intra-abdominal bleeding, and 9 had mixed bleeding sites, 15 were cured and discharged, and 14 died. All the 29 SAP patients with bleeding received treatment using drugs. In addition, 8 patients underwent successful hemostasis using digital subtraction angiography, 3 underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis, 2 underwent successful surgical hemostasis, and 2 underwent successful conservative drug hemostasis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SAP patients with higher MCTSI ( OR=1.824, 95% CI: 1.187-2.802), longer prothrombin time (PT) ( OR=3.431, 95% CI: 1.470-8.007) and higher BISAP ( OR=2.286, 95% CI: 1.054-4.957) had an increased risk of bleeding (all P<0.05). Conclusion:The prognosis of SAP patients was compromised with bleeding. High MCTSI, prolonged PT, and high BISAP were independent risk factors for bleeding in SAP patients.

Objective:To compare the myocardial protection in pediatric patients undergoing living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) performed under propofol- versus desflurane-based anesthesia. Methods:Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification Ⅲ or Ⅳ pediatric patients of both sexes, aged 5-24 months, weighing 5-15 kg, scheduled for elective LDLT under general anesthesia, were divided into 2 groups ( n=30 each) using a random number table method: propofol group (group P) and desflurane anesthesia group (group D). During anesthesia maintenance, propofol 5-10 mg·kg -1·min -1 was intravenously infused in group P, desflurane 0.65 MAC-1.30 MAC was inhaled in group D. At 5 min after induction of anesthesia, at 1 h of reperfusion, at the end of surgery, at 1, 2, 3, 7 and 14 days after surgery, and on the day of discharge, the concentrations of serum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, creatine kinase isoenzyme, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, the occurrence of nausea and vomiting, agitation, and shivering, postoperative tracheal extubation time, intensive care unit stay time, and postoperative length of hospital stay were recorded within 24 h after surgery. Results:Compared with group P, the concentrations of serum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I and creatine kinase isoenzyme were significantly decreased after surgery, the extubation time and intensive care unit stay time were shortened ( P<0.05), and no significant change was found in serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations, postoperative length of hospital stay and incidence of postoperative adverse effects at each time point in group D ( P>0.05). Conclusions:Desflurane has better myocardial protection than propofol in pediatric patients undergoing LDLT, which is helpful for early prognosis.

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety between WangShiBaoChiWan and mosapride in the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD).Methods:From September 2019 to September 2020, patients with postprandial fullness and early satiation who met the Rome Ⅳ criteria for FD diagnosis were enrolled from 15 hospitals, including the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University (Shanghai Changhai Hospital), Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical College. The subjects were randomly divided into WangShiBaoChiWan (experimental) group and mosapride (control) group in the ratio of 1∶1. The treatment regimens were WangShiBaoChiWan+ mosapride simulator, WangShiBaoChiWan simulator+ mosapride, respectively with a treatment period of 2 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was the improvement rates of main symptoms before and after treatment, the secondary efficacy primary efficacy outcome was the total clinical effective rate and the change of the single symptom score. And the safety indicator included adverse events. Independent sample t-test, paired t-test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. Results:A total of 251 FD patients were enrolled in the full analysis set, including 124 in the experimental group and 127 in the control group; 241 FD patients were in the per-protocol analysis set, including 117 in the experimental group and 124 in the control group. The analysis of per-protocol analysis set showed that the improvement rates of the main symptoms of the experimental group and the control group were (66±29)% and (60±30)%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The improvement rate of the main symptoms of the experimental group reached 117% of that of the control group, which exceeded the expected non-inferiority standard of 80%. The total clinical effective rates of the experimental group and the control group were 76.07% (89/117) and 75.81% (94/124), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The results of full analysis set showed that the incidence of adverse events of the experimental group and the control group was 1.62% (2/124) and 1.57% (2/127), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). There were no serious adverse events in the two groups. Conclusion:The improvement rate of the main symptoms of WangShiBaoChiWan is not inferior to that of mosapride in the treatment of FD, and it has good safety.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omeprazole and sodium bicarbonate suspension in the treatment of peptic ulcer.Methods:This present study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, positive drug parallel controlled phase Ⅱ clinical trial. According to different indications, the trial was divided into gastric ulcer (GU) and duodenal ulcer (DU) studies. Patients were stratified-block randomly divided with a 1∶1 ratio into experimental group and control group. The patients in the experimental group were administrated with omeprazole and sodium bicarbonate suspension omeprazole (20 mg for DU or 40 mg for GU, and 1 680 mg sodium bicarbonate) once a day. The patients in the control group received omeprazole magnesium enteric-coated tablet20 mg for DU or 40 mg for GU once a day. The treatment period was 4 weeks for DU and 8 weeks for GU. The main efficacy indicator was ulcer healing rate under endoscopy. The time of pain disappearance and the total effective rate of clinical symptom relief were used as the secondary efficacy indicators, and the incidence of adverse reactions was used as the safety indicator. The data set included full analysis set (FAS), per-protocol set (PPS) and safety set (SS). Independent sample t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, chi square test, Fisher exact test method and non-inferiority test were used for statistical analysis. Results:Two hundred and seventy two DU patients and 237 GU patients were included in the FAS, 247 DU patients and 201 GU patients were included in the PPS, and 272 DU patients and 235 GU patients were included in the SS. The results of FAS analysis showed that after 4 weeks treatment, the healing rate of DU under endoscopy in the experimental group was 91.91% (125/136) and that in the control group was 94.85% (129/136), and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). After 8 weeks treatment the healing rate of GU under endoscopy in the experimental group was 86.44% (102/118) and that in the control group was 87.39% (104/119), and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The results of non-inferiority analysis showed the lower limit of 95% confidence interval of difference in effective rate between the two groups was over -10% (-8.84% for DU and -9.54% for GU), which indicated that the effective rate of experimental group was not inferior to that of the control group. The results of PPS analysis were consistent with the results of FAS. The results of FAS analysis showed the median time of abdominal pain disappearance of DU patients in the experimental group and the control group was both 6 d, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The median time of abdominal pain disappearance of GU patients in the experimental group and the control group was both 8 d, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, the total effective rates of clinical symptom relief of DU of the trial group and the control group were 95.59% (130/136) and 97.79% (133/136), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). After 8 weeks of treatment, the total effective rates of clinical symptom relief of GU of the experimental group and the control group were 95.76% (113/118) and 93.28% (111/119), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The results of SS analysis showed that the incidence of adverse reactions of DU patients in the trial group and the control group was 5.15% (7/136) and 2.21% (3/136), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions of GU patients in the experimental group and the control group was 12.71% (15/118) and 6.84% (8/117), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusions:Omeprazole and sodium bicarbonate suspension is not inferior to omeprazole magnesium enteric-coated tablet in healing efficacy under endoscopy in peptic ulcer, and has a good safety.

