Advancements in nanomedicine: Precision delivery strategies for male pelvic malignancies - Spotlight on prostate and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic malignancies consistently pose significant global health challenges, adversely affecting the well-being of the male population. It is anticipated that clinicians will continue to confront these cancers in their practice. Nanomedicine offers promising strategies that revolutionize the treatment of male pelvic malignancies by providing precise delivery methods that aim to improve the efficacy of therapeutic outcomes while minimizing side effects. Nanoparticles are designed to encapsulate therapeutic agents and selectively target cancer cells. They can also be loaded with theragnostic agents, enabling multifunctional capabilities. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize the latest nanomedicine research into clinical applications, focusing on nanotechnology-based treatment strategies for male pelvic malignancies, encompassing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and other cutting-edge therapies. The review is structured to assist physicians, particularly those with limited knowledge of biochemistry and bioengineering, in comprehending the functionalities and applications of nanomaterials. METHODS: Multiple databases, including PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, and Embase, were utilized to locate and review recently published articles on advancements in nano-drug delivery for prostate and colorectal cancers. CONCLUSION: Nanomedicine possesses considerable potential in improving therapeutic outcomes and reducing adverse effects for male pelvic malignancies. Through precision delivery methods, this emerging field presents innovative treatment modalities to address these challenging diseases. Nevertheless, the majority of current studies are in the preclinical phase, with a lack of sufficient evidence to fully understand the precise mechanisms of action, absence of comprehensive pharmacotoxicity profiles, and uncertainty surrounding long-term consequences.

Short- and long-term outcomes after surgical treatment of 5918 patients with splenic flexure colon cancer by extended right colectomy, segmental colectomy and left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Colorectal cancer is among the most common cancers in the world, and splenic flexure colon cancer accounts for about 2-5% of them. There is still no consensus on the surgical treatment of splenic flexure colon cancer (SFCC), and the extent of surgical resection and lymph node dissection for SFCC is still controversial. Aim: To compare the postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of extended right colectomy (ERC), segmental colectomy (SC) and left colectomy (LC) for SFCC. Method: Up to March 2024, retrospective and prospective studies of ERC, SC, and LC for SFCC were searched through databases. Pooled weighted/standardized mean difference (WMD/SMD), odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed effects model or random effects model, and meta-analysis was performed using Stata. Results: This meta-analysis includes 5,918 patients from 13 studies with more lymph node harvest (OR:6.29; 95%Cl: 3.66-8.91; Z=4.69, P=0), more operation time (WMD: 22.53; 95%Cl: 18.75-26.31; Z=11.68, P=0), more blood loss (WMD:58.44; 95%Cl: 20.20-96.68; Z=2.99, P=0.003), longer hospital stay (WMD:1.74; 95%Cl: 0.20-3.29; Z=2.21, P=0.03), longer time to return to regular diet (WMD:3.17; 95%Cl: 2.05-4.30; Z=5.53, P=0), longer first flatus time (WMD:1.66; 95%Cl: 0.96-2.37; Z=4.61, P=0) in ERC versus SC. More lymph node harvest (WMD: 3.52; 95% Cl: 1.59-5.44; Z=3.58, P=0) in ERC versus LC and LC versus SC (WMD: 1.97; 95% CI: 0.53-3.41; Z=2.68, P=0.007), respectively. There is no significant difference between anastomotic leakage, postoperative ileus, total postoperative complication, severe postoperative complication, wound infection, reoperations, R0 resection, postoperative mortality, 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) in three group of patients. In LC versus SC and ERC versus LC, there is no difference between operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, return to regular diet, and first flatus. Conclusion: In the included studies, SC and LC may be more advantageous, with fewer postoperative complications and faster recovery. ERC harvests more lymph nodes, but there is no significant difference in long-term OS and DFS between the three surgical approaches. Given that the included studies were retrospective, more randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this conclusion.