Immune-related LncRNAs scores predicts chemotherapeutic responses and prognosis in cervical cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Long non-coding RNAs (LncRNAs) regulating the immune microenvironment of cancer is a hot spot. But little is known about the influence of the immune-related lncRNA (IRlncRs) on the chemotherapeutic responses and prognosis of cervical cancer (CC) patients. The purpose of the study was to identify an immune-related lncRNAs (IRlncRs)-based model for the prospective prediction of clinical outcomes in CC patients. METHODS: CC patients' relevant data was acquired from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Correlation analysis and Cox regression analyses were applied. A risk score formula was formulated. Prognostic factors were combined into a nomogram, while sensitivity for chemotherapy drugs was analyzed using the OncoPredict algorithm. RESULTS: Eight optimal IRlncRs(ATP2A1-AS1, LINC01943, AL158166.1, LINC00963, AC009065.8, LIPE-AS1, AC105277.1, AC098613.1.) were incorporated in the IRlncRs model. The overall survival (OS) of the high-risk group of the model was inferior to those in the low-risk group. Further analysis demonstrated this eight-IRlncRs model as a useful prognostic marker. The Nomogram had a concordance index of survival prediction of 0.763(95% CI 0.746-0.780) and more robust predictive accuracy. Furthermore, patients in the low-risk group were found to be more sensitive to chemotherapy, including Paclitaxel, Rapamycin, Epirubicin, Vincristine, Docetaxel and Vinorelbine. CONCLUSIONS: An eight-IRlncRs-based prediction model was identified that has the potential to be an important tool to predict chemotherapeutic responses and prognosis for CC patients.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development.

BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality. METHODS: We conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: We included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ''critically low'' to ''low'' in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS.

A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China.

Background: The effectiveness of triage screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is not fully achieved in Chinese populations, mainly due to low compliance to colonoscopy follow-up. This study aimed to collect viewpoints of experts in China on ongoing screening programs and emerging screening tests for CRC, which may help to improve effectiveness of CRC screening in the country. Methods: We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with experts involving CRC screening in China during October to November of 2020. Interview topics included personal characteristics, work context, opinions on ongoing screening programs, challenges and opportunities in optimization of screening strategies, and prospects for CRC screening in near future. To analyze the data, we used a generic qualitative research approach inspired by grounded theory, including open, axial, and selective coding. Results: This analysis revealed a total of 83 initial categories, 37 subcategories and 10 main categories, which included 4 core categories of current modality for CRC screening, factors influencing screening effectiveness, optimization of CRC screening modality, and prospects for development of CRC screening. The results provide insight into the factors underlying the challenges of the ongoing CRC screening programs in China: the most important concern is the low compliance to colonoscopy, followed by the low specificity of the currently-used initial tests. The experts proposed to use quantitative instead of qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optimize risk assessment tools to improve specificity of initial tests. Regarding the emerging screening tests, 9 of 15 experts did not think that the novel techniques are good enough to replace the current tests, but can be used complementarily in opportunistic screening for CRC. Conclusion: The viewpoints of Chinese experts suggested that use quantitative FIT or optimize risk assessment tools may help to identify high-risk individuals of CRC more accurately, improve adherence to colonoscopy, and thus fully achieve the effectiveness of screening.

Prevalence of urolithiasis in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the pooled prevalence, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution, of urolithiasis among subjects in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of both Chinese and English databases to retrieve literature pertaining to the prevalence of urolithiasis in the indigenous Chinese population. A random-effects meta-analysis model was employed to calculate the pooled prevalence of urolithiasis. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on factors such as time, region, gender, and sample size. Prevalence and spatial distribution maps were created based on provinces and latitude/longitude coordinates. RESULTS: A total of 46 studies conducted in 22 provinces across China were included in this meta-analysis and the pooled prevalence of urolithiasis, kidney stones, ureteric calculi, urethral and bladder stones were 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-11.1%), 7.8% (95% CI 5.8-10.0%), 3.2% (95% CI 0.6-5.7%), 0.5% (95% CI 0.1-0.9%). Most of the urolithiasis prevalence screening in China was concentrated between 100° E and 120° E, with higher rates observed in low latitude areas. Subgroup analysis of kidney stones revealed that Guangdong (12.7%) and Guangxi (10.3%) had the highest prevalence, with the eastern developed area exhibiting higher rates compared to the west. The prevalence in males was higher than in females (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.46-1.92), although the gender gap has significantly reduced since 2006. Moreover, a greater sample size is associated with a decreased prevalence of urolithiasis. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing in China, and there are noteworthy regional or provincial disparities in occurrence. It is worth noting that the current number of screening studies in some areas is insufficient. Additional investigations with appropriate sample sizes should be supplemented in time.

A global view of adherence to colonoscopy follow-up in cascade screening of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To overview the colonoscopy adherence in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) and evaluate potential influence of the initial tests based on an ecological evaluation. METHODS: The performance of the initial screening tests and adherence to subsequent colonoscopy were extracted from relevant studies published up to 16 October 2020. The age-standardised incidence (ASRi) of CRC in populations in the year of screening was derived from the Cancer Statistics. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six observational studies and 60 experimental studies were identified. Most studies applied cascade screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) as an initial test. The adherence to colonoscopy varied greatly across populations by continents, gross national income and type of initial tests, with a median (interquartile range) of 79.8% (63.1%-87.8%) in observational studies and 82.1% (66.7%-90.4%) in randomised trials. The adherence was positively correlated with the ASRi of CRC (r = 0.145, p = 0.023) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial tests (r = 0.206, p = 0.002) in observational studies and correlated with ASRi of CRC (r = 0.309, p = 0.002) and sensitivity of the initial tests (r = -0.704, p = 0.003) in experimental studies. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to colonoscopy varies greatly across populations and is related with performance of the initial tests, indicating the importance to select appropriate initial tests.

Adherence to colonoscopy in cascade screening of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study aims to systematically evaluate adherence to colonoscopy and related factors in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) among average-risk populations, which is crucial to achieve the effectiveness of CRC screening. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English up to October 16, 2020, and reporting the adherence to colonoscopy following positive results of initial screening tests. A random-effects meta-analysis was applied to estimate pooled adherence and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression analysis were performed to evaluate heterogeneous factors for adherence level. RESULTS: A total of 245 observational and 97 experimental studies were included and generated a pooled adherence to colonoscopy of 76.6% (95% confidence interval: 74.1-78.9) and 80.4% (95% confidence interval: 77.2-83.1), respectively. The adherence varied substantially by calendar year of screening, continents, CRC incidence, socioeconomic status, recruitment methods, and type of initial screening tests, with the initial tests as the most modifiable heterogeneous factor for adherence across both observational (Q = 162.6, P < 0.001) and experimental studies (Q = 23.2, P < 0.001). The adherence to colonoscopy was at the highest level when using flexible sigmoidoscopy as an initial test, followed by using guaiac fecal occult blood test, quantitative or qualitative fecal immunochemical test, and risk assessment. The pooled estimate of adherence was positively associated with specificity and positive predictive value of initial screening tests, but negatively with sensitivity and positivity rate. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy adherence is at a low level and differs by study-level characteristics of programs and populations. Initial screening tests with high specificity or positive predictive value may be followed by a high adherence to colonoscopy.