Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.AimsWe aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.ResultsA total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10–40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10–19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).ConclusionCSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.     

Variability in non-core vaccination rates of dogs and cats in veterinary clinics across the United States

Vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats indicate that core vaccines (for dogs, rabies, distemper, adenovirus, parvovirus; for cats, feline parvovirus, herpes virus-1, calicivirus) are essential to maintain health, and that non-core vaccines be administered according to a clinician’s assessment of a pet’s risk of exposure and susceptibility to infection. A reliance on individual risk assessment introduces the potential for between-practice inconsistencies in non-core vaccine recommendations. A study was initiated to determine non-core vaccination rates of dogs (Leptospira, Borrelia burgdorferi, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine influenza virus) and cats (feline leukemia virus) in patients current for core vaccines in veterinary practices across the United States. Transactional data for 5,531,866 dogs (1,670 practices) and 1,914,373 cats (1,661 practices) were retrieved from practice management systems for the period November 1, 2016 through January 1, 2020, deidentified and normalized. Non-core vaccination status was evaluated in 2,798,875 dogs and 788,772 cats that were core-vaccine current. Nationally, median clinic vaccination rates for dogs were highest for leptospirosis (70.5%) and B. bronchiseptica (68.7%), and much lower for canine influenza (4.8%). In Lyme-endemic states, the median clinic borreliosis vaccination rate was 51.8%. Feline leukemia median clinic vaccination rates were low for adult cats (34.6%) and for kittens and 1-year old cats (36.8%). Individual clinic vaccination rates ranged from 0 to 100% for leptospirosis, B. bronchiseptica and feline leukemia, 0–96% for canine influenza, and 0–94% for borreliosis. Wide variation in non-core vaccination rates between clinics in similar geographies indicates that factors other than disease risk are driving the use of non-core vaccines in pet dogs and cats, highlighting a need for veterinary practices to address gaps in patient protection. Failure to implement effective non-core vaccination strategies leaves susceptible dogs and cats unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases.     

Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PurposeTo review and to compare indirectly the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.Materials and MethodsA literature search via Medline and Cochrane Central databases was completed for randomized control studies published between January 2000 to April 2020 for the following therapies: Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and prostatic artery embolization (PAE). Data on the following variables were included: International prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate, quality of life, and postvoid residual (PVR). Standard mean differences between treatments were compared through a meta-analysis using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to assess differences in treatment effect.ResultsThere was no significant difference in outcomes between therapies for IPSS at the 3, 6, and 12-month follow ups. Although outcomes for Rezum were only available out to 3 months, there were no consistently significant differences in outcomes when comparing Aquablation versus PAE versus Rezum. TURP PVR was significantly better than Urolift at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in minor or major adverse events were noted.ConclusionAlthough significant differences in outcomes were limited, Aquablation and PAE were the most durable at 12 months. PAE has been well studied on multiple randomized control trials with minimal adverse events while Aquablation has limited high quality data and has been associated with bleeding-related complications.     

What information can we gain from performing adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients from the past 10 years?

The aim of the review was to present the current literature status about replanning regarding anatomical and dosimetric changes in the target and OARs in the head and neck region during radiotherapy, to discuss and to analyze factors influencing the decision for adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in head and neck patients’ evaluation and qualification for adapted radiotherapy over the past ten years. Many factors leading to anatomical and dosimetric changes during treatment have been identified. Based on the literature, the most common factors triggering re-plan are weight loss, tumor and nodal changes, and parotid glands shrinkage. The fluctuations in dose distribution in the clinical area are significant predictive factors for patients’ quality of life and the possibility of recovery. It has been shown that re-planning influence clinical outcomes: local control, disease free survival and overall survival. Regarding literature studies, it seems that adaptive radiotherapy would be the most beneficial for tumors of immense volume or those in the nearest proximity of the OARs. All researchers agree that the timing of re-planning is a crucial challenge, and there are still no clear consensus guidelines for time or criteria of re-planning. Nowadays, thanks to significant technological progress, the decision is mostly made based on observation and supported with IGRT verification. Although further research is still needed, adaptive strategies are evolving and now became the state of the art of modern radiotherapy.