Search

Standard of care in glioma surgery involves maximal-safe resection. Intraoperative stimulation mapping can improve the extent of resection in eloquent area tumors. Resection is performed during awake craniotomy (AC) or under general anesthesia (GA). Considering the advances in glioma management, an updated meta-analysis is needed. We identified studies evaluating surgical outcomes in adult patients undergoing glioma resection in motor areas, comparing AC and GA mapping until November 2023. Twenty-four observational studies and one randomized controlled trial met our inclusion criteria, adding 3011 patients. The mean extent of resection was 92.2% (95%CI = 89.9%-94.5%) for AC and 92.5% (95%CI = 89.6%-95.3%) for GA. Immediate deficit revealed a nonsignificant risk ratio (RR) of 0.96 favoring AC (95%CI = 0.66-1.41, p = 0.84). Similarly, long-term deficits showed a nonsignificant RR of 1.33 favoring GA (95%CI = 0.91-1.95, p = 0.14). Karnofsky performance score (KPS) analysis revealed a nonsignificant mean difference of 2.32 favoring GA (95%CI = -6.10-10.73, p = 0.59). Intraoperative stimulation-induced seizures analysis yielded a nonsignificant RR of 0.73 (95% CI = 0.27-1.97, p = 0.53) favoring AC. Postoperative seizure analysis showed a significant RR of 0.64 (95% CI = 0.44-0.94, p = 0.02) favoring AC. This meta-analysis suggests that AC and GA are comparable approaches to maximize extent of resection and achieve safe resection in eloquent glioma surgery. These findings can offer guidance to neurosurgeons in the decision-making process., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: Malignant struma ovarii (MSO) is a rare ovarian tumor characterized by mature thyroid tissue. The diverse symptoms and uncommon nature of MSO can create difficulties in its diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to analyze data and use machine learning methods to understand the prognostic factors and potential management strategies for MSO., Methods: In this retrospective cohort, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database provided the data used for this study's analysis. To identify the prognostic variables, we conducted Cox regression analysis and constructed prognostic models using five machine learning algorithms to predict the 5-year survival. A validation method incorporating the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to validate the accuracy and reliability of the machine learning models. We also investigated the role of multiple therapeutic options using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis., Results: The study population comprised 329 patients. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that older age, unmarried status, chemotherapy, and the total number of tumors in patients were poor prognostic factors. Machine learning models revealed that the multilayer perceptron accurately predicted outcomes, followed by the random forest classifier, gradient boosting classifier, K-nearest neighbors, and logistic regression models. The factors that contributed the most were age, marital status, and the total number of tumors in the patients., Conclusion: The present study offers a comprehensive approach for the treatment and prognosis assessment of patients with MSO. The machine learning models we have developed serve as a practical, personalized tool to aid in clinical decision-making processes., (© 2024 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Polyethylene glycol loxenatide (PEX168) is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist with a longer half-life developed by modifying the chemical structure of exenatide. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of PEX168 and determine the best dose. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to April 25, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PEX168 therapy alone or in combination with metformin versus other therapies. We used the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six RCTs, including 1248 participants, were included. PEX168 added to metformin was significantly better than metformin alone regarding fasting blood glucose (MD = -1.20, 95% CI (-1.78,  - 0.62), p < 0.0001), HbA1c (MD = -1.01, 95% CI (-1.48,  - 0.53), p < 0.0001), and postprandial glycemia (MD = -1.94, 95% CI (-2.99,  - 0.90), p = 0.0003). Similarly, for glycemic control, PEX168 monotherapy was superior to placebo (P < 0.05). No significant effects were noticed in terms of triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein, or high-density lipoprotein (p > 0.05). Body weight was significantly reduced in obese diabetic patients receiving PEX168 compared to the control group (MD = -5.46, 95% CI (-7.90,  - 3.01), p < 0.0001) but not in non-obese patients (MD = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47, 0.59), p = 0.83). People who received PEX168 alone or with metformin showed more common gastrointestinal adverse effects, especially nausea and vomiting (p < 0.05). PEX168 100, 200, and 300 ug monotherapy demonstrated comparable safety and diabetes control to metformin, but when combined with metformin, PEX168 100 and 200 ug showed significant effects on diabetes control; however, only the latter showed a significantly higher incidence of nausea and vomiting (p < 0.05). PEX168 could be a viable option for treating diabetic patients whose metformin control is inadequate or who cannot tolerate metformin. PEX168 at 100 ug in combination with metformin was found to be safe and more effective compared to metformin; however, due to the small number of trials included, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and additional trials are required., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Aim: Licogliflozin is a dual SGLT1/2 inhibitor acting on the intestine and kidney by reducing glycemic and calorie content. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of licogliflozin on Anthropometric measurements and cardiometabolic parameters in obese participants., Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to our eligibility criteria. We performed a subgroup analysis based on licogliflozin doses and the diabetic state of participants. This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021286936)., Results: We identified five RCTs with a total of 905 obese and overweight participants. All participants had a weight reduction of 2.43 kg (95% CI: -3.17 to -1.69, p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. The mean difference in HbA1c of obese diabetic patients was (MD: -0.30%; 95% CI: -0.45, -0.16); I2 = 46% in favor of licogliflozin. The incidence of serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, headache, nausea, and vomiting were similar between licogliflozin and placebo (p = 0.72, 0.97, 0.09, 0.53, and 0.89, respectively). However, there was a higher incidence of diarrhea in the licogliflozin group., Conclusion: We found that licogliflozin was safe and tolerable. It reduces body weight significantly. Moreover, it improves glycemic control and other cardiometabolic parameters., (Copyright © 2022 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)