Comparative long-term outcomes of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction: This systematic review and network meta-analysis(NMA) was designed to compare the long-term outcomes of pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer(NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Four databases(Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched published from establishment of database to August 17, 2023, for articles studying pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Network meta-analyses of progression-free survival(PFS), overall survival(OS), objective response rate(ORR), treatment-related adverse events(trAEs) and immune-related adverse events(irAEs) were performed. Results: A total of five studies were considered for NMA. This NMA includes a cohort of 2878 patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC. Among them, 791 patients received pembrolizumab monotherapy, 1337 patients received chemotherapy, and 748 patients received pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. The IPDformKM software was utilized to reconstruct Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and PFS, offering a lucid and intuitive depiction of oncological outcomes. For patients who have high levels of programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) expression (≥50%), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was more effective than using pembrolizumab alone as first-line therapy in terms of PFS (median survival time: 10.41 months versus 7.41 months, HR: 0.81, 95%CI 0.67 to 0.97, P=0.02) and ORR (RR:1.74, 95% CI: 1.25-2.43). Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference observed between the two groups in terms of OS (median survival time: 22.54 months versus 22.62 months, HR: 0.89, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.08, P=0.24). Furthermore, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided a more advantageous long-term survival advantage in terms of OS (median survival time: 20.88 months versus 13.60 months, HR: 0.77, 95%CI: 0.62 to 0.95, P=0.015) compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with low PD-L1 expression levels (1% to 49%). With regards to safety, there was no statistically significant disparity between the two groups in relation to any irAEs (RD=0.02, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.16) or Grade≥ 3 irAEs (RD=0.01, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.12). Nevertheless, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy exhibited a greater likelihood of encountering any trAEs (RD=0.23, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.30) and Grade≥ 3 trAEs (RD=0.28, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.35) in comparison to pembrolizumab monotherapy. Conclusions: The present network meta-analysis reported comparative long-term outcomes of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy led to improved PFS and ORR in patients with advanced NSCLC who had a PD-L1 expression level of 50% or above. However, there was no noticeable benefit in terms of OS when pembrolizumab was paired with chemotherapy compared to utilizing pembrolizumab alone. In addition, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy offered a greater long-term survival benefit in terms of OS when compared to utilizing pembrolizumab alone in patients with PD-L1 expression levels ranging from 1% to 49%. Furthermore, the increased effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was accompanied by an increase in adverse side effects. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024501740.

Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of single upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 centimeters: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the treatment of single upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 centimeters. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis that combines a review of medical records with an outcomes management database. A total of 163 patients who underwent MPCNL and 137 patients who had FURS were identified between January 2017 and December 2021. Demographic data, operation time, hospitalization time, stone-free rate, and complication rate were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Preoperative general data of sex, age, BMI, serum creatinine, time of stone existence, stone hardness, stone diameter, preoperative hydronephrosis, and preoperative infection of the MPCNL group have no statistically significant difference with that of the FURS group. All MPCNL or FURS operations in both groups were successfully completed without any instances of reoperation or conversion to another surgical procedure. Patients who underwent MPCNL had a considerably reduced operation time (49.6 vs. 72.4 min; P<0.001), but a higher duration of hospitalization (9.1 vs. 3.9 days; P<0.001) compared to those who underwent FURS. The stone-free rate in the MPCNL group was superior to that of the FURS group, with a percentage of 90.8% compared to 71.5% (P<0.001). There was no statistically significant disparity in the rate of complications between the two groups (13.5% vs. 15.3%; P = 0.741). CONCLUSION: Both MPCNL and FURS are viable and secure surgical choices for individuals with solitary upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 cm. The FURS procedure resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization compared to MPCNL. However, it had a comparatively lower rate of successfully removing the stones and required a longer duration for the operation.There were no substantial disparities observed in the complication rate between the two groups.FURS is the preferable option for treating uncomplicated upper ureteral calculi, whereas MPCNL is the preferable option for treating complicated upper ureteral calculi.Prior to making treatment options, it is crucial to take into account the expertise of surgeons, the quality of the equipment, and the preferences of the patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No.

