1.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
2.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
3.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
4.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
5.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
6.Expert consensus on surgical treatment of oropharyngeal cancer
China Anti-Cancer Association Head and Neck Oncology Committee ; China Anti-Cancer Association Holistic Integrative Oral Cancer on Preventing and Screen-ing Committee ; Min RUAN ; Nannan HAN ; Changming AN ; Chao CHEN ; Chuanjun CHEN ; Minjun DONG ; Wei HAN ; Jinsong HOU ; Jun HOU ; Zhiquan HUANG ; Chao LI ; Siyi LI ; Bing LIU ; Fayu LIU ; Xiaozhi LV ; Zheng-Hua LV ; Guoxin REN ; Xiaofeng SHAN ; Zhengjun SHANG ; Shuyang SUN ; Tong JI ; Chuanzheng SUN ; Guowen SUN ; Hao TIAN ; Yuanyin WANG ; Yueping WANG ; Shuxin WEN ; Wei WU ; Jinhai YE ; Di YU ; Chunye ZHANG ; Kai ZHANG ; Ming ZHANG ; Sheng ZHANG ; Jiawei ZHENG ; Xuan ZHOU ; Yu ZHOU ; Guopei ZHU ; Ling ZHU ; Susheng MIAO ; Yue HE ; Jugao FANG ; Chenping ZHANG ; Zhiyuan ZHANG
Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases 2024;32(11):821-833
With the increasing proportion of human papilloma virus(HPV)infection in the pathogenic factors of oro-pharyngeal cancer,a series of changes have occurred in the surgical treatment.While the treatment mode has been im-proved,there are still many problems,including the inconsistency between diagnosis and treatment modes,the lack of popularization of reconstruction technology,the imperfect post-treatment rehabilitation system,and the lack of effective preventive measures.Especially in terms of treatment mode for early oropharyngeal cancer,there is no unified conclu-sion whether it is surgery alone or radiotherapy alone,and whether robotic minimally invasive surgery has better func-tional protection than radiotherapy.For advanced oropharyngeal cancer,there is greater controversy over the treatment mode.It is still unclear whether to adopt a non-surgical treatment mode of synchronous chemoradiotherapy or induction chemotherapy combined with synchronous chemoradiotherapy,or a treatment mode of surgery combined with postopera-tive chemoradiotherapy.In order to standardize the surgical treatment of oropharyngeal cancer in China and clarify the indications for surgical treatment of oropharyngeal cancer,this expert consensus,based on the characteristics and treat-ment status of oropharyngeal cancer in China and combined with the international latest theories and practices,forms consensus opinions in multiple aspects of preoperative evaluation,surgical indication determination,primary tumor re-section,neck lymph node dissection,postoperative defect repair,postoperative complication management prognosis and follow-up of oropharyngeal cancer patients.The key points include:① Before the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer,the expression of P16 protein should be detected to clarify HPV status;② Perform enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the maxillofacial region before surgery to evaluate the invasion of oropharyngeal cancer and guide precise surgical resec-tion of oropharyngeal cancer.Evaluating mouth opening and airway status is crucial for surgical approach decisions and postoperative risk prediction;③ For oropharyngeal cancer patients who have to undergo major surgery and cannot eat for one to two months,it is recommended to undergo percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy before surgery to effectively improve their nutritional intake during treatment;④ Early-stage oropharyngeal cancer patients may opt for either sur-gery alone or radiation therapy alone.For intermediate and advanced stages,HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer general-ly prioritizes radiation therapy,with concurrent chemotherapy considered based on tumor staging.Surgical treatment is recommended as the first choice for HPV unrelated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma(including primary and re-current)and recurrent HPV related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma after radiotherapy and chemotherapy;⑤ For primary exogenous T1-2 oropharyngeal cancer,direct surgery through the oral approach or da Vinci robotic sur-gery is preferred.For T3-4 patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer,it is recommended to use temporary mandibu-lectomy approach and lateral pharyngotomy approach for surgery as appropriate;⑥ For cT1-2N0 oropharyngeal cancer patients with tumor invasion depth>3 mm and cT3-4N0 HPV unrelated oropharyngeal cancer patients,selective neck dissection of levels ⅠB to Ⅳ is recommended.For cN+HPV unrelated oropharyngeal cancer patients,therapeutic neck dissection in regions Ⅰ-Ⅴ is advised;⑦ If PET-CT scan at 12 or more weeks after completion of radiation shows intense FDG uptake in any node,or imaging suggests continuous enlargement of lymph nodes,the patient should undergo neck dissection;⑧ For patients with suspected extracapsular invasion preoperatively,lymph node dissection should include removal of surrounding muscle and adipose connective tissue;⑨ The reconstruction of oropharyngeal cancer defects should follow the principle of reconstruction steps,with priority given to adjacent flaps,followed by distal pedicled flaps,and finally free flaps.The anterolateral thigh flap with abundant tissue can be used as the preferred flap for large-scale postoperative defects.
