ObjectiveTo explore the application of Toumai® minimally invasive endoscopic robot in thoracic surgery, and to observe its safety and short-term surgical efficacy. MethodsThree patients were enrolled from October to December 2021, including 1 male (69 years) and 2 females (47 years and 22 years). All 3 patients received surgery with Toumai® endoscopic surgical robot, including radical lung cancer surgery in 2 patients and mediastinal tumor resection in 1 patient. ResultsAll 3 patients were successfully operated without conversion to thoracotomy, complication or death. For the male lobectomy patient, the total operation time was 120 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL, the catheter drainage time was 4 days and the hospital stay time was 5 days. For the female lobectomy patient, the total operation time was 103 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL, the catheter drainage time was 4 days and the hospital stay time was 5 days. For the female mediastinal tumor patient, the total operation time was 81 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 50 mL, the catheter drainage time was 3 days and the hospital stay time was 3 days. ConclusionThe Toumai® minimally invasive endoscopic surgical robot is safe and effective in thoracic surgery. Compared with Da Vinci surgical robot, Toumai® has the same 3D visual field experience and smooth operation.
Objective To systematically review the sex differences in efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods We conducted a computer search of Medline, The Cochrane Library, and EMbase from inception to November 2022 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of ICIs for NSCLC patients. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results Finally 16 RCTs with a total of 9 653 patients were included, and all were evaluated as high-quality literature using the modified Jadad scale. Meta-analysis results showed that in female NSCLC patients receiving immune therapy, the median overall survival (OS) [HR=0.72, 95%CI(0.61, 0.85), P<0.001] was longer than in males [HR=0.73, 95%CI(0.69, 0.78), P=0.401]. Males [HR=0.64, 95%CI(0.58, 0.71), P=0.171] had an advantage over females [HR=0.76, 95%CI(0.57, 1.03), P<0.001] in median progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusion Females receiving ICIs have immunotherapeutic advantages in terms of median OS compared to males, while males are more likely to benefit statistically in terms of median PFS than females.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsTo collect clinical randomized controlled trials of ICIs for the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, computer searches were conducted on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMbase databases. The search time frame was inception to January 2023. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software. ResultsTwelve clinical studies were included, all of which were assessed as high-quality literature with a total of 7 121 patients. Meta-analysis showed that the first-line treatment of NSCLC patients with ICIs significantly improved median overall survival (OS) (HR=0.72, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.80, P < 0.000 01), prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.65, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.78, P<0.000 01), and improved objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.52, 95%CI 1.28 to 1.79, P<0.000 01), compared to chemotherapy. Subgroup analysis showed that the ICIs combination therapy group significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR in NSCLC patients compared to the ICIs monotherapy group. In terms of safety, the ICIs group had a lower risk of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade and grade 3-5 TRAEs than the chemotherapy group. However, the ICIs group had a higher incidence of TRAEs leading to treatment cessation than the chemotherapy group. Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of any grade TRAEs, grade 3-5 TRAEs, leading to treatment discontinuation TRAEs was higher in the immune combination therapy group than in the immune monotherapy group. ConclusionThe first-line treatment of NSCLC patients with ICIs inhibitors significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR compared to chemotherapy. Immune-combination chemotherapy significantly improved the outcomes of NSCLC patients, compared to immune monotherapy, but patients were at a higher risk of TRAEs.
