乳腺癌分子异质性与分类治疗

乳腺癌在组织学、流行病学和分子特性层面是一种高度异质性的疾病。目前,基于免疫组化的乳腺癌分类方法,根据雌激素受体、孕激素受体和人类表皮生长因子受体-2（HER-2）的检测结果将乳腺癌分为临床亚型,显然与基于基因表达谱的固有亚型分类不一致。这表现为临床亚型内治疗反应性和结果的异质性。异质性肿瘤细胞的存在直接反映了亚型内部（或肿瘤内）的异质性。乳腺癌的异质性,特别是亚克隆肿瘤细胞的异质性,决定了乳腺癌的最终治疗必须准确地针对特定的亚克隆肿瘤细胞群。对原发性和转移性乳腺癌分子特征的深入分析表明,遗传改变具有很大的异质性,分子发现有助于开发针对HER-2、细胞周期蛋白依赖性激酶4/6（CDK4/6）、磷脂酰肌醇-3激酶（PI3K）或涉及BRCA突变携带者的多聚腺苷二磷酸-核糖聚合酶抑制剂和免疫治疗的新的治疗方法。     

运动疗法干预骨质疏松症研究进展及现存问题分析

骨质疏松症是一种与年龄和性别有关的全身性疾病,表现特征为每单位体积的骨量减少,骨强度受损,患者容易骨折,造成生活质量降低。运动疗法相比药物疗法具有经济性、无不良反应等优势,被越来越多人所关注。然而运动疗法的疗效在实际应用过程中并没有完全凸显,主要受运动本身的特点（运动方式、运动强度）以及患者自身条件所影响。目前骨质疏松症的检测方式具有一定的不确定性,患者无法判断经过一段时间运动干预后的真正疗效,从而影响到运动参与的积极性,并且运动干预骨质疏松症的评价指标主要集中在骨密度和骨矿物质含量上,忽视了运动对于人体肌肉功能以及身体机能的影响。另外,骨质疏松症人群的机能状态存在很大差异,因此,想要达到较好的干预效果就需要根据患者特点制定最为合适的运动处方。目前,国内外对运动干预骨质疏松症存在的问题尚缺乏详细的概述,笔者就相关现存问题进行归纳总结,给出建议以供参考,旨在提高运动疗法干预骨质疏松症的效果。     

索拉非尼联合免疫检查点抑制剂治疗TACE抵抗的中晚期肝癌的疗效及安全性

目的 探讨索拉非尼联合免疫检查点抑制剂（immune checkpoint inhibitors,ICIs）治疗经肝动脉化疗栓塞术（transcatheter arterial chemoembolization,TACE）抵抗的中晚期肝癌的疗效及安全性。方法 回顾性分析2017年1月至2021年3月期间在温州医科大学附属第五医院确诊为TACE抵抗的中晚期肝癌患者的资料,共54例,年龄28～82（56.1±11.8）岁,其中BCLC B期24例,C期30例;Child-Pugh A级34例,B级20例。根据治疗方法不同,分为对照组和联合组,对照组接受单一索拉非尼治疗（n=33）,联合组接受索拉非尼联合ICIs治疗（n=21）;比较两组患者的一般情况、肿瘤反应性、肿瘤无进展生存时间（progression-free survival,PFS）及不良反应的发生情况。结果 联合组（2例CR、11例PR、4例SD和4例PD）的肿瘤反应性明显优于对照组（2例CR、8例PR、10例SD、13例PD）（P=0.041）。联合组的中位PFS明显长于对照组（13.5个月 vs 6.8个月,P=0.010）;多因素分析显示Child-Pugh B级（HR 2.202,95%CI 1.059～4.581,P=0.035）、BCLC C期（HR 4.077,95%CI 1.902～8.742,P<0.001）、AFP≥400 ng/mL（HR 5.728,95%CI 2.227～14.729,P＜0.001）是TACE抵抗肝癌PFS的独立危险因素,索拉非尼联合ICIs（HR 0.180,95%CI 0.082～0.392,P<0.001）是肝癌患者的保护因素。联合组并发皮炎、腹泻的发生率明显多于对照组（P<0.05）。结论 索拉非尼联合ICIs治疗提高TACE抵抗中晚期肝癌的肿瘤反应性,延长患者PFS,是一种有效、安全的治疗方案。     

