Search

Aims: The study aims to investigate the impact of statin use on sepsis mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in a dose-, class-, and use intensity-dependent manner. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 850,326 T2DM patients was analyzed using an inverse probability treatment-weighted Cox hazard model, with statin use status as a time-dependent variable. Results: Results showed that statin use was associated with a significant reduction in sepsis mortality risk (aHR=0.29) compared to non-users. Pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, fluvastatin, and lovastatin were all associated with a lower sepsis mortality risk. Higher cumulative defined daily dose per year of statins was also associated with a lower sepsis mortality, with an optimal daily dose of 0.86 defined daily doses. Conclusion: These findings suggest that statin use may reduce sepsis mortality in T2DM patients and that higher doses are associated with greater protection.

BACKGROUND: To date,no data on the effect of adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) on oncologic outcomes, such as all-cause death, locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM), are available forold (aged ≥80 years) and very old (≥90 years) women with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving breast-conserving conservative surgery (BCS).PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled old (≥80 yearsold) and very old (≥90 yearsold) women with breast IDC who had received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT or no adjuvant WBRT. We groupedthem based on adjuvant WBRT status and compared their overall survival (OS), LRR, and DM outcomes. To reduce the effects of potential confounders when comparing all-cause mortality between the groups, propensity score matching was performed.RESULTS:Overall, 752 older women with IDC received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT, and 752 with IDC received BCS with no adjuvant WBRT.In multivariable Cox regression analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of all-cause death for adjuvant WBRT compared with no adjuvant WBRT in older women with IDC receiving BCS was 0.56 (0.44-0.70). The aHRs (95% CIs) of LRR and DM foradjuvant WBRT were 0.29 (0.19-0.45) and 0.45 (0.32-0.62), respectively, compared with no adjuvant WBRT.CONCLUSION: Adjuvant WBRT was associated with decreases in all-cause death, LRR, and DM in old (aged ≥80 years) and very old (aged ≥90 years) women with IDC compared with no adjuvant WBRT.Condensed Abstract: This study is the first to examine the effect of adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) on oncologic outcomes such as all-cause death, locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in old (aged ≥80 years) and very old (aged ≥90 years) women with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving breast-conserving surgery. After propensity score matching, adjuvant WBRT was associated with decreases in all-cause death, LRR, and DM in old and very old women with IDC compared with no use of adjuvant WBRT.

BACKGROUND To date, no data on the effect of adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) on oncologic outcomes, such as all-cause death, locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM), are available in women with left-side breast intraductal carcinoma (IDC) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS : We enrolled 294 women with left-breast IDC at clinical stages IA–IIIC and HFrEF receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT. We categorized them into two groups based on their adjuvant WBRT status and compared their overall survival (OS), LRR, and DM outcomes. We calculated the propensity score and applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to create a pseudo-study cohort. Furthermore, we performed a multivariate analysis of the propensity score–weighted population to obtain hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS In the IPTW-adjusted model, adjuvant WBRT (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–0.94) was a significant independent prognostic factor for all-cause death (P = 0.0424), and the aHR (95% CI) of LRR and DM for adjuvant WBRT was 0.33 (0.24–0.71; P = 0.0017) and 0.37 (0.22–0.63; P = 0.0004), respectively, compared with the no adjuvant WBRT group. The aHR (95% CI) of breast cancer death for adjuvant WBRT was 0.54 (0.44–0.85; P = 0.0201) compared with no adjuvant WBRT group. CONCLUSION Adjuvant WBRT was associated with a decrease in all-cause death, breast cancer death, LRR, and DM in women with left IDC and HFrEF compared with no adjuvant WBRT.

BACKGROUND: To date, no data on the effect of adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) on oncologic outcomes, such as all-cause death, locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM), are available in women with left-side breast intraductal carcinoma (IDC) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 294 women with left-breast IDC at clinical stages IA–IIIC and HFrEF receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT. We categorized them into two groups based on their adjuvant WBRT status and compared their overall survival (OS), LRR, and DM outcomes. We calculated the propensity score and applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to create a pseudo-study cohort. Furthermore, we performed a multivariate analysis of the propensity score–weighted population to obtain hazard ratios (HRs).RESULTS: In the IPTW-adjusted model, adjuvant WBRT (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33–1.00) was a significant independent prognostic factor for all-cause death (P = 0.0494), and the aHR (95% CI) of LRR and DM for adjuvant WBRT was 0.25 (0.10–0.62; P = 0.0028) and 0.29 (0.14–0.60; P = 0.0007), respectively, compared with the nonadjuvant WBRT group. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant WBRT was associated with a decrease in all-cause death, LRR, and DM in women with left IDC and HFrEF compared with nonadjuvant WBRT.

