Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We intended to compare the clinical effect of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy in ovarian cancer treatment. METHODS: The included studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the study quality. Effect measures were presented with weighted mean difference (WMD)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity test was assessed using Q test and I2 statistics to determine the use of the random effects model or fixed effects model. Egger's test was used to assess the publication bias. RESULTS: A total of eight studies was included in this meta-analysis with a MINORS score of 16-18. In the random effects model, estimated blood loss (EBL) of robotic surgery was significantly less compared with laparotomy (WMD = - 521.7027, 95% CI - 809.7816; - 233.6238). In the fixed effects model, length of hospital stay (LHS) (WMD = - 5.2225, 95% CI - 6.1485; - 4.2965) and postoperative complication (PC) (OR = 0.4710, 95% CI 0.2537; 0.8747) of robotic surgery were significantly less, and overall survival (OS) rate (OR = 6.4355, 95% CI 1.6722; 24.7678, P = 0.0070) of robotic surgery was significantly higher compared with laparotomy. There was no difference in the effect size of all variables between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. Meanwhile, a publication bias (t = 6.8290, P = 0.002405) was only identified for PC in robotic surgery and laparotomy groups; no publication bias was identified for the other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the above results, it failed to show oncological safety and recurrence by pathological stages or histologic types in this meta-analysis, and those confounding factors might affect the clinical outcome. Future meta-analyses with a larger number of eligible randomized controlled trial studies were needed to determine the most suitable treatment method for patients with different stages and types of ovarian cancer.

[Comparison of curative effect of low flow rate plasma exchange combined with hemofiltration for treatment of liver failure].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of plasma exchange (PE) combined with hemofiltration (HF) on liver failure. METHODS: Seventy-seven inpatients with liver failure admitted during January 2006 to August 2007 were randomly assigned to receive PE combined with HF (PE+HF group, 38 cases), or PE alone (PE group, 39 cases). Forty-one inpatients with liver failure who had not received artificial liver support treatment were assigned to serve as control group. The survival rates and biochemical parameters of three groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in biochemical parameters before treatment among three groups. Compared with pre-treatment values, albumin (Alb), cholinesterase (ChE) and prothrombin activity (PTA) of both PE group and PE+HF group were significantly increased after treatment, and total bilirubin (TBIL), alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST) of both PE group and PE+HF group were significantly decreased after treatment (P<0.05 or P<0.01). The survival rate of PE group, PE+HF group and control group was 48.7% (19/39), 68.4% (26/38), and 29.3% (12/41) respectively. The survival rate of PE+HF group was significantly higher than that of control group (chi(2)=12.11, P<0.01). The rate of recovery of consciousness of patients with hepatic encephalopathy in PE+HF group was higher than that of PE group (42.8% vs. 0, P<0.05). Compared with PE alone, the result was better when it was combined with HF in correction of electrolyte disturbance and acid-base imbalance (19/23 vs. 0/21, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment of liver failure by PE combined with HF is safe and effective, and its efficacy is higher than PE alone.

[The efficacy of artificial liver support system treatment on hepatic failure in China: a meta-analysis].

OBJECTIVE: Conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of artificial liver support system (ALSS) in the treatment of hepatic failure in China. METHODS: Clinical trials comparing ALSS vs. routine medical treatment of hepatic failure in China were identified from computer-based literature. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) of prognostic indicators, such as survival rate and clinical improvement rate at discharge, were used to measure the magnitude of the efficacy. RESULTS: Ten trials including 1030 patients were identified. The odds ratio (95% CI) of survivorship or improvement of ALSS over routine medical treatment in early, intermediate and advanced stages of hepatic failure were 3.72 (2.03-6.83), 2.79 (2.88-4.14) and 1.85 (0.96-3.56) respectively. CONCLUSION: ALSS treatment is more effective in early and intermediate stages of hepatic failure than routine medical treatment, but not in its advanced stage.

A randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of fenofibrate versus pravastatin in HIV-infected subjects with lipid abnormalities: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 5087.

There is a paucity of information on the safety and efficacy of lipid-lowering therapy for dyslipidemia associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and antiretroviral therapy. Our objective was to determine whether fenofibrate and pravastatin were equivalent for the treatment of combined dyslipidemia in HIV as measured by a composite of the National Cholesterol Education Project (NCEP) goals based on absolute values for low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and to compare the safety of these agents through 48 weeks. This was a randomized, open-label trial with subjects assigned to fenofibrate 200 mg (n = 88) or pravastatin 40 mg (n = 86) daily. Subjects who failed to reach the NCEP composite goal on monotherapy by week 12 received both drugs. The composite goal at week 12 was achieved in 1% of fenofibrate and 5% of pravastatin subjects. At week 16, 69/88 subjects on fenofibrate added pravastatin (FP) and 67/86 subjects on pravastatin added fenofibrate (PF). At week 48, 7% FP subjects and 3% PF subjects achieved the composite goal. Median changes in LDL/HDL/TG/non-HDL were -8/+5/-144/+50 and -14/+2/-66/+34 mg/dl in subjects receiving FP and PF, respectively. There were few adverse events and no rhabdomyolysis reported. Combination therapy with fenofibrate and pravastatin for HIV-related dyslipidemia provides substantial improvements in lipid parameters and appears safe, but is unlikely to achieve all NCEP targets for lipid levels.

Molecular adsorbent recycling system in treating patients with acute liver failure: a bridge to liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute liver failure is still a life-threatening disease although it can be treated by liver transplantation. This study was conducted to assess the molecular adsorbent recycling system (MARS), which may bridge acute liver failure patients to liver transplantation. METHODS: Biochemical indexes and other clinical data were analyzed of 8 patients with acute liver failure, who had been treated by MARS for 34 times and subsequent Piggyback liver transplantation. RESULTS: After treatment with MARS, the levels of transaminase and total bilirubin decreased markedly, but coagulation function remained unimproved. All patients survived and discharged from the hospital. CONCLUSION: MARS is effective in bridging patients with acute liver failure to liver transplantation.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of dalantercept, an activin receptor-like kinase-1 ligand trap, in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The angiogenesis inhibitor dalantercept (formerly ACE-041) is a soluble form of activin receptor-like kinase-1 (ALK1) that prevents activation of endogenous ALK1 by bone morphogenetic protein-9 (BMP9) and BMP10 and exhibits antitumor activity in preclinical models. This first-in-human study of dalantercept evaluated its safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity in adults with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients in dose-escalating cohorts received dalantercept subcutaneously at one of seven dose levels (0.1-4.8 mg/kg) every 3 weeks until disease progression. Patients in an expansion cohort received dalantercept at 0.8 or 1.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression. RESULTS: In 37 patients receiving dalantercept, the most common treatment-related adverse events were peripheral edema, fatigue, and anemia. Edema and fluid retention were dose-limiting toxicities and responded to diuretic therapy. No clinically significant, treatment-related hypertension, proteinuria, gross hemorrhage, or gastrointestinal perforations were observed. One patient with refractory squamous cell cancer of the head and neck had a partial response, and 13 patients had stable disease according to RECISTv1.1, eight of whom had prolonged periods (≥12 weeks) of stable disease. Correlative pharmacodynamic markers included tumor metabolic activity and tumor blood flow, which decreased from baseline in 63% and 82% of evaluable patients, respectively, and telangiectasia in eight patients. CONCLUSION: Dalantercept was well-tolerated at doses up to 1.6 mg/kg, with a safety profile distinct from inhibitors of the VEGF pathway. Dalantercept displayed promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced refractory cancer, and multiple phase II studies are underway.