Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. The results of treatment after hypofractionated radiotherapy only have been reported from several small randomized clinical trials. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through searching related databases till August 2018. Hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as pooled statistics for all analyses. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results showed that overall survival (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.93-1.35, p = 0.219) and prostate cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.42-3.95, p = 0.661) were similar in two groups. The pooled data showed that biochemical failure was RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76-1.07, p = 0.248. The incidence of acute adverse gastrointestinal events (grade ≥ 2) was higher in the hypofractionated radiotherapy (RR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.12-2.56, p = 0.012); conversely, for late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal adverse events, a significant increase in the conventional radiotherapy was found (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61-0.91, p = 0.003). Acute (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.89-1.15, p = 0.894) and late (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.86-1.10, p = 0.692) genitourinary adverse events (grade ≥ 2) were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the efficacy and risk for adverse events are comparable for hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Evaluation of Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) in patients with mood disorders: a multicenter trial across China.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test the ability of the Chinese version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) to identify Bipolar Disorders (BD) in patients diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or Unipolar Disorder (UD) in the clinical setting. METHODS: 1,487 being treated for MDD or UD at 12 mental health centers across China, completed the MDQ and subsequently examined by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) curves were used to determine the ability of the MDQ to differentiate between BD (BD, BD-I and BD-II) and MDD or UD and patients with BD-I from patients with BD-II. RESULTS: Of the 1,487 patients, 309 (20.8%) satisfied the DSM-IV criteria for BD: 118 (7.9%) for BD-I and 191 (12.8%) for BD-II. When only part one of the MDQ was used, the best cutoff was 7 between BD and UD (sensitivity 0.66, specificity 0.88, positive predictive value 0.59, negative predictive value 0.91), 6 between BD-II and UD, and 10 between BD-I and BD-II. If all three parts of the MDQ were used, the MDQ could not distinguish between BD and UD at a cutoff of 7 (or 6), and the sensitivity was only 0.22 (or 0.24). CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the MDQ had good psychometric features in screening bipolar disorders from depressive patients with mood disorders when part two and part three of the MDQ were ignored.