Objective:To explore the efficacy and safety of Ganhai Weikang capsule (GWC) in the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD).Methods:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel, multi-center, superiority clinical trial was conducted. From March 2018 to April 2020, totally 324 patients with dyspepsia symptoms, who were diagnosed as chronic non-atrophic gastritis by endoscopy and pathology and met the Rome Ⅳ diagnostic criteria for FD from 7 top hospitals were enrolled, including the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University (Shanghai Changhai Hospital), Heilongjiang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Capital Medical University and the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The patients were randomly divided into the GWC group and the placebo group according to the ratio of 1∶1. The patients of GWC group were given GWC and the patients of placebo group were given GWC capsule simulant. The patients of both groups orally took capsules before meals, 2.4 g each time and 3 times per day, and the course of treatment was 4 weeks. The main efficacy index was the total clinical effective rate after 4 weeks, and the secondary efficacy index was the changes of clinical symptom scores of upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning, postprandial fullness and early satiety. The safety index included laboratory tests and adverse events. Chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analysis.Results:A total of 320 FD patients were enrolled in the full analysis set (FAS), which included 161 cases in GWC group and 159 cases in placebo group. A total of 298 cases were in the per-protocol set (PPS), 149 cases each in GWC group and placebo group. The results of FAS and PPS both showed that the total clinical effective rates of the GWC group were higher than those of the placebo group (84.5%, 136/161 vs. 44.0%, 70/159 and 83.9%, 125/149 vs. 46.3%, 69/149), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=57.07 and 46.32, both P<0.001). In addition, the differences of the total score of main symptoms and each symptom (upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning, postprandial fullness and early satiety) before and after treatment of GWC group were all higher than those of the placebo group (FAS: 10 (7, 14) vs. 5 (3, 11); 3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (0, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs. 1 (0, 3); 3 (1, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs. 1 (0, 3). PPS: 10 (7, 13) vs. 5 (3, 11); 3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (0, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs. 1 (0, 2); 3 (1, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs.1 (0, 3)), and the differences were statistically significant (FAS: Z=5.80, 5.91, 3.19, 3.72 and 3.30; PPS: Z=5.14, 5.11, 2.86, 3.21 and 2.84; all P<0.01). The results of FAS and PPS indicated that the improvement rates of main symptoms and each symptom (upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning, postprandial fullness and early satiety) of GWC group were all higher than those of the placebo group (FAS: 77.8% (54.6%, 91.3%) vs. 42.9% (28.6%, 61.5%); 100.0% (60.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 60.0%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 100.0%); 71.4% (33.3%, 100.0%) vs. 41.4% (25.0%, 66.7%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (20.0%, 100.0%). PPS: 77.8% (54.2%, 89.5%) vs. 44.0% (28.6%, 65.0%); 100.0% (60.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 100.0%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 100.0%); 71.4% (33.3%, 100.0%) vs. 46.4% (25.0%, 66.7%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (20.0%, 100.0%)), and the differences were statistically significant (FAS: Z=8.60, 7.72, 4.98, 4.24 and 5.61; PPS: Z=7.90, 7.03, 4.49, 3.88 and 4.83; all P<0.001). After 2 weeks of treatment, the differences of the total score of main symptoms and score of each symptom (upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning and early satiety) before and after treatment of GWC group were all higher than those of the placebo group (5.0 (3.0, 8.0) vs. 4.0 (2.0, 6.0); 2.0 (1.0, 2.0) vs. 2.0 (0.0, 2.0); 1.5 (0.0, 2.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 2.0); 1.5 (0.0, 2.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 2.0)), and the differences were statistically significant ( Z=2.95, 3.44, 2.43 and 2.79, all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the GWC group and the placebo group (0.6%, 1/163 vs. 0, 0/159). Conclusion:The clinical total effective rate of GWC in the treatment of FD is superior to that of placebo and it has good safety.

