Search

BackgroundThe occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery increases the risk of mortality and disability. However, there is insufficient evidence supporting the choice of anticoagulation strategies.MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials from inception to January 2024. Studies concerning thrombosis prevention after abdominal and pelvic surgery were included. Network meta-analysis(NMA) and direct meta-analysis (DMA) methods were employed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various prophylactic strategies.ResultsTwenty clinical trials involving a total of 4923 patients were included. The DMA results showed that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was more effective in preventing VTE compared to no treatment (OR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.19), and LMWH plus physiotherapy was more effective than LMWH (OR = 10.95; 95% CI: 1.33 to 90.40). The NMA results indicated that DOACs (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.76) and LMWH (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77) were significantly effective in preventing venous thrombosis compared with no treatment. The cumulative ranking probability curve (SUCRA) showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were the best intervention. In terms of major bleeding, unfractionated heparin (UFH) had a higher risk than LMWH, physiotherapy, and no treatment, with statistically significant differences. The SUCRA analysis indicated that physiotherapy was the best intervention for major bleeding.ConclusionExisting evidence suggests that DOACs can provide better thromboprophylaxis efficacy for patients after abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery, achieving an optimal balance between efficacy and safety. LMWH has become an intervention with efficacy second only to DOACs, with similar safety.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024513090.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare low-grade malignant tumor of vascular origin. It may be confusing as its manifestations of multifocal lesions on imaging and epithelial histomorphology in pathology. EHE is easy to be mistaken for a metastatic tumor by radiologists and clinicians. Correct diagnosis and therapy are important owing to the variable clinical course and special treatment. EHEs harbor major CAMTA1 rearrangement and

BackgroundThe current guideline recommended the use of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), but the effectiveness and safety of tenecteplase compare to alteplase in patients before EVT remain uncertain.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible articles from inception until September 16, 2023. The primary outcome was functional independence (mRS 0–2) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included excellent outcome (mRS 0–1) at 90 days, all-cause mortality at follow-up, successful reperfusion (TICI 2b–3) after the end of EVT, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) or any intracranial hemorrhage (aICH). The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023470419.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included involving 2,836 acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Compared to EVT alone, tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg and 0.4 mg/kg) + EVT and 0.9 mg/kg alteplase + EVT were significant difference associated with higher successful reperfusion (TICI 2b–3) after the end of EVT (RR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.15–4.63; RR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.00–5.33; RR = 1.05; 95% CI 1.01–1.09). And compared to 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase + EVT, alteplase (0.6 mg/kg and 0.9 mg/kg) + EVT were significant difference associated with lower successful reperfusion (TICI 2b–3) after the end of EVT (RR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.22–0.90; RR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.23–0.91). The risk of aICH (RR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.07–2.09) was significantly higher for 0.6 mg/kg alteplase + EVT than EVT alone. There was no significant difference in functional independence (mRS 0–2), excellent outcome (mRS 0–1), all-cause mortality or sICH among the different IVT strategies (0.25 mg/kg or 0.4 mg/kg tenecteplase and 0.6 mg/kg or 0.9 mg/kg alteplase) before EVT.ConclusionThe use of alteplase before EVT may potentially improve the successful reperfusion after EVT compared to tenecteplase. Due to the insufficient sample size, more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm effectiveness and safety of tenecteplase compare to alteplase in patients before EVT.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023470419.

BackgroundPembrolizumab and cemiplimab have been approved as treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression from a societal perspective in the United States.Materials and methodsCost-effectiveness analysis integration of the network meta-analysis framework was performed using data from the EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE 024, and KEYNOTE 042 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A network meta-analysis including 2289 patients was constructed, and the Markov and partitioned survival (PS) models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab for the treatment of high PD-L1 expression (≥50% of tumor cells). The time horizon was 10 years. The main outcomes were overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). The robustness of the model was verified using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted.ResultsTreatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression with pembrolizumab achieved 0.093 QALYs and was associated with an incremental cost of $10,657 compared with cemiplimab, yielding an ICER of $114,246/QALY. The ICER in the PS model was similar to that in the Markov model, with a difference of $3,093/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY, INHB, and INMB of pembrolizumab were -0.013 QALYs and -$1,329, respectively, and the probability of cemiplimab was 51% when compared with pembrolizumab. When the WTP threshold increased to $150,000/QALY, the INHB and INMB of pembrolizumab were 0.022 QALYs and $3,335, respectively, and the probability of pembrolizumab was 51.85%. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the models were sensitive to pembrolizumab and cemiplimab costs. Subgroup analysis revealed that treatment with pembrolizumab was related to a higher INHB in several subgroups, including patients with brain metastases at baseline.ConclusionOur findings suggest that the WTP threshold should be considered when choosing between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab to treat advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Reducing the cost of pembrolizumab may lead to valuable outcomes.

Background: The study aimed to report a boy with familial exudative vitreoretinopathy and amblyopia harboring a new mutation of the LRP5 and OPA1 gene abnormality.Case presentation: A 9-year-old boy presented with a 2-year history of deteriorating visual acuity in the right eye. His best-corrected visual acuity was −7.00/−1.75 × 100 = 0.3 in the right eye and −2.50/−1.50 × 170 = 0.8 in the left eye. Two autosomal dominant gene mutation sites were identified in the patient: LRP5 (c.2551C > T, p.His851Tyr) from his father and OPA1 (c.565G > A, p.Glu189Lys) from his mother. Interestingly, his fraternal twin brother harbored no abnormal gene mutations, and his eye tests were normal.Conclusion: This case expands the spectrum of LRP5 gene mutations among Chinese patients with familial exudative vitreoretinopathy, and it is the first time to report a patient harboring both LRP5 and OPA1 gene mutations having anisometropic amblyopia and strabismus as the primary manifestations. These four family members exhibited individual heterogeneity of phenotypes and genotypes associated with hereditary ophthalmopathy. A comprehensive analysis of clinical phenotypes and genotypes provides clinical clues for improving the level of clinical and genetic diagnoses and a deeper understanding of the disease.

Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC.Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured.Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were −0.15 QALYs and −$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was

Background: Pembrolizumab and cemiplimab have been approved as treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression from a societal perspective in the United States. Materials and methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis integration of the network meta-analysis framework was performed using data from the EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE 024, and KEYNOTE 042 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A network meta-analysis including 2289 patients was constructed, and the Markov and partitioned survival (PS) models were used to assess the costeffectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab for the treatment of high PD-L1 expression (=50% of tumor cells). The time horizon was 10 years. The main outcomes were overall costs, incremental costeffectiveness ratios (ICERs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). The robustness of the model was verified using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted. Results: Treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression with pembrolizumab achieved 0.093 QALYs and was associated with an incremental cost of $10,657 compared with cemiplimab, yielding an ICER of $114,246/QALY. The ICER in the PS model was similar to that in the Markov model, with a difference of $3,093/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY, INHB, and INMB of pembrolizumab were -0.013 QALYs and -$1,329, respectively, and the probability of cemiplimab was 51% when compared with pembrolizumab. When the WTP threshold increased to $150,000/QALY, the INHB and INMB of pembrolizumab were 0.022 QALYs and $3,335, respectively, and the probability of pembrolizumab was 51.85%. Oneway sensitivity analysis indicated that the models were sensitive to pembrolizumab and cemiplimab costs. Subgroup analysis revealed that treatment with pembrolizumab was related to a higher INHB in several subgroups, including patients with brain metastases at baseline. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the WTP threshold should be considered when choosing between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab to treat advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Reducing the cost of pembrolizumab may lead to valuable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]