Identification of SUMOylation-related biomarkers in papillary thyroid carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) modification is increasingly recognized as critical in tumorigenesis and progression. This study identifies biomarkers linked to SUMOylation in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), aiming to advance therapeutic and prognostic strategies. METHODS: Employing PTC datasets and SUMO related genes (SRGs), we utilized univariate Cox regression for prognosis-related SRGs, conducted differential expression analyses, and integrated findings to pinpoint candidate genes. These genes underwent further validation through survival, gene set enrichment, immune infiltration, and drug sensitivity analyses, including external validation via quantitative RT-qPCR. In our final step, we conducted immunohistochemical staining on tumor samples from PTC patients at our center and integrated this with their clinical data to validate BMP8A's effectiveness in predicting recurrence in PTC. RESULTS: Three biomarkers-BMP8A, RGS8, and SERPIND1-emerged as significant. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) showed their involvement in immune-related pathways, with differential immune infiltration patterns and drug response correlations observed, underscoring their potential for targeted therapy. Lastly, we validated the efficacy of BMP8A in predicting the recurrence of PTC in patients using clinical and pathological data from our center. CONCLUSION: The study identifies BMP8A, RGS8, and SERPIND1 as key biomarkers associated with SUMOylation in PTC. Their linkage to immune response and drug sensitivity highlights their importance as targets for therapeutic intervention and prognosis in PTC research.

Correlations of m6A Methylation-Related lncRNAs with the Prognosis of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.

Purpose: Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common subtype of thyroid cancer. Recurrence makes the prognosis for some patients with PTC worse. Increasing evidence have suggested that N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA methylation plays an important role in tumorigenesis. However, the significance of m6A-related lncRNAs in the malignant progression of PTC remains unknown. In this study, we explored the significance of M6A-related lncrnas in the malignant progression of PTC. Patients and Methods: Transcriptome and clinical data of PTC were achieved and integrated from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Firstly, a Spearman correlation analysis was performed to obtain m6A RNA methylation-associated lncRNAs. Next, We constructed a prognostic signature and assessed the accuracy of the signature by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Kaplan Meier survival analyses. Furthermore, functional enrichment analysis was performed on the high- and low-risk groups. Finally, we determined prognostic gene expression in clinical samples using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Results: We identified 56 differentially expressed lncRNAs associated with m6A RNA methylation. Univariate Cox and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression analyses showed that the survival-related lncRNAs associated with m6A RNA methylation were detected, which showed superior calibration and discrimination. Moreover, the biological processes related to energy metabolism were significantly activated in the high-risk group. Finally, the co-expressed genes of lncRNAs in the risk model were significantly enriched in biological processes related to copper ion response. Finally, we validated the expression levels of three prognostic genes in clinical samples using RT-qPCR. Conclusion: Our study revealed m6A RNA methylation-associated lncRNAs were significantly associated with disease-free survival in patients with papillary thyroid cancer, which would improve our understanding of the relationship between m6A RNA methylation-associated lncRNAs and PTC.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis. METHODS: Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic left hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis in patients with previous abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the benefits and drawbacks of laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) in patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS) with those in patients without PAS and confirm the safety and feasibility of LLH as a treatment for patients with hepatolithiasis and PAS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included 111 patients who underwent LLH for hepatolithiasis (with PAS, n = 41; without PAS, n = 70) from August 2017 to August 2019. Patients' general information, surgical outcomes, hospital stay duration, hospitalisation cost, post-operative laboratory data and post-operative complications were evaluated. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was noted in the post-operative laboratory data between patients with and without PAS (P > 0.05). Longer operative times were required for patients with PAS than for those without PAS (P = 0.025). Hospitalisation cost, hospital stay duration, blood loss, open conversion and post-operative complications were not significantly different between patients with and without PAS (P > 0.05). No cases of mortality were noted. CONCLUSIONS: LLH is a safe and feasible treatment for patients with hepatolithiasis and PAS.

Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, multicenter, large-scale, population-based laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) versus open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) has rarely been reported. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LCLR compared with OCLR using meta-analysis. METHODS: Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Med databases up to July 30th, 2020. Multiple parameters of feasibility and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven studies with 237 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with OCLR, the LCLR group had a lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 180.84; 95% CI - 225.61 to - 136.07; P < 0.0001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 4.38; 95% CI - 7.07 to - 1.7; P = 0.001), shorter operative time (MD - 50.24; 95% CI - 78.57 to - 21.92; P = 0.0005), and lower rates in intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 0.12; P = 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LCLR and OCLR regarding hospital expenses (MD 0.92; P = 0.12), pedicle clamping (OR 1.57; P = 0.32), postoperative complications (OR 0.58; P = 0.15), bile leak (P = 0.88), ascites (P = 0.34), and incisional infection (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: LCLR has multiple advantages over OCLR, especially intraoperative blood loss and hospital stays. LCLR is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with caudate lobe lesions.

Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely in liver disease due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) has been reported rarely. We aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of LCLR by comparing it with open liver surgery. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent LCLR and open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) between January 2015 and August 2019. Twenty-two patients were involved in this study and divided into LCLR (n = 10) and OCLR (n = 12) groups based on preoperative imaging, tumor characteristics, and blood and liver function test. Patient demographic data and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant inter-group differences between gender, age, preoperative liver function, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities (P > 0.05). The LCLR showed significantly less blood loss (50 vs. 300 ml, respectively; P = 0.004), shorter length of hospital stay (15 vs. 16 days, respectively; P = 0.034), and shorter operative time (216.50 vs. 372.78 min, respectively; P = 0.012) than OCLR, but hospital expenses (5.02 vs. 6.50 WanRMB, respectively; P = 0.208) showed no statistical difference between groups. There was no statistical difference in postoperative bile leakage (P = 0.54) and wound infection (P = 0.54) between LCLR and OCLR. Neither LCLR nor OCLR resulted in bleeding or liver failure after operation. There were no deaths. CONCLUSION: LCLR is a very useful technology, and it is a feasible choice in selected patients with benign and malignant tumors in the caudate lobe.