7.Impacts of gut microbiota on metabolism and efficacy of timosaponin A-III
Wen-jin HUANG ; Ling-yun PAN ; Xin-xin GAO ; Wei-ze ZHU ; Hou-kai LI
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica 2024;59(8):2372-2380
Intraperitoneal administration of timosaponin A-III (TA-III) has therapeutic effects on high-fat diet-induced metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but oral administration has no effect. This suggests that gut microbiota may affect the oral bioavailability of TA-III. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is an inflammatory subtype of MASLD. To investigate the therapeutic effect of different administration modes of TA-III on MASH and its relationship with gut microbiota metabolism. In this study, a MASH mouse model was induced by choline-deficient,
8.Safety of high-carbohydrate fluid diet 2 h versus overnight fasting before non-emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Wenbo MENG ; W. Joseph LEUNG ; Zhenyu WANG ; Qiyong LI ; Leida ZHANG ; Kai ZHANG ; Xuefeng WANG ; Meng WANG ; Qi WANG ; Yingmei SHAO ; Jijun ZHANG ; Ping YUE ; Lei ZHANG ; Kexiang ZHU ; Xiaoliang ZHU ; Hui ZHANG ; Senlin HOU ; Kailin CAI ; Hao SUN ; Ping XUE ; Wei LIU ; Haiping WANG ; Li ZHANG ; Songming DING ; Zhiqing YANG ; Ming ZHANG ; Hao WENG ; Qingyuan WU ; Bendong CHEN ; Tiemin JIANG ; Yingkai WANG ; Lichao ZHANG ; Ke WU ; Xue YANG ; Zilong WEN ; Chun LIU ; Long MIAO ; Zhengfeng WANG ; Jiajia LI ; Xiaowen YAN ; Fangzhao WANG ; Lingen ZHANG ; Mingzhen BAI ; Ningning MI ; Xianzhuo ZHANG ; Wence ZHOU ; Jinqiu YUAN ; Azumi SUZUKI ; Kiyohito TANAKA ; Jiankang LIU ; Ula NUR ; Elisabete WEIDERPASS ; Xun LI
Chinese Medical Journal 2024;137(12):1437-1446
Background::Although overnight fasting is recommended prior to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the benefits and safety of high-carbohydrate fluid diet (CFD) intake 2 h before ERCP remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze whether high-CFD intake 2 h before ERCP can be safe and accelerate patients’ recovery.Methods::This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial involved 15 tertiary ERCP centers. A total of 1330 patients were randomized into CFD group ( n = 665) and fasting group ( n = 665). The CFD group received 400 mL of maltodextrin orally 2 h before ERCP, while the control group abstained from food/water overnight (>6 h) before ERCP. All ERCP procedures were performed using deep sedation with intravenous propofol. The investigators were blinded but not the patients. The primary outcomes included postoperative fatigue and abdominal pain score, and the secondary outcomes included complications and changes in metabolic indicators. The outcomes were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. Results::The post-ERCP fatigue scores were significantly lower at 4 h (4.1 ± 2.6 vs. 4.8 ± 2.8, t = 4.23, P <0.001) and 20 h (2.4 ± 2.1 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4, t= 