The Optimal Primary Treatment for Pediatric Perianal Abscess and Anal Fistula: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPerianal abscesses and anal fistulas are common. The principle of intention-to-treat has not been considered in previous systemic reviews. Thus, the comparison between primary and post-recurrence management was confused, and the recommendation of primary treatment is obscure. The current study aims to identify the optimal initial treatment for pediatric patients.MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar without any language or study design restriction. The inclusion criteria include original articles or articles with original data, studies of management for a perianal abscess with or without anal fistula, and patient age of <18 years. Patients with local malignancy, Crohn's disease, or other underlying predisposing conditions were excluded. Studies without analyzing recurrence, case series of <5, and irrelevant articles were excluded in the screening stage. Of the 124 screened articles, 14 articles had no full texts or detailed information. Articles written in a language other than English or Mandarin were translated by Google Translation first and confirmed with native speakers. After the eligibility process, studies that compared identified primary managements were then included in the qualitative synthesis.ResultsThirty-one studies involving 2507 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. The study design consisted of two prospective case series of 47 patients and retrospective cohort studies. No randomized control trials were identified. Meta-analyses for recurrence after initial management were performed with a random-effects model. Conservative treatment and drainage revealed no difference (Odds ratio [OR], 1.222; 95% Confidential interval [CI]: 0.615–2.427, p = 0.567). Conservative management had a higher risk of recurrence than surgery without statistical significance (OR 0.278, 95% CI: 0.109–0.707, p = 0.007). Compared with incision/drainage, surgery can prevent recurrence remarkably (OR 4.360, 95% CI: 1.761–10.792, p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis of different approaches within conservative treatment and operation was not performed for lacking information.ConclusionStrong recommendations cannot be made due to the lack of prospective or randomized controlled studies. However, the current study based on real primary management supports initial surgical intervention for pediatric patients with perianal abscesses and anal fistula to prevent recurrence.Level of evidenceType of study: Systemic review; Evidence level: Level II.     

肺癌患者化疗后三种肿瘤标志物的表达变化及意义

目的探讨肺癌患者化疗后的癌胚抗原(CEA)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)和鳞状上皮细胞癌抗原(SCC-Ag)表达变化。方法选取2017年5月至2020年2月间南京市六合区人民医院收治的100例肺癌患者,将这些患者作为肺癌组,另随机选取同期100例健康体检人员作为健康组。统计分析两组人员化疗前的血清NSE、CEA、SCC-Ag表达水平、肺癌组化疗成功患者化疗前后的血清NSE、CEA、SCC-Ag表达水平、肺癌组化疗失败患者化疗前后的血清NSE、CEA、SCC-Ag表达水平。结果肺癌组患者化疗前的血清NSE、CEA和SCC-Ag表达水平均高于健康组,差异均有统计学意义(均P <0.05)。肺癌组化疗成功患者化疗后的血清NSE、CEA和SCC-Ag表达水平均低于化疗前,均高于健康组,差异均有统计学意义(P <0.05)。肺癌组化疗失败患者化疗后的血清NSE、CEA、SCC-Ag表达水平均高于化疗前,均高于健康组,差异均有统计学意义(P <0.05)。结论对肺癌患者的NSE、CEA、SCC-Ag表达水平进行检测能够将化疗效果有效反映出来,进而有效指导临床的下一步治疗工作,从而有效改善患者预后。     

Role of surgical treatments in high-grade or advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Over the last 40 years, the incidence and prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) have continued to increase. Compared to other epithelial neoplasms in the same organ, GEP-NENs exhibit indolent biological behavior, resulting in more chances to undergo surgery. However, the role of surgery in high-grade or advanced GEP-NENs is still controversial. Surgery is associated with survival improvement of well-differentiated high-grade GEP-NENs, whereas poorly differentiated GEP-NENs that may benefit from resection require careful selection based on Ki67 and other tissue biomarkers. Additionally, surgery also plays an important role in locally advanced and metastatic disease. For locally advanced GEP-NENs, isolated major vascular involvement is no longer an absolute contraindication. In the setting of metastatic GEP-NENs, radical intended surgery is recommended for patients with low-grade and resectable metastases. For unresectable metastatic disease, a variety of surgical approaches, including cytoreduction of liver metastasis, liver transplantation, and surgery after neoadjuvant treatment, show survival benefits. Primary tumor resection in GEP-NENs with unresectable metastatic disease is associated with symptom control, prolonged survival, and improved sensitivity toward systemic therapies. Although there is no established neoadjuvant or adjuvant strategy, increasing attention has been given to this emerging research area. Some studies have reported that neoadjuvant therapy effectively reduces tumor burden, improves the effectiveness of subsequent surgery, and decreases surgical complications.     

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.