Objective To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of nedaplatin combined with gemcitabine compared with cisplatin combined with gemcitabine in the treatment of advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma. Methods The Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP, CNKI and China General Library of Biomedical Literature were searched. Literatures related to the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin combined with gemcitabine (nedaplatin group) versus cisplatin combined with gemcitabine (cisplatin group) in the treatment of advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma published from the inception to October 2021 were searched. The quality of included studies was assessed by Cochrane bias assessing tool and the meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4. Results A total of 10 articles were included covering 914 patients. Meta-analysis showed that the objective remission rate (OR=1.51, 95%CI 1.13-2.01, P=0.005), disease control rate (OR=1.54, 95%CI 1.10-2.15, P=0.01) and 1-year survival rate (OR=2.29, 95%CI 1.25-4.18, P=0.007) of the nedaplatin group were better than those of the cisplatin group. In terms of side effects, the incidence of white blood cell and hemoglobin decline, nausea and vomiting, and diarrhea in the nedaplatin group was lower than that in the cisplatin group (P≤0.05). The differences in the platelet decline and liver and kidney damage between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion For patients with advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma, the short-term efficacy of nedaplatin combined with gemcitabine may be better than cisplatin combined with gemcitabine, and the incidence of adverse reactions is lower.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of thoraco-laparoscopy combined with Ivor Lewis surgery versus thoraco-laparoscopy combined with McKeown surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, VIP database and CNKI were searched by computer for the relevant literature comparing the efficacy and safety of Ivor Lewis surgery and McKeown surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma from inception to January 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of cohort studies, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies. Review Manager 5.4 software was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of the literature. ResultsA total of 33 articles were included, which consisted of 26 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies and 4 randomized controlled trials. There were 11 518 patients in total, including 5 454 patients receiving Ivor Lewis surgery and 6064 patients receiving McKeown surgery. NOS score was≥7 points. Meta-analysis showed that, in comparison to the McKeown surgery, the Ivor Lewis surgery had shorter operative time (MD=–19.61, 95%CI –30.20 to –9.02, P<0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=–1.15, 95%CI –1.43 to –0.87, P<0.001), lower mortality rate during hospitalization or 30 days postoperatively (OR=0.37, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.71, P=0.003), and lower incidence of total postoperative complications (OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.49, P<0.001). The McKeown surgery had an advantage in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected (MD=–1.25, 95%CI –2.03 to –0.47, P=0.002), postoperative extubation time (MD=0.78, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.19, P<0.001) and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate (OR=1.83, 95%CI 1.41 to 2.39, P<0.001). The differences between the two surgeries were not statistically significant in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 1 year-, 3 year- and 5 year-overall survival (OS), and impaired gastric emptying (P>0.05). ConclusionCompared with McKeown surgery, Ivor Lewis surgery has shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower mortality rate during hospitalization or 30 days postoperatively and lower incidence of total postoperative complications. However, in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative extubation time and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate, McKeown surgery has advantages. Both surgeries have comparable results in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 1 year-, 3 year- and 5 year-OS, and impaired gastric emptying.
Although surgical resection remains to be the best treatment strategy for stageⅠnon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), percutaneous thermal ablation offers an important option for patients who are unable to undergo surgical resection. Currently, there are three main thermal ablation methods used in the treatment of lung cancer, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA) and argon-helium cryoablation (AHC). With the improvement of technique and the accumulation of experience in the treatment of lung cancer, some limitations are disclosed in the initial application of RFA, such as heat sink effect, skin burns and rapid carbonization. These shortcomings have been overcome in the development of MWA and AHC. The feasibility and safety of thermal ablation for the treatment of lung cancer has been demonstrated and its efficacy has been significantly improved (especially for the tumour diameter≤3 cm). This article will focus on the application and recent research developments of these ablation techniques in the treatment of lung cancer.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Despite growing efforts for its early detection by screening populations at risk, the majority of lung cancer patients are still diagnosed in an advanced stage. In the last decade, the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been improved significantly. Emerging options of targeted therapies and immunotherapies have shifted the management of lung cancer to a more personalized treatment approach, significantly influencing the clinical course and outcome of the disease. At present, molecular biomarkers are becoming a powerful tool for diagnosing cancer, predicting treatment response outcomes, and assessing prognosis. In this review, we summarized the biomarkers relevant to the diagnosis, prediction, and prognosis of NSCLC as well as promising novel predictive biomarkers in the future.
