乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者症状评估量表的编制和信效度检验

目的 根据乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者的症状特征,编制适用于我国乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者的症状评估量表,并检验其信效度。方法 在文献回顾及参照现有症状评估量表的基础上编制量表初始条目池;通过2轮德尔菲专家函询,形成初始版量表;通过对11例患者的认知性访谈,对量表条目进一步修订,形成临床测试版量表。便利选取2020年7月—9月在浙江省某三级甲等肿瘤医院门诊或住院的325例乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者进行问卷调查,检验量表信效度。 结果 形成的最终版乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者症状评估量表包括33个条目,探索性因子分析提取7个公因子,累计方差贡献率为68.76%;各条目内容效度指数为0.78~1.00,量表内容效度指数为0.91;内在相关性检验结果显示,量表各维度与总量表相关系数为0.58~0.79（P<0.05）;维度间相关系数为0.26~0.52（P<0.05）;总量表Cronbach’s α系数为0.94,重测信度为0.95,折半信度为0.84。结论 编制的乳腺癌内分泌治疗患者症状评估量表具有良好的信效度,适用于相关人群的症状测评。     

The role of extra-hepatic bile duct resection in the surgical management of gallbladder carcinoma. A first meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinicopathological and prognostic value of extra-hepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) in the surgical management of patients with gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), especially in non-jaundiced patients.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 1^st 2021 for comparative studies between bile duct resected and non-resected groups. RevMan5.3 and Stata 13.0 software were used for the statistical analyses.ResultsEHBDR did not correlate with a better overall survival (OS) (P = 0.17) or disease-free survival (P = 0.27). No survival benefit was also observed in patients with T2N1 (P = 0.4), T3N0 (P = 0.14) disease and node-positive patients (P = 0.75), rather, EHBDR was even harmful for patients with T2N0 (P = 0.01) and node-negative disease (P = 0.02). Significantly higher incidences of recurrent disease (P = 0.0007), postoperative complications (P < 0.00001) and positive margins (P = 0.02) were detected in the bile duct-resected group. The duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups was comparable (P = 0.58). Selection bias was also detected in our analysis that a significantly higher proportion of advanced lesions with T3-4 or III-IV disease was observed in the bile duct-resected group (P < 0.00001). EHBDR only contributed to a greater lymph yield (P = 0.01).ConclusionEHBDR has no survival advantage for patients with GBC, especially for those with non-jaundiced disease. Considering the unfairness of comparing OS between jaundiced patients receiving EHBDR with non-jaundiced patients without EHBDR, we could only conclude that routine EHBDR in non-jaundiced patients is not recommended and future well-designed studies with more specific subgroup analyses are required for further validation.     

国内外安宁疗护准入标准的研究进展

安宁疗护可提高患者在生命终末阶段的生活质量，减轻患者和家属的身心痛苦。科学合理的安宁疗护准入标准可帮助医护人员识别出需要安宁疗护服务的患者，使其及时获得安宁疗护服务，因此明确安宁疗护的准入标准是推进安宁疗护发展的基础。本文就国内外安宁疗护准入标准的制定方法、具体内容及优缺点进行综述，以期为我国安宁疗护准入标准的构建提供参考。     

肿瘤免疫检查点抑制剂相关的肝毒性

肿瘤免疫检查点抑制剂治疗为肿瘤患者带来生存获益的同时,也面临了许多挑战,例如免疫介导的肝毒性的发生。深入了解免疫检查点抑制剂治疗肿瘤过程中导致肝损伤的发生情况、可能机制、危险因素等,有助于更好地临床管理。     

CSTB、A-FABP在膀胱癌诊断与预后的价值

目的 分析CSTB、A-FABP在膀胱癌诊断和预后的意义。方法 选取2014年1月至2016年7月在本院进行手术、病理证实的膀胱癌患者45例、良性膀胱病变患者88例，检测膀胱癌样本癌组织、癌旁组织、良性膀胱病变组织中CSTB、A-FABP表达水平。评价CSTB、A-FABP在鉴别诊断膀胱癌的效用。对比膀胱癌进展对象（2年内转移、复发、肿瘤死亡）以及未进展对象组织中CSTB、A-FABP表达水平。结果 癌组织、癌旁组织、良性病变对象组织中CSTB、A-FABP表达水平差异有统计学意义（P<0．05）。CSTB、A-FABP作为诊断标准（任意一项为阳性），鉴别诊断膀胱癌与良性病变的灵敏度为84．4%、特异度为90．9%、阳性预测值82．6%、阴性预测值92．0%、符合率88．7%。2年内转移、复发、肿瘤死亡的患者共30例，无转移、复发、死亡的患者共15例，膀胱癌进展对象CSTB、A FABP表达量高于未进展对象，差异有统计学意义（P<0．05）。结论 CSTB、A-FABP在膀胱癌诊断、预后预测中均有一定的临床价值。     

