Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer: A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care. RESULTS: We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice.

Prognosis and Diagnostic Biomarkers of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Current Status and Future Prospects.

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is the most prevalent type of TBI (80-90%). It is characterized by a loss consciousness for less than 30 minutes, post-traumatic amnesia for less than 24 hours, and Glasgow Coma Score of 13-15. Accurately diagnosing mTBIs can be a challenge because the majority of these injuries do not show noticeable or visible changes on neuroimaging studies. Appropriate determination of mTBI is tremendously important because it might lead in some cases to post-concussion syndrome, cognitive impairments including attention, memory, and speed of information processing problems. The scientists have studied different methods to improve mTBI diagnosis and enhanced approaches that would accurately determine the severity of the trauma. The present review focuses on discussing the role of biomarkers as potential key factors in diagnosing mTBI. The present review focuses on 1) protein based peripheral and CNS markers, 2) genetic biomarkers, 3) imaging biomarkers, 4) neurophysiological biomarkers, and 5) clinical trials in mTBI. Each section provides information and characteristics on different biomarkers for mTBI.