ObjectiveTo compare the mortality in lung cancer patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) versus other cancer patients infected with COVID-19. MethodsA computer search of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, VIP database and CNKI database was conducted to compare the mortality of lung cancer and other cancers patients infected with COVID-19 from the inception to December 2021. Two thoracic surgeons independently screened the literature, extracted data, and then cross-checked the literature. After evaluating the quality of the included literature, a meta-analysis was performed on the literature using Review Manager 5.4 software. ResultsA total of 12 retrospective cohort studies were included, covering 3 065 patients infected with COVID-19, among whom 340 patients suffered from lung cancer and the remaining 2 725 patients suffered from other cancers. Meta-analysis results showed that the lung cancer patients infected with COVID-19 had a higher mortality (OR=1.58, 95%CI 1.24 to 2.02, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis results showed that the mortality of two groups of patients in our country was not statistically different (OR=0.90, 95%CI 0.49 to 1.65, P=0.72). Whereas, patients with lung cancer had a higher mortality than those with other cancers in other countries (Brazil, Spain, USA, France, Italy, UK, Netherlands) (OR=1.78, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.32, P<0.001). ConclusionThere is a negligible difference in mortality between lung cancer and other cancers patients who are infected with COVID-19 in our country; while a higher mortality rate is found in lung cancer patients in other countries. Consequently, appropriate and positive prevention methods should be taken to reduce the risk of infecting COVID-19 in cancer patients and to optimize the management of the infected population.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopy in the treatment of esophageal foreign bodies.Methods PubMed, Web of science, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI and Wanfang were searched by computer for relevant literatures on CAP-assisted endoscopic treatment of esophageal foreign bodies from establishment to November 2022. Data were processed using RevMan 5.4.1. Results Finally, 27 studies were included, including 17 randomized controlled trials, 2 Cohort studies and 8 case-control studies, with a total of 3 619 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with traditional endoscopic treatment, the success rate of removal of esophageal foreign bodies in CAP-assisted endoscopy group was higher (OR=14.43, 95%CI 10.64 to 19.55, P<0.000 01), postoperative complications were fewer (OR=0.30,95%CI 0.23 to 0.38, P<0.000 01), patients had better tolerance (OR=4.07, 95%CI 2.95 to 5.60, P<0.000 01), intraoperative visual field clarity was better (OR=12.00, 95%CI 7.29 to 19.76, P<0.000 01) and operative time was shorter (SMD=−1.83, 95%CI −2.31 to −1.34, P<0.000 01). Conclusion CAP-assisted endoscopic treatment of esophageal foreign bodies is an effective and safe method, worthy of further promotion and application in clinical practice.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted thymectomy (RATS) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic thymectomy (VATS). MethodsWeb of Science, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang, VIP and CNKI databases were searched by computer from inception to February 2022. Relevant literatures that compared the efficacy and safety of RATS with those of VATS were screened. The Newcastle-OttawaScale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of included cohort studies, and Review Manager 5.4 software was utilized to perform a meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 16 retrospective cohort studies were included, covering a total of 1 793 patients (874 patients in the RATS group and 919 patients in the VATS group). The NOS scores of the included studies were≥7 points. Meta-analysis results revealed that RATS had less intraoperative bleeding (MD=−22.45, 95%CI −34.16 to −10.73, P<0.001), less postoperative chest drainage (MD=−80.29, 95%CI −144.86 to −15.72, P=0.010), shorter postoperative drainage time (MD=−0.69, 95%CI −1.08 to −0.30, P<0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=−1.14, 95%CI −1.55 to −0.72, P<0.001) and fewer conversion to thoractomy (OR=0.40, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.69, P=0.001) than VATS; whereas, the operative time (MD=8.37, 95%CI −1.21 to 17.96, P=0.090), incidence of postoperative myasthenia gravis (OR=0.85, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.40, P=0.530), overall postoperative complications rate (OR=0.80, 95%CI 0.42 to 1.50, P=0.480) and tumour size (MD=−0.18, 95%CI −0.38 to 0.03, P=0.090) were not statistically different between the two groups. ConclusionIn the aspects of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative chest drainage, postoperative drainage time, postoperative hospital stay and conversion to thoracotomy, RATS has unique advantages over the VATS.