基于文献的老年人群常见证候分布特征研究＊

目的 了解我国老年人中医证候分布特征，为中医药辨治老年人提供参考依据。方法 系统检索中国知识基础设施（CNKI）、中文科技期刊数据库（CCD）、万方数据资源系统数据库（CSPD），纳入研究对象为老年人的临床流行病学调查研究文献，对其调查目的、调查疾病及调查结果等进行描述统计。结果 ①最终纳入168篇文献，其中2010至2020年之间发表138篇（82.14%）；调查地区涵盖全国28个省市自治区，共纳入43948例老年人，累计覆盖340个研究中心；②主要研究结果显示，老年人中医证候阴虚阳亢证（10.05%）>血瘀证（9.5%）>痰浊（湿）证（8.91%）>阴阳两虚证（4.98%）>痰瘀互结证（4.96%）；单元证分布阴虚证（14.70%）>痰证（11.22%）>气虚证（7.15%）>肾虚证（4.72%）>血瘀证（4.18%）；涉及病变脏腑肾>肝>脾>肺>心。结论 根据统计结果，可以看出老年人证候分布虚证多于实证，虚证中又以阴虚证、气虚证最为多见，实证常见血瘀证、痰浊（湿）证等，且多见痰瘀互结证；老年人五脏皆损，其中又以肾、肝、脾功能失调最为突出。     

浅论中医学对胰腺实体解剖的认知过程

中医学古籍中罕有关于“胰腺”的明确记载，缺乏直观、系统的理论论述。本文试图通过对各个时期具有代表性的医学典籍所记载内容的分析，结合现代解剖学相关理论，梳理中医学对胰腺实体解剖的认识过程。通过分析，笔者认为中医学对胰腺实体解剖的认识具有阶段性：①先秦两汉时期，存在胰腺实体解剖，但并非认为胰腺是脏器；②唐宋时期，胰腺实体解剖更加清晰，在医学上胰腺附属于脾，并非为独立的脏器；③明清时期，胰腺实体解剖明确，部分医家以独立脏器论之，出现“脾”、“胰”之争。中医学理论缺少对胰腺的单独论述，目前学界的主流观点多为“胰属脾”，线性归属以脾笼统代之略显单薄，不利于理论的丰富与发展。笔者认为胰腺藏象应独立于脾单独讨论，现代解剖学对胰腺命名同一，形态结构清楚，位置描述明确，可直接补充进中医学胰腺藏象（藏）理论中，为完善胰腺藏象理论搭建解剖学基础。     

China special issue on gastrointestinal tumors-Radiological features of pathological complete response in mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer after neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade: A post hoc analysis of the PICC phase II trial

Neoadjuvant programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade exhibits promising efficacy in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC). However, discrepancies between radiological and histological findings have been reported in the PICC phase II trial (NCT 03926338). Therefore, we strived to discern radiological features associated with pathological complete response (pCR) based on computed tomography (CT) images. Data were obtained from the PICC trial that included 36 tumors from 34 locally advanced dMMR CRC patients, who received neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade for 3 months. Among the 36 tumors, 28 (77.8%) tumors achieved pCR. There were no statistically significant differences in tumor longitudinal diameter, the percentage change in tumor longitudinal diameter from baseline, primary tumor sidedness, clinical stage, extramural venous invasion status, intratumoral calcification, peritumoral fat infiltration, intestinal fistula and tumor necrosis between the pCR and non-pCR tumors. Otherwise, tumors with pCR had smaller posttreatment tumor maximum thickness (median: 10 mm vs 13 mm, P = .004) and higher percentage decrease in tumor maximum thickness from baseline (52.9% vs 21.6%, P = .005) compared to non-pCR tumors. Additionally, a higher proportion of the absence of vascular sign (P = .003, odds ratio [OR] = 25.870 [95% CI, 1.357-493.110]), nodular sign (P < .001, OR = 189.000 [95% CI, 10.464-3413.803]) and extramural enhancement sign (P = .003, OR = 21.667 [2.848-164.830]) was observed in tumors with pCR. In conclusion, these CT-defined radiological features may have the potential to serve as valuable tools for clinicians in identifying patients who have achieved pCR after neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade, particularly in individuals who are willing to adopt a watch-and-wait strategy.