BACKGROUNDTo date, no data are available regarding the effect of chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (COPD) and COPD with acute exacerbation (COPDAE) on survival in patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) receiving definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).PATIENTS AND METHODSCurrent-smoking patients with clinical stage IIIA-IIIB, lung SCC who had received standard definitive CCRT and categorized them into two groups based on their COPD status to compare overall survival outcomes. We also examined the effects of COPD severity (0, 1, or ≥2 hospitalizations for COPDA within 1 year before CCRT). The aHRs (95% CIs) of lung cancer death for 1 and ≥2 hospitalizations for COPDAE within 1 year before CCRT were 1.21 (1.09, 1.39) and 1.63 (1.34, 1.97), respectively, compared with no hospitalization for COPDAE.RESULTSIn the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted model, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of all-cause death for COPD was 1.06 (1.07, 1.71) compared with the non-COPD group. Moreover, in the IPTW-adjusted model, the aHRs (95% CIs) of 1 and ≥2 hospitalizations for COPDAE within 1 year before CCRT were 1.29 (1.16, 1.43) and 1.77 (1.41, 2.13), respectively, compared with no hospitalization for COPDAE.CONCLUSIONCOPD and its severity are significant independent risk factors for all-cause death in patients with stage IIIA-IIIB lung SCC receiving definitive CCRT. Hospitalization for COPDAE within 1 year before CCRT is the significant independent risk factors for lung cancer death in the patients with stages IIIA-IIIB lung SCC receiving definitive CCRT.

PURPOSE: To determine easy-to-use predictors of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by breast-conserving surgery (BCS), we obtained pathologic response rates (PRRs) for combined primary and nodal diseases (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stages) from clinical and pathologic reports, and we used these as predictors.PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients with IDC who had received NACT followed by BCS. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for the patients’ PRRs; other independent predictors were controlled for or stratified in the analysis.RESULTS: We analyzed 1047 patients with IDC (611, 260, and 176 patients in clinical stages IIB, IIIA, and IIIB-C, respectively) receiving NACT and BCS. After multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted HRs (aHRs; 95% CI) in patients with pathologic complete response (ypT0N0) were 0.26 (0.13–0.56), 0.36 (0.15–0.85), and 0.15 (0.08–0.31) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) in patients with downstaging of AJCC stages were 0.55 (0.35–0.89), 0.91 (0.62–0.96), and 0.63 (0.43–0.91) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) in patients with upstaging of AJCC stages were 1.77 (1.06–2.24), 1.08 (1.03–1.82), and 1.19 (1.07–2.01) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively.CONCLUSION: The impacts of AJCC-stage PRRs are useful predictive tools and strong predictors for OS, LRR, and DM in patients with breast IDC receiving NACT followed by BCS.

PURPOSE: To determine easy-to-use predictors of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by breast-conserving surgery (BCS), we obtained pathologic response rates (PRRs) for combined primary and nodal diseases (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stages) from clinical and pathologic reports, and we used these as predictors.PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients with IDC who had received NACT followed by BCS. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for the patients’ PRRs; other independent predictors were controlled for or stratified in the analysis.RESULTS: We analyzed 1047 patients with IDC (611, 260, and 176 patients in clinical stages IIB, IIIA, and IIIB-C, respectively) receiving NACT and BCS. After multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted HRs (aHRs; 95% CI) in patients with pathologic complete response (ypT0N0) were 0.26 (0.13–0.56), 0.36 (0.15–0.85), and 0.15 (0.08–0.31) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) in patients with downstaging of AJCC stages were 0.55 (0.35–0.89), 0.91 (0.62–0.96), and 0.63 (0.43–0.91) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) in patients with upstaging of AJCC stages were 1.77 (1.06–2.24), 1.08 (1.03–1.82), and 1.19 (1.07–2.01) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively.CONCLUSION: The impacts of AJCC-stage PRRs are useful predictive tools and strong predictors for OS, LRR, and DM in patients with breast IDC receiving NACT followed by BCS.

Background: The effects of temperature and humidity on the epidemic growth of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)remains unclear.Methods: Daily scatter plots between the epidemic growth rate (GR) and average temperature (AT) or average relative humidity (ARH) were presented with curve fitting through the “loess” method. The heterogeneity across days and provinces were calculated to assess the necessity of using a longitudinal model. Fixed effect models with polynomial terms were developed to quantify the relationship between variations in the GR and AT or ARH.Results: An increased AT dramatically reduced the GR when the AT was lower than −5°C, the GR was moderately reduced when the AT ranged from −5°C to 15°C, and the GR increased when the AT exceeded 15°C. An increasedARH increased theGR when the ARH was lower than 72% and reduced theGR when the ARH exceeded 72%.Conclusions: High temperatures and low humidity may reduce the GR of the COVID-19 epidemic. The temperature and humidity curves were not linearly associated with the COVID-19 GR.