Objective To evaluate the impact of an integrated management mode of prenatal diagnosis-postnatal treatment for congenital heart disease (CHD) on perioperative and long-term outcomes of the arterial switch operation (ASO), and to analyze the efficacy of ASO in a single center. Methods This retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 183 children who underwent ASO at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital from 2018 to 2024. The cohort included 106 (57.9%) patients of transposition of the great arteries with intact ventricular septum (TGA/IVS), 61 (33.3%) patients of transposition of the great arteries with ventricular septal defect (TGA/VSD), and 16 (8.7%) patients of Taussig-bing anomaly (TBA). Perioperative indicators were compared between 91 patients in the prenatal-postnatal integrated management group (an integrated group) and 92 patients in the traditional management group (a non-integrated group). Long-term survival and reoperation rates were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results The overall perioperative mortality rate was 4.9% (9/183), showing a downward trend year by year. The primary cause of perioperative mortality was low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), which occurred in 12 patients (6.6% incidence) with a mortality rate of 75.0%. The integrated group had a higher proportion of males (89.0% vs. 72.8%, P<0.05) and lower body weight [3.1 (2.7, 3.3) kg vs. 3.3 (3.0, 3.7) kg, P<0.05] compared to the non-integrated group. The age at surgery was significantly earlier in the integrated group [7 (3, 10) d vs. 14 (9, 48) d, P<0.05], and all children in the integrated group underwent ASO within the optimal surgical window (100.0% vs. 82.6%, P<0.05). Intraoperatively, cardiopulmonary bypass time [173 (150, 207) min vs. 186 (159, 237) min, P<0.05] and aortic cross-clamp time [100 (90, 117) min vs. 116 (97, 142) min, P<0.05] were significantly shorter in the integrated group. Although the integrated group had longer postoperative mechanical ventilation time [145 (98, 214) h vs. 116 (77, 147) h, P<0.05] and higher 48-hour maximum vasoactive inotropic score [15 (10, 21) points vs. 12 (8, 16) points, P<0.05], there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe complications (LCOS, necrotizing enterocolitis, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or mortality rate (3.3% vs. 6.5%, P=0.51) between the two groups, despite earlier surgical intervention and a higher proportion of critically ill cases in the integrated group. The length of hospital stay in the emergency surgery group was significantly shorter than that in the elective surgery group [20 (15, 28) d vs. 25 (21, 30) d, P<0.05], suggesting that early surgery may be of potential benefit. A total of 163 patients were successfully followed up for a median of 4.7 years, with a 5-year survival rate of 95.1% and a freedom from reintervention survival rate of 95.1%. There were no late deaths, and the most common postoperative complication was pulmonary artery stenosis. Conclusion The integrated management model allowed critically ill children with lower body weights to safely undergo surgery, significantly optimizing the timing of surgery and shortening intraoperative times. The long-term risk of reoperation after ASO is primarily concentrated on pulmonary artery stenosis, necessitating long-term follow-up and monitoring.

Objective:To investigate the prognosis of patients with initially resectable gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) who were treated by different modalities, and analyze the influencing factors for prognosis of patients.Methods:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 327 patients with initially resectable GCLM who were included in the database of a nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort study on GCLM based on real-world data from January 2010 to December 2019 were collected. There were 267 males and 60 females, aged 61(54,68)years. According to the specific situations of patients, treatment modalities included radical surgery combined with systemic treatment, palliative surgery combined with systemic treatment, and systemic treatment alone. Observation indicators: (1) clinical characteristics of patients who were treated by different modalities; (2) prognostic outcomes of patients who were treated by different modalities; (3) analysis of influencing factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM; (4) screening of potential beneficiaries in patients who were treated by radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients who were treated by palliative surgery plus systemic treatment. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the independent sample t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M( Q1, Q3), and comparison between groups was conducted using the rank sum test. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi-square test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rate and draw survival curve, and Log-Rank test was used for survival analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using the COX proportional hazard regression model. The propensity score matching was employed by the 1:1 nearest neighbor matching method with a caliper value of 0.1. The forest plots were utilized to evaluate potential benefits of diverse surgical combined with systemic treatments within the population. Results:(1) Clinical characteristics of patients who were treated by different modalities. Of 327 patients, there were 118 cases undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment, 164 cases undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment, and 45 cases undergoing systemic treatment alone. There were significant differences in smoking, drinking, site of primary gastric tumor, diameter of primary gastric tumor, site of liver metastasis, and metastatic interval among the three groups of patients ( P<0.05). (2) Prognostic outcomes of patients who were treated by different modalities. The median overall survival time of the 327 pati-ents was 19.9 months (95% confidence interval as 14.9-24.9 months), with 1-, 3-year overall survival rate of 61.3%, 32.7%, respectively. The 1-year overall survival rates of patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment, palliative surgery plus systemic treatment and systemic treatment alone were 68.3%, 63.1%, 30.6%, and the 