Background::The pharmacokinetic and clinical behaviors of many proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in peptic ulcer treatment are altered by CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms. This non-inferiority study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the novel PPI anaprazole compared with rabeprazole. We also explored the influence of Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori) infection status and CYP2C19 polymorphism on anaprazole. Methods::In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, positive-drug parallel-controlled, phase III study, Chinese patients with duodenal ulcers were randomized 1:1 to receive rabeprazole 10 mg + anaprazole placebo or rabeprazole placebo + anaprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 4-week ulcer healing rate assessed by blinded independent review. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with improved overall and individual duodenal ulcer symptoms at 4 weeks. Furthermore, exploratory subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by H. pylori status and CYP2C19 polymorphism was conducted. Adverse events were monitored for safety. Non-inferiority analysis was conducted for the primary endpoint. Results::The study enrolled 448 patients (anaprazole, n = 225; rabeprazole, n = 223). The 4-week healing rates were 90.9% and 93.7% for anaprazole and rabeprazole, respectively (difference, -2.8% [95% confidence interval, -7.7%, 2.2%]), demonstrating non-inferiority of anaprazole to rabeprazole. Overall duodenal ulcer symptoms improved in 90.9% and 92.5% of patients, respectively. Improvement rates of individual symptoms were similar between the groups. Healing rates did not significantly differ by H. pylori status or CYP2C19 genotype for either treatment group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for anaprazole (72/220, 32.7%) and rabeprazole (84/219, 38.4%). Conclusions::The efficacy of anaprazole is non-inferior to that of rabeprazole in Chinese patients with duodenal ulcers.Registration::ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04215653.

Objective:To investigate the predictive value of acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) score for the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP), infectious pancreatic necrosis and patients′ death.Methods:Clinical data of 719 patients with AP were collected from the AP database of the National Clinical Research Center for Digestive System Diseases from January 2016 to June 2018. According to the severity of the disease, they were divided into MAP group (506 cases), MSAP group (112 cases) and SAP group (101 cases). AGI, APACHEⅡ, MCTSI and BISAP scores were calcululated in the three groups. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was drawn and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The predictive value of the above four scoring systems for the hospitalization days, disease severity, infectious pancreatic necrosis and death was analyzed, respectively.Results:There were no cases of infectious pancreatic necrosis or death in the MAP group, but there were 9 cases of infectious pancreatic necrosis and 2 deaths in the MSAP group and 19 cases of infectious pancreatic necrosis and 8 deaths in the SAP group. There was a strong correlation between AGI score and AP patients′ hospitalization days ( r=0.619). AUC of AGI, APACHEⅡ, MCTSI and BISAP score in predicting the AP patients′ severity (MSAP+ SAP) was 0.967 (95% CI 0.951-0.982), 0.769(95% CI 0.720-0.899), 0.842(95% CI 0.809-0.875), 0.862 (95% CI0.832-0.893). AUC for forecasting infectious pancreatic necrosis was 0.803, 0.677, 0.692, 0.724, and the 95% CI was 0.724-0.882, 0.573-0.781, 0.582-0.636, 0.801-0.812. AUC for predicting death in patients with AP were 0.915, 0.597, 0.659, 0.812, and the 95% CI were 0.843-0.986, 0.444-0.751, 0.498-0.698 and 0.882-0.926. AGI score had the highest predictive value, followed by BISAP score, and the correlation between these two scores was the closest. The predictive value of AGI combined with BISAP score for infectious pancreatic necrosis and patient death (AUC were 0.837, 0.942, 95% CI were 0.770-0.903, 0.897-0.987) was better than that of AGI and BISAP score alone. Conclusions:AGI score combined with BISAP score is more effective in predicting the severity of AP, the occurrence of infectious pancreatic necrosis or patient death.