A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Different Anticoagulants on the Prophylaxis of Post-Thrombotic Syndrome after Deep Venous Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) has a major impact on the quality of life after deep venous thrombosis (DVT). From clinical practice and related trials, anticoagulants show potential for reducing the occurrence and alleviating the symptoms of PTS. METHODS: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted by combing the literature from the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Libraries, and ClinicalTrials, through a variety of medical subject headings (Mesh) and PTS keywords. With regard to PTS prophylaxis, all anticoagulant-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were assessed. The network model was conducted through the R software, and further comparisons were conducted using the Bayesian hierarchical random effects model. The odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for analysis. RESULTS: Data from two RCTs and nine non-randomized studies meeting the selection criteria were included in the Bayesian analysis model, which incorporated seven anticoagulants. Edoxaban (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18-1.0) and rivaroxaban (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.38-0.76) were significantly more effective than warfarin in the prevention of PTS (Villalta score ≥ 5). A subgroup analysis based on the severity of PTS showed that rivaroxaban was more effective than warfarin, with OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.84 (Villalta score 5 to 14) and OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-0.9 (Villalta score ≥ 15, ulceration), respectively. Edoxaban had the highest probability (80.1%) of providing preventive benefits for PTS. For mild/moderate and severe PTS, rivaroxaban provided the highest benefits in preventing PTS (89.3% and 85.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Edoxaban demonstrated a better prophylactic effect on PTS (Villalta score > 5), while rivaroxaban displayed a better effect against mild/moderate (Villalta score 5 to 14) and severe PTS (Villalta score ≥ 15, ulceration).

ARID1A mutations in lung cancer: biology, prognostic role, and therapeutic implications.

Mutations in the AT-interacting domain-rich protein 1A (ARID1A) gene, a critical component of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, are frequently found in most human cancers. Approximately 5-10% of lung cancers carry ARID1A mutations. ARID1A loss in lung cancer correlates with clinicopathological features and poor prognosis. Co-mutation of ARID1A and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) results in the limited efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) but increases the clinical benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). ARID1A gene mutation plays a role in cell cycle regulation, metabolic reprogramming, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. We present the first comprehensive review of the relationship between ARID1A gene mutations and lung cancer and discuss the potential of ARID1A as a new molecular target.

Circulating tumour cells in patients with lung cancer universally indicate poor prognosis.

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer, the relevance of various circulating tumour cell (CTC) subgroups in different lung cancer subtypes is unclear. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of CTCs in the different histological types of lung cancer, with particular respect to CTC subtypes, cut-offs and time points of CTC enumeration. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase alongside relevant studies evaluating the prognostic value of CTCs in lung cancer patients. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, calculating hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals and p-values. RESULTS: 27 studies enrolling 2957 patients were included. CTC detection indicates poor prognosis, especially in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients (overall survival HR 3.11, 95% CI 2.59-3.73) and predicts a worse outcome compared to nonsmall cell lung cancer patients. Epithelial CTCs predict a worse outcome for lung cancer than mesenchymal CTCs or epithelial-mesenchymal hybrids. CONCLUSION: CTCs indicate poor prognosis in patients with primary lung cancer, with CTCs in SCLC having a more pronounced prognostic effect. The prognostic value of CTCs detected by different markers varies; most evidence is available for the strong negative prognostic effect of epithelial CTCs.

Asynchrony of primary tumor and mediastinal lymph nodes response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in a patient with stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer: a case report.

With the rapid development of immunotherapy, the efficacy and feasibility of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for early resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. However, there are still difficulties and controversies in evaluating the efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. In our report, we described a 43-year-old female patient who was diagnosed with stage IIIA (cT1N2M0) pulmonary adenocarcinoma. After two cycles of neoadjuvant immunotherapy (sintilimab) combined with chemotherapy, according to imaging evaluation, the efficacy of the primary lesion was evaluated as stable disease and the mediastinal lymph nodes were evaluated as partial response. However, the postoperative pathological evaluation showed the primary lesion was pathological complete response and the mediastinal lymph nodes were major pathological response. This indicated that neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy was effective for both primary and mediastinal lymph nodes, but regression of the lesions was not synchronous. This study provided a complete process of neoadjuvant treatment, illustrating the effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy to a certain extent. It is also suggested that the evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy should be combined with imaging and pathology, and the primary tumor and lymph nodes should be evaluated, respectively.