银黄洗剂治疗下肢血栓性浅静脉炎的临床疗效观察

目的:观察银黄洗剂治疗下肢血栓性浅静脉炎的临床疗效。方法:将62例诊断为下肢血栓性浅静脉炎的患者随机分为对照组和观察组,各31例。对照组在常规治疗的基础上应用硫酸镁湿敷,观察组在常规治疗的基础上应用银黄洗剂湿敷,疗程均为10 d。比较两组患者临床症状评分(皮肤颜色、患肢肿胀、硬索结节及疼痛的评分)、相关实验室指标(超敏C反应蛋白及纤维蛋白原)的变化情况以及总有效率。结果:观察组总有效率90.32%,高于对照组的64.52%(P<0.05)。与治疗前比较,两组症状体征评分明显改善,超敏C反应蛋白及纤维蛋白原明显降低(P<0.05)。观察组在改善症状体征及降低炎性反应方面较对照组更明显(P<0.05),两组治疗后纤维蛋白原数值比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:银黄洗剂治疗下肢血栓性浅静脉炎,可有效改善患者临床症状及降低炎性反应,明显提高临床疗效。     

Evaluation of the early adverse effects of radiotherapy in breast cancer patients with COVID-19: Prospective single institutional study

The COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is at the origin of a global pandemic. This pandemic has prompted the current health system to reorganize and rethink the care offered by health establishments. We report the early toxicity in patients infected with COVID-19 treated at the same time for early-stage breast cancer (BC). This is a monocentric prospective study of patients treated in our hospital between March 2020 and June 2020 and were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. The inclusion criteria were to be irradiated for early-stage BC and to have a positive COVID-19 diagnosis on a PCR test and/or a lung computed tomography (CT) scan and/or suggestive clinical symptoms. Radiotherapy (RT) consisted of breast or chest wall irradiation with or without lymph node irradiation, with protocols adapted to pandemic situation. The treatment-related toxicity was graded according to the CTCAE (version 4.03). All 350 patients treated for early-stage BC were studied. Of them, 16 were presented with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 infection and of them, 12 had clinical, CT scan, and PCR confirmation. This entire cohort of 12 pts with median age of 56 (42–72) underwent their RT. During the radiotherapy, there were 9 pts presented radiation dermatitis, 8 (66%) were grade 1 and one was (8%) grade 2. Two patients with lymph nodes irradiation presented esophagitis grade 2. This prospective COVID-19 cohort, treated for early-stage BC demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile with few low-grade adverse events. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm these findings.     

Optimizing androgen deprivation therapy with radiation therapy for aggressive localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

Radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has historically been one of the mainstays of treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. The benefit of ADT likely derives from both enhancing local control and inhibiting micrometastatic disease. While level 1 evidence has demonstrated the benefits of 4–6 months of ADT for all men with intermediate-risk disease, further stratification of intermediate-risk prostate cancer into favorable and unfavorable subgroups indicates that ADT may not be necessary for favorable intermediate-risk disease but likely still provides a survival advantage for unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, even in the dose escalation era. Long-course ADT, consisting of 2–3 years of treatment, is the standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer managed with RT based on phase III trials. However, emerging data from a randomized trial raises the possibility that 18 months of ADT could be sufficient for select high-risk patients. The desire to minimize exposure to ADT lies in its many adverse effects, including the potential for cardiovascular harm in certain patients with significant coexisting comorbidity, possibly increased risk for neurocognitive and psychiatric events, and the well-documented metabolic changes. Providers need to carefully weigh these potential risks with the known survival benefits of ADT in aggressive localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.