Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata. RESULT: The review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD = - 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD = - 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD = - 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD = - 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD = - 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD = - 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.

MBNL1­AS1 attenuates tumor cell proliferation by regulating the miR­29c­3p/BVES signal in colorectal cancer.

Dysregulation of long non­coding RNAs (lncRNAs) is involved in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). In the present study, the identification of muscle blind like splicing regulator 1 antisense RNA 1 (MBNL1­AS1) lncRNA was reported. Firstly, Cell Counting Kit­8, EdU and colony formation assays were uesed to explore the role of MBNL1­AS1 in regulating the proliferation of CRC cells. According to TCGA database, it was found that MBNL1­AS1 was correlated with microRNA (miR)­29c­3p and blood vessel epicardial substance (BVES) expression in CRC cells. Then, the regulation among MBNL1­AS1, miR­29C­3P and BVES was detected by dual luciferase reporter assay and the function of MBNL1­AS1/miR­29C­3P/BVES axis was explored by rescue assay. The results demonstrated that MBNL1­AS1 expression was decreased in CRC and was associated with the size of tumors derived from patients with CRC. Functionally, the upregulation of MBNL1­AS1 suppressed CRC cell proliferation in vitro and inhibited tumor growth in vivo, while knockdown of MBNL1­AS1 expression caused the opposite effects. MBNL1­AS1 expression correlated with BVES expression in CRC tissues and MBNL1­AS1 enhanced the stability of BVES mRNA by functioning as a competing endogenous RNA to sponge miR­29c­3p; the latter directly targeted MBNL1­AS1 and BVES mRNA 3'UTR. Collectively, the results indicated that MBNL1­AS1 suppressed CRC cell proliferation by regulating miR­29c­3p/BVES signaling, suggesting that the MBNL1­AS1/miR­29c­3p/BVES axis may be a potential therapeutic target for CRC.

The prognostic importance of red blood cell distribution width for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: For cancer patients, red blood cell distribution width (RDW) is a readily accessible and cost-effective preoperative prognostic predictor. This study aimed to determine whether RDW is a predictive factor for individuals undergoing radical surgery for gastric cancer (GC). Methods: A literature search was performed to select relevant studies for inclusion in the subsequent meta-analysis. Relevant data were pooled to assess the association between RDW and GC results, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as clinicopathological features. Results: The meta-analysis and systemic review included data from 8 studies comprising 1,587 individuals diagnosed with GC. In this context, RDW refers to the coefficient of variation of RDW (RDW-CV). A high level of RDW-CV was significantly associated with older age [odds ratio (OR) =2.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.72-2.94; P<0.00001], larger tumor diameter (OR =1.90; 95% CI: 1.42-2.56; P<0.0001), and vascular invasion (OR =2.22; 95% CI: 1.10-4.49; P=0.03). After hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled, RDW-CV was found to be an independent prognostic factor of OS (HR =1.79; 95% CI: 1.21-2.66; I2=85%; P=0.004), DFS (HR =1.81; 95% CI: 1.37-2.39; I2=0%; P<0.0001), and CSS (HR =2.73; 95% CI: 1.36-5.49; I2=0%; P=0.005) in patients with GC. Conclusions: The association between high levels of RDW-CV and poor survival in GC suggests that RDW-CV may be a viable prognostic indicator for patients with GC.