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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background/Aims: Four-week treatment of linvencorvir (RO7049389) was generally safe and well tolerated, and showed anti-viral activity in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of 48-week treatment with linvencorvir plus standard of care (SoC) in CHB patients. Methods: This was a multicentre, non-randomized, non-controlled, open-label phase 2 study enrolling three cohorts: nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC)-suppressed patients received linvencorvir plus NUC (Cohort A, n=32); treatment-naïve patients received linvencorvir plus NUC without (Cohort B, n=10) or with (Cohort C, n=30) pegylated interferon-α (Peg-IFN-α). Treatment duration was 48 weeks, followed by NUC alone for 24 weeks. Results: 68 patients completed the study. No patient achieved functional cure (sustained HBsAg loss and unquantifiable HBV DNA). By Week 48, 89% of treatment-naïve patients (10/10 Cohort B; 24/28 Cohort C) reached unquantifiable HBV DNA. Unquantifiable HBV RNA was achieved in 92% of patients with quantifiable baseline HBV RNA (14/15 Cohort A, 8/8 Cohort B, 22/25 Cohort C) at Week 48 along with partially sustained HBV RNA responses in treatment-naïve patients during follow-up period. Pronounced reductions in HBeAg and HBcrAg were observed in treatment-naïve patients, while HBsAg decline was only observed in Cohort C. Most adverse events were grade 1–2, and no linvencorvir-related serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions 48-week linvencorvir plus SoC was generally safe and well tolerated, and resulted in potent HBV DNA and RNA suppression. However, 48-week linvencorvir plus NUC with or without Peg-IFN did not result in the achievement of functional cure in any patient.

Purpose: We aimed to analyze the optimal timing of enteral nutrition (EN) in the treatment of sepsis and its effect on sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI.) Materials and Methods: The MIMIC-III database was employed to identify patients with sepsis who had received EN. With AKI as the primary outcome variable, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized to calculate the optimal cut-off time of early EN (EEN). Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to control confounding effects. Logistic regressions and propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting were utilized to assess the robustness of our findings. Comparisons within the EEN group were performed. Results: 2364 patients were included in our study. With 53 hours after intensive care units (ICU) admission as the cut-off time of EEN according to the ROC curve, 1212 patients were assigned to the EEN group and the other 1152 to the delayed EN group. The risk of SA-AKI was reduced in the EEN group (odds ratio 0.319, 95% confidence interval 0.245–0.413, p<0.001). The EEN patients received fewer volumes (mL) of intravenous fluid (IVF) during their ICU stay (3750 mL vs. 5513.23 mL, p<0.001). The mediating effect of IVF was significant (p<0.001 for the average causal mediation effect). No significant differences were found within the EEN group (0–48 hours vs. 48–53 hours), except that patients initiating EN within 48 hours spent fewer days in ICU and hospital. Conclusion EEN is associated with decreased risk of SA-AKI, and this beneficial effect may be proportionally mediated by IVF volume.

Uric acid (UA) is the final product of purine metabolism in human body,and its metabolic disorder will induce hyperuricemia (HUA).The occurrence and development of HUA are associated with a variety of pathological mechanisms such as oxidative stress injury,activation of inflammatory cytokines,and activation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.These mechanisms directly or indirectly affect the bioavailability of endogenous nitric oxide (NO).The decrease in NO bioavailability is common in the diseases with high concentration of UA as an independent risk factor.In this review,we summarize the mechanisms by which high concentrations of UA affect the endogenous NO bioavailability,with a focus on the mechanisms of high-concentration UA in decreasing the synthesis and/or increasing the consumption of NO.This review aims to provide references for alleviating the multisystem symptoms and improving the prognosis of HUA,and lay a theoretical foundation for in-depth study of the correlations between HUA and other metabolic diseases.
Humans ; Nitric Oxide ; Uric Acid ; Hyperuricemia ; Biological Availability ; Cytokines