3-year overall survival rates were 41.1%, 29.9%, 11.9%, showing a significant difference in overall survival rate among the three groups of patients ( χ2=19.46, P<0.05). Results of further analysis showed that there was a significant difference in overall survival rate between patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients undergoing systemic treatment alone ( hazard ratio=0.40, 95% confidence interval as 0.26-0.61, P<0.05), between patients undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment and patients under-going systemic treatment alone ( hazard ratio=0.47, 95% confidence interval as 0.32-0.71, P<0.05). (3) Analysis of influencing factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM. Results of multivariate analysis showed that the larger primary gastric tumor, poorly differentiated tumor, larger liver metastasis, multiple hepatic metastases were independent risk factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM ( hazard ratio=1.20, 1.70, 1.20, 2.06, 95% confidence interval as 1.14-1.27, 1.25-2.31, 1.04-1.42, 1.45-2.92, P<0.05) and immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the treatment modality of radical or palliative surgery plus systemic therapy were independent protective factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM ( hazard ratio=0.60, 0.39, 0.46, 95% confidence interval as 0.42-0.87, 0.25-0.60, 0.30-0.70, P<0.05). (4) Screening of potentinal beneficiaries in patients who were treated by radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients who were treated by palliative surgery plus systemic treatment. Results of forest plots analysis showed that for patients with high-moderate differentiated GCLM and patients with liver metastasis located in the left liver, the overall survival rate of patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment was better than patients undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment ( hazard ratio=0.21, 0.42, 95% confidence interval as 0.09-0.48, 0.23-0.78, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared to systemic therapy alone, both radical and palliative surgery plus systemic therapy can improve the pro-gnosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM. The larger primary gastric tumor, poorly differen-tiated tumor, larger liver metastasis, multiple hepatic metastases are independent risk factors for prognosis of patients with initial resectable GCLM and immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the treatment modality of radical or palliative surgery plus systemic therapy are independent protective factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM.

Objective:To examine the impact of varied surgical treatment strategies on the prognosis of patients with initial resectable gastric cancer liver metastases (IR-GCLM).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study. Employing a retrospective cohort design, the study selected clinicopathological data from the national multi-center retrospective cohort study database, focusing on 282 patients with IR-GCLM who underwent surgical intervention between January 2010 and December 2019. There were 231 males and 51 males, aging ( M(IQR)) 61 (14) years (range: 27 to 80 years). These patients were stratified into radical and palliative treatment groups based on treatment decisions. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and distinctions in survival rates were assessed using the Log-rank test. The Cox risk regression model evaluated HR for various factors, controlling for confounders through multivariate analysis to comprehensively evaluate the influence of surgery on the prognosis of IR-GCLM patients. A restricted cubic spline Cox proportional hazard model assessed and delineated intricate associations between measured variables and prognosis. At the same time, the X-tile served as an auxiliary tool to identify critical thresholds in the survival analysis for IR-GCLM patients. Subgroup analysis was then conducted to identify potential beneficiary populations in different surgical treatments. Results:(1) The radical group comprised 118 patients, all undergoing R0 resection or local physical therapy of primary and metastatic lesions. The palliative group comprised 164 patients, with 52 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors and liver metastases, 56 cases undergoing radical resections for gastric primary tumors only, 45 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors, and 11 cases receiving palliative treatments for liver metastases. A statistically significant distinction was observed between the groups regarding the site and the number of liver metastases (both P<0.05). (2) The median overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 22.7 months (95% CI: 17.8 to 27.6 months), with 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 65.4% and 35.6%, respectively. The 1-year OS rates for patients in the radical surgical group and palliative surgical group were 68.3% and 63.1%, while the corresponding 3-year OS rates were 42.2% and 29.9%, respectively. A comparison of OS between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference ( P=0.254). Further analysis indicated that patients undergoing palliative gastric cancer resection alone had a significantly worse prognosis compared to other surgical options ( HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.24, P=0.006). (3) The size of the primary gastric tumor significantly influenced the patients′ prognosis ( HR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.79, P<0.01), with HR showing a progressively increasing trend as tumor size increased. (4) Subgroup analysis indicates that radical treatment may be more effective compared to palliative treatment in the following specific cases: well/moderately differentiated tumors ( HR=2.84, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.41, P=0.001), and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver ( HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.57, P=0.010). Conclusions:In patients with IR-GCLM, radical surgery did not produce a significant improvement in the overall prognosis compared to palliative surgery. However, within specific patient subgroups (well/moderately differentiated tumors, and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver), radical treatment can significantly improve prognosis compared to palliative approaches.