7.94, P <0.001) in the CFD group, with least-squares mean differences of 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26–0.71, P <0.001) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57–0.95, P <0.001), respectively. The 4-h pain scores (2.1 ± 1.7 vs. 2.2 ± 1.7, t = 2.60, P = 0.009, with a least-squares mean difference of 0.21 [95% CI: 0.05–0.37]) and positive urine ketone levels (7.7% [39/509] vs. 15.4% [82/533], χ2 = 15.13, P <0.001) were lower in the CFD group. The CFD group had significantly less cholangitis (2.1% [13/634] vs. 4.0% [26/658], χ2 = 3.99, P = 0.046) but not pancreatitis (5.5% [35/634] vs. 6.5% [43/658], χ2 = 0.59, P = 0.444). Subgroup analysis revealed that CFD reduced the incidence of complications in patients with native papilla (odds ratio [OR]: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.95, P = 0.028) in the multivariable models. Conclusion::Ingesting 400 mL of CFD 2 h before ERCP is safe, with a reduction in post-ERCP fatigue, abdominal pain, and cholangitis during recovery.Trail Registration::ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT03075280.
9.Chinese expert consensus on blood support mode and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma patients (version 2024)
Yao LU ; Yang LI ; Leiying ZHANG ; Hao TANG ; Huidan JING ; Yaoli WANG ; Xiangzhi JIA ; Li BA ; Maohong BIAN ; Dan CAI ; Hui CAI ; Xiaohong CAI ; Zhanshan ZHA ; Bingyu CHEN ; Daqing CHEN ; Feng CHEN ; Guoan CHEN ; Haiming CHEN ; Jing CHEN ; Min CHEN ; Qing CHEN ; Shu CHEN ; Xi CHEN ; Jinfeng CHENG ; Xiaoling CHU ; Hongwang CUI ; Xin CUI ; Zhen DA ; Ying DAI ; Surong DENG ; Weiqun DONG ; Weimin FAN ; Ke FENG ; Danhui FU ; Yongshui FU ; Qi FU ; Xuemei FU ; Jia GAN ; Xinyu GAN ; Wei GAO ; Huaizheng GONG ; Rong GUI ; Geng GUO ; Ning HAN ; Yiwen HAO ; Wubing HE ; Qiang HONG ; Ruiqin HOU ; Wei HOU ; Jie HU ; Peiyang HU ; Xi HU ; Xiaoyu HU ; Guangbin HUANG ; Jie HUANG ; Xiangyan HUANG ; Yuanshuai HUANG ; Shouyong HUN ; Xuebing JIANG ; Ping JIN ; Dong LAI ; Aiping LE ; Hongmei LI ; Bijuan LI ; Cuiying LI ; Daihong LI ; Haihong LI ; He LI ; Hui LI ; Jianping LI ; Ning LI ; Xiying LI ; Xiangmin LI ; Xiaofei LI ; Xiaojuan LI ; Zhiqiang LI ; Zhongjun LI ; Zunyan LI ; Huaqin LIANG ; Xiaohua LIANG ; Dongfa LIAO ; Qun LIAO ; Yan LIAO ; Jiajin LIN ; Chunxia LIU ; Fenghua LIU ; Peixian LIU ; Tiemei LIU ; Xiaoxin LIU ; Zhiwei LIU ; Zhongdi LIU ; Hua LU ; Jianfeng LUAN ; Jianjun LUO ; Qun LUO ; Dingfeng LYU ; Qi LYU ; Xianping LYU ; Aijun MA ; Liqiang MA ; Shuxuan MA ; Xainjun MA ; Xiaogang MA ; Xiaoli MA ; Guoqing MAO ; Shijie MU ; Shaolin NIE ; Shujuan OUYANG ; Xilin OUYANG ; Chunqiu PAN ; Jian PAN ; Xiaohua PAN ; Lei PENG ; Tao PENG ; Baohua QIAN ; Shu QIAO ; Li QIN ; Ying REN ; Zhaoqi REN ; Ruiming RONG ; Changshan SU ; Mingwei SUN ; Wenwu SUN ; Zhenwei SUN ; Haiping TANG ; Xiaofeng TANG ; Changjiu TANG ; Cuihua TAO ; Zhibin TIAN ; Juan WANG ; Baoyan WANG ; Chunyan WANG ; Gefei WANG ; Haiyan WANG ; Hongjie