PRNCR1在前列腺癌诊断及预后的价值

目的 探讨前列腺癌非编码RNA1（PRNCR1）在前列腺癌早期诊断及预后的价值。方法 选取2012年1月至2015年10月在本院诊治前列腺癌患者45例、良性前列腺增生患者88例，进行PRNCR1检验。结果 PRNCR1 检验的灵敏度84.4%（38/45）、特异度90.9%（80/88）、阳性预测值82.6%（38/46）、阴性预测值92.0%（80/87)、符合率88.7%（118/133），PRNCR1在前列腺癌组织中含量高于癌旁组织和良性前列腺增生组织，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两年内转移、复发、肿瘤死亡患者30例，其PRNCRA表达量高于两年内无转移、复发、死亡的患者（15例），差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 PRNCR1表达在诊断前列腺癌有价值，PRNCR1高表达与患者预后不良有关。     

多原发结直肠癌的临床特征和预后

目的探讨多原发结直肠癌的临床特征和预后。方法回顾性分析南京医科大学第一附属医院2013年1月至2018年12月收治的42例多原发结直肠癌患者的临床资料,对其临床病理特征、诊治及预后进行总结。结果符合多原发结直肠癌诊断的患者42例,占同期收治的所有结直肠癌患者的1.20%(42/3499),病理类型以腺癌为主。其中,同时性多原发癌32例,年龄38~86岁,中位年龄66岁,共发现73处结直肠癌灶,多位于近端结肠、乙状结肠及直肠;共检出淋巴结527枚,阳性10枚(1.9%),淋巴结阳性患者占同时性多原发癌的37.5%(12/32);27例为双原发癌,3例为三原发癌,2例为五原发癌;1、3年总生存率分别为83.75%和74.38%。异时性多原发癌10例,年龄33~86岁,第一癌多位于直肠和乙状结肠区域,第二癌多位于升结肠区域;共检出淋巴结276枚,阳性率12.3%(34枚),1、3年总生存率分别为100.00%和66.67%。结论多原发结直肠癌在临床上不少见,其分布有一定规律。临床中应引起重视,提高早期诊断率。应早期手术治疗以提高患者的生存率。     

Current standards and future perspectives in adjuvant treatment for biliary tract cancers

Biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and gallbladder cancer (GBC) are rare tumours with a rising incidence. Prognosis is poor, since most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease. Only ~20% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease, suitable for curative surgery. Despite surgery performed with potentially-curative intent, relapse rates are high, with around 60–70% of patients expected to have disease recurrence. Most relapses occur in the form of distant metastases, with a predominance of liver spread. In view of high tumour recurrence, adjuvant strategies have been explored for many years, in the form of radiotherapy, chemo-radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Historically, few randomised trials were available, which included a variety of additional tumours (e.g. pancreatic and ampullary tumours); most evidence relied on phase II and retrospective studies, with no high-quality evidence available to define the real benefit derived from adjuvant strategies.Since 2017, three randomised phase III clinical trials have been reported; all recruited patients with resected biliary tract cancer (CCA and GBC) who were randomised to observation alone, or chemotherapy in the form of gemcitabine (BCAT study; included patients diagnosed with extrahepatic CCA only), gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (PRODIGE-12/ACCORD-18; included patients diagnosed with CCA and GBC) or capecitabine (BILCAP; included patients diagnosed with CCA and GBC). While gemcitabine-based chemotherapy failed to show an impact on patient outcome (relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS)), the BILCAP study showed a benefit from adjuvant capecitabine in terms of OS (pre-planned sensitivity analysis in the intention-to-treat population and in the per-protocol analysis), with confirmed benefit in terms of RFS. Based on the BILCAP trial, international guidelines recommend adjuvant capecitabine for a period of six months following potentially curative resection of CCA as the current standard of care for resected CCA and GBC. However, BILCAP failed to show OS benefit in the intention-to-treat (non-sensitivity analysis) population (primary end-point), and this finding, as well as some inconsistencies between studies has been criticised and has led to confusion in the biliary tract cancer medical community.This review summarises the adjuvant field in biliary tract cancer, with evidence before and after 2017, and comparison between the latest randomised phase III studies. Potential explanations are presented for differential findings, and future steps are explored.     

程序性细胞死亡蛋白配体1在结直肠癌免疫治疗中的研究进展

近年来,抗程序性细胞死亡蛋白1(PD-1)药物在转移性结直肠癌患者错配修复缺陷治疗中的成功使得该疾病的免疫治疗得以重视。然而,失配修复缺陷的结直肠癌患者仅占结肠癌患者的一部分。目前的研究重点是将免疫治疗应用到疾病的早期阶段,包括辅助一线治疗,以及检测免疫检查点抑制剂治疗的敏感性。然而,哪些患者能够从该免疫治疗中获益仍是值得商榷的问题,因为这类药物具有自身免疫毒性。PD-1的配体之一程序性细胞死亡蛋白配体1(PD-L1)作为一种检测生物标记物,其检测可以通过免疫组化来实现。但其免疫组化的检测存在一些混杂因素,包括应用不同的检测抗体、不同的免疫组化临界值、肿瘤组织的采集准备方式不同、处理过程的不同、原发与继发的活检标本、肿瘤源性或诱导的PD-L1表达,以及肿瘤与免疫细胞的染色等。目前的结果表明,免疫组化检测肿瘤过表达PD-L1的患者在接受抗PD-L1治疗时临床效果更理想,而有些低表达的肿瘤也对该治疗有所缓解,这使PD-L1的分析中存在复杂性。阐明宿主免疫系统与肿瘤微环境的机制则能够更好地解释针对PD-L1药物是否让患者受益。