Objective:To examine the impact of varied surgical treatment strategies on the prognosis of patients with initial resectable gastric cancer liver metastases (IR-GCLM).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study. Employing a retrospective cohort design, the study selected clinicopathological data from the national multi-center retrospective cohort study database, focusing on 282 patients with IR-GCLM who underwent surgical intervention between January 2010 and December 2019. There were 231 males and 51 males, aging ( M(IQR)) 61 (14) years (range: 27 to 80 years). These patients were stratified into radical and palliative treatment groups based on treatment decisions. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and distinctions in survival rates were assessed using the Log-rank test. The Cox risk regression model evaluated HR for various factors, controlling for confounders through multivariate analysis to comprehensively evaluate the influence of surgery on the prognosis of IR-GCLM patients. A restricted cubic spline Cox proportional hazard model assessed and delineated intricate associations between measured variables and prognosis. At the same time, the X-tile served as an auxiliary tool to identify critical thresholds in the survival analysis for IR-GCLM patients. Subgroup analysis was then conducted to identify potential beneficiary populations in different surgical treatments. Results:(1) The radical group comprised 118 patients, all undergoing R0 resection or local physical therapy of primary and metastatic lesions. The palliative group comprised 164 patients, with 52 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors and liver metastases, 56 cases undergoing radical resections for gastric primary tumors only, 45 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors, and 11 cases receiving palliative treatments for liver metastases. A statistically significant distinction was observed between the groups regarding the site and the number of liver metastases (both P<0.05). (2) The median overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 22.7 months (95% CI: 17.8 to 27.6 months), with 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 65.4% and 35.6%, respectively. The 1-year OS rates for patients in the radical surgical group and palliative surgical group were 68.3% and 63.1%, while the corresponding 3-year OS rates were 42.2% and 29.9%, respectively. A comparison of OS between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference ( P=0.254). Further analysis indicated that patients undergoing palliative gastric cancer resection alone had a significantly worse prognosis compared to other surgical options ( HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.24, P=0.006). (3) The size of the primary gastric tumor significantly influenced the patients′ prognosis ( HR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.79, P<0.01), with HR showing a progressively increasing trend as tumor size increased. (4) Subgroup analysis indicates that radical treatment may be more effective compared to palliative treatment in the following specific cases: well/moderately differentiated tumors ( HR=2.84, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.41, P=0.001), and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver ( HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.57, P=0.010). Conclusions:In patients with IR-GCLM, radical surgery did not produce a significant improvement in the overall prognosis compared to palliative surgery. However, within specific patient subgroups (well/moderately differentiated tumors, and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver), radical treatment can significantly improve prognosis compared to palliative approaches.

Precision oncology aims to offer the most appropriate treatments to cancer patients mainly based on their individual genetic information. Genomics has provided numerous valuable data on driver mutations and risk loci; however, it remains a formidable challenge to transform these data into therapeutic agents. Transcriptomics describes the multifarious expression patterns of both mRNAs and non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), which facilitates the deciphering of genomic codes. In this review, we take breast cancer as an example to demonstrate the applications of these rich RNA resources in precision medicine exploration. These include the use of mRNA profiles in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtyping to inform corresponding candidate targeted therapies; current advancements and achievements of high-throughput RNA interference (RNAi) screening technologies in breast cancer; and microRNAs as functional signatures for defining cell identities and regulating the biological activities of breast cancer cells. We summarize the benefits of transcriptomic analyses in breast cancer management and propose that unscrambling the core signaling networks of cancer may be an important task of multiple-omic data integration for precision oncology.
Female ; Gene Expression Profiling ; Genomics ; Humans ; MicroRNAs ; metabolism ; Precision Medicine ; RNA Interference ; RNA, Messenger ; metabolism ; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms ; classification ; genetics ; metabolism ; therapy