Heterogeneity of weight loss after gastric bypass,sleeve gastrectomy,and adjustable gastric banding

Background

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding all lead to substantial weight loss in obese patients. Long-term weight loss can be highly variable beyond 1-year postsurgery. This study examines and compares the frequency distribution of weight loss and lack of treatment effect rates after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

Colorectal serrated pathway cancers and precursors

The serrated pathway (SP) can be viewed as two parallel, but partially overlapping, arrays of colorectal precursor lesions, and their respective endpoint carcinomas, that are distinct from those of the conventional adenoma–carcinoma sequence (APC‐pathway). In this review we focus at the outset on the clinical impact, pathological features, molecular genetics and biological behaviours of the various SP cancers. Then we summarize the clinicopathological features, classification and molecular profiles of the two main precursor lesions that anchor the respective pathways: (i) sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P), also called sessile serrated lesion (SSL), and (ii) traditional serrated adenoma (TSA). Activating mutations of the RAS–RAF–MAPK pathway initiate and sustain the lesions of the SP, and CpG island methylation of the promoter regions of tumour suppressor and DNA repair genes play the major role in their neoplastic progression. The SP includes microsatellite stable (MSS) carcinomas that are among the most biologically aggressive colorectal carcinomas (CRC), and also accounts for the great preponderance of sporadic hypermutated, mismatch repair (MMR)‐deficient or microsatellite instable (MSI) CRC. The identification, removal and appropriate classification of at‐risk SP precursors and surveillance of individuals who harbour these lesions present a challenge and opportunity for CRC prevention and mortality reduction.     

放疗在肝癌治疗中应用的研究进展

肝癌是临床上常见的恶性肿瘤，因早期症状不典型，至发现时往往已为中晚期，失去最佳手术治疗时机和机会。作为非手术治疗之一的放射治疗技术，其发展在近年来已有了较大的进步。放疗包括体外放疗和体内放疗，皆具有一定的治疗效果和相对可控的不良反应。本文就肝癌放射治疗的应用进展作一综述。     

阿帕替尼治疗晚期及术后复发肺肉瘤样癌的疗效分析

目的探索阿帕替尼治疗晚期及术后复发肺肉瘤样癌的疗效。方法收集2016年6月至2019年8月Ⅲ~Ⅳ期及术后复发的肺肉瘤样癌患者21例,口服阿帕替尼(250~425 mg/d)治疗,30 d为1个疗程,观察并分析疗效及评价安全性。结果21例患者中,完全缓解(CR)为0,部分缓解(PR)为14.3%(3例),稳定(SD)为33.3%(7例),疾病进展(PD)为52.4%(11例);客观反应率(ORR)为13.3%(3例),疾病控制率(DCR)为47.6%(10例)。中位总生存期(mOS)为4.6个月,中位无进展生存期(mPFS)为1.0个月。病灶≥6 cm(或≥5 cm)较<6 cm(或<5 cm)平均OS明显缩短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后分期Ⅰ~Ⅱ期较Ⅲ~Ⅳ期平均OS明显延长(P<0.05)。位于中央的病灶较周围的病灶平均OS明显缩短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。性别、年龄(>60岁,≤60岁)、吸烟史(是/否)对疗效影响差异无统计学意义。常见不良反应包括高血压38.1%(8例)、蛋白尿23.8%(5例)、手足综合征28.6%(6例)、腹泻28.6(6例)、骨髓抑制38.1%(8例)。结论阿帕替尼治疗晚期及术后复发肺肉瘤样癌具有一定疗效,不良反应可控,病灶大小、位置及分期可能是疗效的独立影响因素。     

Current status of first-line therapy,anti-angiogenic therapy and its combinations of other agents for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Globally, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a frequently diagnosed malignancy with rapidly increasing incidence and mortality rates. Unfortunately, many of these patients are diagnosed in the advanced stages when locoregional treatments are not appropriate. Before 2008, no effective drug treatments existed to prolong survival, until the breakthrough multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sorafenib was developed. It remained the standard treatment option for advanced HCC for 10 years, with a battery of other candidate drugs in clinical trials failing to produce similar efficacy results. In 2018, the REFLECT trial introduced another multi-TKI, lenvatinib, which has non-inferior overall survival compared with sorafenib. Thus, offering patients and their treating physicians two effective treatment options. Recently, immunotherapy-based drugs, such as atezolizumab and bevacizumab, have shown promising results in patients with unresectable HCC. This review summarizes clinical trial and real-world data studies of sorafenib and lenvatinib in patients with unresectable HCC. We offer guidance on the optimal choice between the two treatments and discuss the potential of immunotherapy-based combination; when more data become available, this will likely make the choice between sorafenib and lenvatinib somewhat obsolete.