Comparison of robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Introduction: Previous studies have compared robot-assisted thoracic surgery(RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of patients with lung cancer, but results were conflicting. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of RATS with VATS in the treatment of patients with lung cancer. Materials and methods: Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies comparing the clinical outcomes of RATS and VATS from inception to 22 July 2023. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses of length of hospital stay, postoperative duration of drainage, postoperative complications, operative time, conversion, estimated blood loss, the number of dissected lymph nodes and stations, 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality were performed. Results: In total 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 614 patients were included, of which 299 patients were treated by RATS and 315 patients treated by VATS. Blood loss was significantly less in RATS group than that in VATS (MD = -17.14, 95% CI -29.96 ~ -4.33, P = 0.009). More nodes stations were dissected in RATS group compared with VATS group(MD= 1.07, 95% CI 0.79 ~ 1.36, P < 0.001). No significant difference occurred between RATS and VATS in length of hospital stay(MD= -0.19, 95% CI -0.98~0.61), readmission(OR=0.74, 95%CI 0.36~1.51, P=0.41), operative time(MD=11.43 95% CI -8.41~31.26, P=0.26), conversion(OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.29~1.17, P=0.13), number of dissected lymph nodes(MD=0.98, 95% CI -0.02~1.97, P=0.05), upstaging rate(OR =0.67, 95% CI 0.38 ~ 1.18, P =0.16, I2 = 0%), time of chest tube drainage (MD= -0.34, 95%CI -0.84~0.15, P=0.17), post-operative complications(OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.52~ 1.11, P=0.16) and total cost(MD = 3103.48, 95% CI -575.78 ~ 6782.74, P=0.1, I2 = 99%). Conclusion: RATS is a feasible and safe treatment that can achieve better surgical outcomes compared with VATS in terms of short-term outcomes. Except of higher total cost, RATS has obvious advantage in lymphadenectomy and control of intraoperative bleeding. However, large sample and long follow-up randomized clinical trials comparing RATS with VATS are still necessary to better demonstrate the advantages of RATS for lung cancer. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42023446653.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS). Materials and methods: The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023. Results: Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group. Conclusions: Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of active elderly patients over 75 years with displaced femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality for older adults. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) are widely used in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures (DFNF), but there is still controversy refering to the optimal chose for the management of DFNF in active elderly patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that incorporates medical record review with an outcomes management database. 73 patients who underwent HA and 66 patients who underwent THA were identified from January 2015 to December 2017. Data of age, gender, BMI, comorbidity status, operation time, blood loss, hospitalization time, in-hospital complication were collected and analyzed. Clinical follow-up and radiographic examinations were performed at approximately five years, and hip complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were assessed. RESULTS: Preoperative general data of sex, age, BMI and charlson comorbidity score of THA group(n=55) has no statistically significant difference with that of HA group. Patients treated by THA had significantly longer operation time (105.5 vs 76.7 minutes; P < 0.001), more blood loss (524.1 vs 350.1 ml; P < 0.001) and longer hospitalization time (15.8 vs 13.8 days; P < 0.001). There was no significant differences between two groups in complications (32.7% vs 25.8%, P=0.432). No patients died during the hospitalization. After five years, only 33 patients in the THA group and 34 patents in the HA group were still alive, and the fraction surviving were not statistically significant between two groups (60.0% vs 54.8%, P> 0.05). The differences in hip function in favor of THA appeared to increase after the five-year follow-up, and the difference was significant in terms of the total Harris hip score (81.3 vs 73.1, P < 0.001) as well as in the dimensions of pain (38.9 vs 35.9, P=0.033), function (33.7 vs 29.2, P=0.001), absence of deformity (4.0 vs 3.9, P=0.023) and range of motion (4.6 vs 4.2, P=0.008). There was no significant differences between groups in hip dislocation rate (6.1% vs 0.0%, P=0.239). The erosion rate of hip joint in the THA group was significantly lower than that of the HA group (0.0% vs 26.5%, P=0.002). The health-related quality of life, according to EQ-5D index score, was found to be higher (0.69 vs 0.63, P= 0.001) in the THA group than the HA group after five years. CONCLUSION: THA may be a preferred management option for active elderly patients over 75 years. The more extensive surgery of THA is not associated with higher in-hospital complication rate or mortality rate. These patients can benefit from THA in terms of hip function and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No.

Efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-1 therapeutics in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-1 therapeutics, including IL-1 antibodies, interleukin-1 receptor antagonists (IL-1 Ras) and IL-1 inhibitors, for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment. METHODS: Databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-interleukin-1 therapeutics from inception to August 31, 2022. The outcomes were the mean change in pain and function scores and the risk of adverse effects (AEs). RESULTS: In the 12 studies included, anti-interleukin-1 therapeutics were superior to placebo in terms of pain relief (standardized mean difference [SMD] = - 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = - 1.82 to - 0.40, p < 0.001, I2 = 77%) and functional improvement (SMD = - 1.11, 95% CI = - 1.82 to - 0.40, p = 0.002, I2 = 96%). The incidence of any AE (risk ratio [RR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88-1.18, p < 0.001, I2 = 76%) was higher following treatment with anti-interleukin-1 therapeutics than placebo, while no significant difference was found in the incidence of serious AEs (SAEs) or discontinuations due to AEs. Subgroup analyses showed that IL-1 antibodies and the IL-1 inhibitor provided pain relief (IL-1 antibodies: SMD = - 0.61, 95% CI = - 0.92 to - 0.31, p < 0.001; IL-1 inhibitor: SMD = - 0.39, 95% CI = - 0.72 to - 0.06, p = 0.02, I2 = 74.0%) and functional improvement (IL-1 antibodies: SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI = - 2.10 to - 1.40, p < 0.001; IL-1 inhibitor: SMD = - 0.28, 95% CI = - 0.83 to 0.27, p = 0.31, I2 = 88%) superior to those of placebo, whereas IL-1 Ras did not. However, the IL-1 inhibitor increased the incidence of any AE (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.92-1.98, p < 0.001, I2 = 85%) but not the risk of SAEs or discontinuations due to AEs. IL-1 antibodies and IL-1 Ras showed no difference in safety compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-interleukin-1 therapeutics could relieve OA-related pain and improve function, but is probably associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Specially, IL-1 antibodies and an IL-1 inhibitor could relieve OA-related pain and improve function, whereas IL-1 Ras could not. IL-1 antibodies and IL-1 Ras were relatively safe options, but IL-1 inhibitors were associated with safety concerns.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitors or PD-L1 inhibitors for muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitors or PD-L1 inhibitors [PD-(L)1 inhibitors] for muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (MIBC). Materials and methods: Four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and 21 CENTRAL) were searched for articles studying neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors for MIBC. The search time period was from the establishment of each database to 21 July 2023. Meta-analyses of pCR, pPR, Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate, RFS, and OS were performed. Results: In total, 22 studies were included for meta-analysis. The overall pooled pCR of neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.36 (95%CI=0.30-0.42, p=0.00). In subgroup meta-analysis, the pooled PCR of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.27 (95%CI=0.19-0.35, p=0.1), 0.41 (95%CI=0.21-0.62, p=0.01), 0.43 (95%CI=0.35-0.50, p=0.06), respectively. The overall pooled pPR of neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.53 (95%CI=0.46-0.60, p=0.00). In subgroup meta-analysis, the pooled pPR of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.36 (95%CI=0.22-0.51, p=0.01), 0.51 (95%CI=0.39-0.62, p=0.43), and 0.61 (95%CI=0.53-0.69, p=0.01), respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and RFS were reconstructed, but there was no significant difference among three groups in terms of OS or RFS. The pooled result of Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate for neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.15 (95%CI=0.09-0.22, p=0.00%). In subgroup analysis, the pooled result of Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate for PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.07 (95%CI=0.04-0.11, p=0.84), 0.31 (95%CI=0.16-0.47, p=0.06), and 0.17 (95%CI=0.06-0.31, I2 = 71.27%, p=0.01), respectively. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors were feasible and safe for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy were associated with higher pCR and pPR, but higher Grade≥3 irAEs. Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and RFS indicated that neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors had an acceptable long-term prognostic, but it was not possible to discern statistical differences between the three neoadjuvant subgroups. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023452437, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42023452437).