Complete response in patient with locally advanced lung large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma under sintilimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy: A case report.

Pulmonary large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is an uncommon subtype of lung cancer with bleak prognosis. Its optimal treatment remains undetermined due to its malignancy. A 66-year-old man diagnosed with unresectable locally advanced LCNEC exhibited partial radiographic response to chemo-immunotherapy. He underwent salvage surgery after 4 rounds of docetaxel/nedaplatin (DP) regimen plus sintilimab, a highly selective monoclonal antibody which targets human anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). In addition, the pathologic examination of the excision demonstrated that there were no viable residuary tumor cells. This case indicates that neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy might benefit patients with locally advanced LCNEC, which deserves further investigation.

Prognostic values of SOFA score, qSOFA score, and LODS score for patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis continues to carry a high rate of mortality, which makes effective and simple evaluation methods for predicting the prognosis of septic patients especially important. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the relationships between three scoring systems including Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Quick SOFA (qSOFA) score, and Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) score and the prognoses of septic patients. METHODS: The baseline data, SOFA score, qSOFA score, LODS score, 28-day prognosis, and 90-day prognosis of patients who met the diagnostic criteria of sepsis were retrieved from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn for various indicators, and comparisons were drawn between the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the different scoring systems. RESULTS: The 28-day AUC was 0.661 (0.652, 0.670) for SOFA, 0.558 (0.548, 0.568) for qSOFA, and 0.668 (0.658, 0.677) for LODS; AUC-qSOFA vs. AUC-LODS was 0.103 (0.087, 0.120) (P<0.001), and AUC-qSOFA vs. AUC-LODS was 0.110 (0.094, 0.125) (P<0.001). The 90-day AUC was 0.630 (0.621, 0.640) for SOFA, 0.551 (0.541, 0.560) for qSOFA, and 0.644 (0.635, 0.653) for LODS; AUC-SOFA vs. AUC-qSOFA was 0.079 (0.065, 0.094) (P<0.001), and AUC-qSOFA vs. AUC-LODS was 0.093 (0.079, 0.107) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SOFA score, qSOFA score, and LODS score can all be used to predict the prognosis of septic patients. LODS score and SOFA score have higher accuracy than qSOFA score; however, qSOFA is simpler to use, making it a more suitable tool in an emergency setting.