WANG ; Peng WANG ; Pengli WANG ; Qiushi WANG ; Xiaoning WANG ; Xinhua WANG ; Xuefeng WANG ; Yong WANG ; Yongjun WANG ; Yuanjie WANG ; Zhihua WANG ; Shaojun WEI ; Yaming WEI ; Jianbo WEN ; Jun WEN ; Jiang WU ; Jufeng WU ; Aijun XIA ; Fei XIA ; Rong XIA ; Jue XIE ; Yanchao XING ; Yan XIONG ; Feng XU ; Yongzhu XU ; Yongan XU ; Yonghe YAN ; Beizhan YAN ; Jiang YANG ; Jiangcun YANG ; Jun YANG ; Xinwen YANG ; Yongyi YANG ; Chunyan YAO ; Mingliang YE ; Changlin YIN ; Ming YIN ; Wen YIN ; Lianling YU ; Shuhong YU ; Zebo YU ; Yigang YU ; Anyong YU ; Hong YUAN ; Yi YUAN ; Chan ZHANG ; Jinjun ZHANG ; Jun ZHANG ; Kai ZHANG ; Leibing ZHANG ; Quan ZHANG ; Rongjiang ZHANG ; Sanming ZHANG ; Shengji ZHANG ; Shuo ZHANG ; Wei ZHANG ; Weidong ZHANG ; Xi ZHANG ; Xingwen ZHANG ; Guixi ZHANG ; Xiaojun ZHANG ; Guoqing ZHAO ; Jianpeng ZHAO ; Shuming ZHAO ; Beibei ZHENG ; Shangen ZHENG ; Huayou ZHOU ; Jicheng ZHOU ; Lihong ZHOU ; Mou ZHOU ; Xiaoyu ZHOU ; Xuelian ZHOU ; Yuan ZHOU ; Zheng ZHOU ; Zuhuang ZHOU ; Haiyan ZHU ; Peiyuan ZHU ; Changju ZHU ; Lili ZHU ; Zhengguo WANG ; Jianxin JIANG ; Deqing WANG ; Jiongcai LAN ; Quanli WANG ; Yang YU ; Lianyang ZHANG ; Aiqing WEN
Chinese Journal of Trauma 2024;40(10):865-881
Patients with severe trauma require an extremely timely treatment and transfusion plays an irreplaceable role in the emergency treatment of such patients. An increasing number of evidence-based medicinal evidences and clinical practices suggest that patients with severe traumatic bleeding benefit from early transfusion of low-titer group O whole blood or hemostatic resuscitation with red blood cells, plasma and platelet of a balanced ratio. However, the current domestic mode of blood supply cannot fully meet the requirements of timely and effective blood transfusion for emergency treatment of patients with severe trauma in clinical practice. In order to solve the key problems in blood supply and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma, Branch of Clinical Transfusion Medicine of Chinese Medical Association, Group for Trauma Emergency Care and Multiple Injuries of Trauma Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Young Scholar Group of Disaster Medicine Branch of Chinese Medical Association organized domestic experts of blood transfusion medicine and trauma treatment to jointly formulate Chinese expert consensus on blood support mode and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma patients ( version 2024). Based on the evidence-based medical evidence and Delphi method of expert consultation and voting, 10 recommendations were put forward from two aspects of blood support mode and transfusion strategies, aiming to provide a reference for transfusion resuscitation in the emergency treatment of severe trauma and further improve the success rate of treatment of patients with severe trauma.
10.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.


Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail