Search

BRCA mutation carriers have a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) has been shown to reduce OC risk. This meta-analysis was aim to analyze the effect of RRSO on the BC risk among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for all studies investigating the effect of RRSO on BC risk. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between RRSO and BC risk. This meta-analysis included 13,965 BRCA1 and 7,057 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 14 observational studies. The pooled results showed that RRSO lowered BC risk among BRCA1 mutation carriers [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49–0.81, P < 0.01] and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34–0.75, P < 0.01). RRSO reduced BC risk in younger women with BRCA1 mutation (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30–0.77, P < 0.01) and BRCA2 mutation (HR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08–0.65, P < 0.01). Analysis of the efficacy of RRSO at different time intervals after surgery showed a reduction of BC risk at <5 years after surgery in BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40–0.89, P = 0.01) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20–0.86, P = 0.02). RRSO is an effective way to reduce BC risk among women with BRCA1/2 mutation, especially in younger women. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers could benefit from RRSO in the immediate 5 years after surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cystic fibrosis is a rare, recessive, progressive genetic disease caused by dysfunction of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. Small molecules have recently been developed to treat the molecular consequences of CFTR mutations and restore CFTR protein function. However, the data on triple combination therapy (mainly from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which is most tested in clinical trials) are limited. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this therapy according to different mutation genotypes and comparators. Methods: Relevant publications were identified through searching several medical databases before 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes of ppFEV1, sweat chloride concentration and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) score were pooled and analyzed. The secondary outcomes were adverse events in triple combination therapy. Results: Six randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis. The total outcome of the ppFEV1 change was higher with triple combination therapy than triple placebo or active control (mean difference, MD, 13.6% and 8.74%, respectively). The pooled result of sweat chloride concentrations with triple combination therapy was lower than that of triple placebo or active control (MD, −44.13 and −39.26, respectively). The pooled estimate of the CFQ-R score was higher with triple combination therapy than triple placebo or active control (MD, 19.8% and 14.63%, respectively). No clear differences in adverse events were found between triple combination therapy and the control (placebo or active control). Conclusion: CFTR modulators in triple combination achieve better clinical results than placebo and active control, and result in comparable adverse events. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display%5frecord.php?ID=CRD42021293402, identifier PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021293402. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) of colorectal lesions is emerging as an alternative method to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of UEMR for colorectal lesions.Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched before May 10, 2020. The primary outcomes were en bloc resection rate (feasibility) and adverse event rate (safety). The secondary outcome was recurrence and residual adenoma rate. If there was a comparison between UEMR and CEMR, data about en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, and recurrence and residual adenoma were extracted and compared. The pooling of the effect size was conducted using random-effects models, and the Q-statistic, τ2, and I2 were used to evaluate heterogeneity.Results: Seventeen studies (759 patients, 893 lesions) were included. The pooled estimate for the en bloc resection rate was 59% (95% CI 43-75%) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97%). Due to the heterogeneity, it is not suitable to conduct pooled estimates analysis, so the en bloc resection rate was from 10 to 89%. The pooled estimate for delayed bleeding was 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) and only two cases had perforation. The pooled rate of recurrence and residual adenoma was 5% (95% CI 2%-8%). Compared with CEMR, UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.02-2.53; p = 0.04) with a lower rate of recurrence and residual adenoma (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.46; p < 0.01).Conclusions: UEMR for colorectal lesions was capable of a high en bloc resection rate, low adverse event rate and low recurrence. UEMR may be considered an effective and safe alternative for treating colorectal lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colonoscopies are considered to be the primary screening test and gold standard test for colorectal cancer. Position changes during colonoscope withdrawal are believed to be associated with an increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). However, previous results conflicted, and this study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal. Methods: The relevant publications were identified by searching the medical databases. The primary outcomes were the ADR and PDR, which were pooled and analyzed. The secondary outcome was the withdrawal time. The studies that supplied the ADR and PDR for different segments of the colon were separated into subgroup analyses. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis. The total ADR was higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (odds ratio, [OR] 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–1.59; p < 0.001), with low evidence of between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Although the total PDR was slightly higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.88–1.73), there difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). The withdrawal time was only increased by 0.47 min (95% CI − 0.11 to 1.06) with dynamic position changes, without statistical significance (p = 0.11). The subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR for the transverse colon were higher with dynamic position changes, with pooled estimates of ADR (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.02–2.88; p = 0.04) and PDR (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.08–2.96; p = 0.02). Conclusion: Dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increased the total ADR; however, no obvious increase was found in the total PDR. The withdrawal time was not significantly prolonged with dynamic position changes. Subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR in the transverse colon were obviously improved with dynamic position changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science before December 1, 2019. Studies in which ≥ 10 cases of colorectal lesions were resected with endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) were included. Rates of efficacy (technical success (en bloc), full-thickness resection and R0 resection), rates of safety (bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome) and rates of follow-up (residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of over-the-scope clip and surgery for any reason) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed. Results: A total of 469 patients across 9 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, full-thickness resection and R0 resection were 94.0% (95% CI 89.8–97.3%), 89.5% (83.9–94.2%) and 84.9% (75.1–92.8%), respectively. The pooled estimates of bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome were 2.2% (95% CI 0.4–4.9%), 0.19% (95% CI 0.00–1.25%) and 2.3% (95% CI 0.1–6.3%), respectively. Finally, the pooled rates of residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of OTSC and surgery for any reason were 8.5% (95% CI 4.1–14.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 67.5–90.8%) and 6.3% (2.4–11.7%), respectively. Conclusions: EFTR for nonlifting, invasive lesions in the colon and rectum appears to be effective and safe. However, future studies are necessary to explore the role of EFTR in large colorectal lesions and specify its indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive, effective, and safe technique for weight loss intervention. Since a relatively small number of cases were present in previous studies, this study aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of ESG.Methods: Relevant publications were identified through searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science before March 1, 2019. The percentage of total body weight loss (%TBWL), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), and the adverse event rate in each follow-up session were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models.Results: A total of 1542 patients from nine studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled results of %TBWL at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 8.78% (p = 0.000), 11.85% (p = 0.000), 14.47% (p = 0.024), and 16.09% (p = 0.063), respectively. The pooled results of %EWL at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 31.16% (p = 0.000), 43.61% (p = 0.000), 53.14% (p = 0.000), and 59.08% (p = 0.015), respectively. Finally, the pooled rate of mild adverse events was 72% (p < 0.01), and the pooled estimate of severe adverse events was only 1% (p = 0.08).Conclusion: Although the conventional surgical sleeve gastrectomy is the gold standard for bariatric surgery, ESG could be a promising minimally invasive alternative for treating obesity with satisfactory efficacy and low risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The emerging endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is becoming an alternative method for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions.Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to search relevant studies through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before 1 December 2018. Studies relating to ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions were included. Rates of effectiveness (en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate), rates of feasibility (muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate, and emphysema rate), and rates of follow-up (recurrence rate and stricture rate) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were constructed based on the random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.Results: Six studies including 414 patients and 436 superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions that underwent ESTD were available for analysis. The pooled estimates of en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate were 98% (95% CI 95.8-99.0%), 87.0% (95% CI 78.2-92.5%), and 87.6% (95% CI 67.4-96.0%), respectively. The pooled outcomes of muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate and emphysema rate were 19.1% (95% CI 9.8-33.8%), 2.2% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%), 1.6% (95% CI 0.7-3.5%), and 12.2% (95% CI 4.3-29.9%), respectively. Finally, the pooled results of recurrence and stricture were 4.7% (0.9-20.5%) and 20.9% (11.3-35.2%), respectively.Conclusions: ESTD appears to be an effective and feasible approach for treating superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. However, future research is needed for new and comprehensive methods to decrease the stricture rate after ESTD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but the findings were not consistent across these studies. Methods: Electronic databases and article references were searched for studies that assessed fondaparinux versus LMWH in ACS patients. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with fondaparinux-based regimens both in randomized controlled trials (RCT; risk ratio, RR: 0.91, p = 0.04) and observational studies (RR: 0.85, p < 0.0001). Mortality decreased in fondaparinux-treated patients in RCT (RR: 0.84, p = 0.02), but not in observational studies (RR: 1.44, p = 0.64). For the analysis of myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent ischemia and stroke, none of the studies showed significant results. In addition, fondaparinux lowered the risk of major bleeding in RCT (RR: 0.62, p < 0.0001) and observational studies (RR: 0.65, p < 0.0001). The net clinical outcome also favored fondaparinux over LMWH in RCT (RR: 0.82, p < 0.0001) and observational studies (RR: 0.84, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Among ACS patients, a fondaparinux-based regimen presented advantages regarding MACE and major bleeding, and a net clinical benefit compared with LMWH, although the benefit is minimal regarding MACE. For death, MI, recurrent ischemia and stroke, fondaparinux has not shown significant benefits. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]