Objective: To investigate the risk factors and outcomes of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection post umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation (UCBT) in children with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID). Methods: Clinical data of 143 PID children who received UCBT in the Children's Hospital of Fudan University from January 2015 to June 2020 were collected retrospectively. CMV-DNA in the plasma was surveilled once or twice a week within 100 days post-UCBT. According to the CMV-DNA test results, children were divided into the CMV-infected group and the CMV-uninfected group. The incidence and risk factors of CMV infection were analyzed. At 1-month post-UCBT, the absolute lymphocyte count, ratio of lymphocyte subsets and immunoglobulin levels were compared between those whose CMV infection developed 1-month later post-UCBT and those not. Mann-Whitney U test and chi-squared test were used for comparision between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyze the impact of CMV infection on survival. Results: Among 143 patients, there were 113 males and 30 females, with a age of 14 (8, 27) months at UCBT. Chronic granulomatosis disease (n=49), very-early-onset inflammatory bowel disease (n=43) and severe combined immunodefiency (n=29) were the three main kinds of PID. The rate of CMV infection was 21.7% (31/143), and the time of infection occurring was 44 (31, 49) days post-UCBT. The incidence of recurrent CMV infection was 4.2% (6/143) and refractory CMV infection was 4.9% (7/143).There was no significant difference in the first time CMV-DNA copy and peak CMV-DNA copy during treatment between the recurrent CMV infection group and the non-recurrent CMV infection group (32.8 (18.3, 63.1)×10⁶ vs. 22.5 (13.2, 31.9)×10⁶ copies/L, Z=-0.95, P=0.340;35.2 (20.2, 54.6)×10⁶ vs. 28.4 (24.1, 53.5)×10⁶copies/L, Z=-0.10, P=0.920), so were those between the refractory CMV infection group and non-refractory CMV infection group (21.8 (13.1, 32.2)×10⁶ vs. 25.9 (14.2, 12.2)×10⁶copies/L, Z=-1.04, P=0.299; 47.7 (27.9, 77.6)×10⁶ vs. 27.7 (19.7,51.8)×10⁶copies/L, Z=-1.49, P =0.137). The CMV-infected group accepted more reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen than the CMV-uninfected group (45.2% (14/31) vs. 25.0% (28/112), χ²=4.76, P<0.05). The rate of CMV-seropositive recipients and Ⅱ-Ⅳ acute graft versus host diseases (aGVHD) are significantly higher in the CMV-infected group than the CMV-uninfected group (100% (31/31) vs. 78.6% (88/112), 64.5% (20/31) vs. 26.8% (30/112), χ²=7.98,15.20, both P<0.05). The follow-up time was 31.6 (13.2, 45.9) months, CMV infection had no effect on overall survival (OS) rate (χ²=0.02, P=0.843). There was significant difference in the survival rate among three groups of refractory CMV infection, non-refractory CMV infection and the CMV-uninfected (4/7 vs.95.8% (23/24) vs. 86.6% (97/112), χ²=5.91, P=0.037), while there was no significant difference in the survival rate among three groups of recurrent CMV infection, non-recurrent CMV infection and the CMV-uninfected (5/6 vs. 88.0% (22/25) vs. 86.6% (97/112), χ²=0.43, P=0.896). Children who developed CMV infection after 30 days post-UCBT had lower absolute count and rate of CD4⁺ T cells and immunoglobulin G (IgG) level than those in the CMV-uninfected group (124.1 (81.5, 167.6) ×10⁶ vs. 175.5 (108.3, 257.2) ×10⁶/L, 0.240 (0.164, 0.404) vs. 0.376 (0.222, 0.469), 9.3 (6.2, 14.7) vs. 13.6 (10.7, 16.4) g/L, Z=-2.48, -2.12,-2.47, all P<0.05), but have higher rate of CD8⁺T cells than those in CMV-uninfected group (0.418 (0.281, 0.624) vs. 0.249 (0.154, 0.434), Z=-2.56, P=0.010). Conclusions: RIC regimen, grade Ⅱ-Ⅳ aGVHD and CMV-seropositive recipients are the main risk factors associated with CMV infection in PID patients post-UCBT. Survival rate of children with refractory CMV infection after UCBT is reduced. Immune reconstitution in children after UCBT should be regularly monitored, and frequency of CMV-DNA monitoring should be increased for children with delayed immune reconstitution.
Child ; Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects* ; Cytomegalovirus ; Cytomegalovirus Infections/etiology* ; DNA ; Female ; Graft vs Host Disease/etiology* ; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Immunoglobulin G ; Infant ; Male ; Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors