RESUMEN
Pain is one of the most common symptoms of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Therefore, analgesia serves an indispensable role in the treatment of this condition. Morphine is a representative opioid, which is widely used in clinical practice; however, excessive or unreasonable application can cause poisoning. Few cases of morphine poisoning have been reported, and cases of morphine poisoning in patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma are even more rare. Here, we present a case of morphine poisoning in a patient with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. The patient had a high abdominal tumor load, hepatorenal insufficiency, and was treated with a combination of morphine and the sedative benzodiazepine, eventually leading to morphine poisoning. Therefore, for cancer pain, omni-directional and whole-process management should be emphasized. In patients with hepatorenal insufficiency, those treated with morphine combined with benzodiazepines, or those with a high abdominal tumor load, attention should be paid to drug absorption, excretion and interaction, and the drug dose during administration should be reduced to avoid drug poisoning. If poisoning symptoms occur, timely measures should be taken to reduce poison absorption and increase poison excretion, and antagonists should be used to reverse the poisoning and reduce the damage caused.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of prophylactic irradiation of internal mammary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. METHODS: The computer searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, CNKI, Wanfang Medical Network, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database to find clinical studies on internal mammary lymph node irradiation (IMNI) in breast cancer. The quality of the included literature was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Stata14 software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12,705 patients in 12 articles were included for meta-analyzed. Compared with patients who unirradiated internal mammary lymph nodes (non-IMNI), the risk of death for patients after IMNI was reduced by 11% (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00, P = 0.0470); DFS of group mixed N+ patients (high risk group) was significantly improved after IMNI (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.69, P < 0.001). Further subgroup analysis shows that compared with non-IMNI, DFS was significantly increased in N1or ypN1 subgroup (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.87, P = 0.003) and N2or ypN2 subgroup (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37-0.70, P < 0.001) after IMNI, but there was no statistical difference in DFS between the IMNI and non-IMNI groups in N0 subgroup (HR 1.02 95% CI 0.87-1.20, P = 0.794) and N3 or ypN3 subgroup (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.49-1.45, P = 0.547). No serious incidents were reported in all the included studies, and most of the acute and late side effects were mild and tolerable. CONCLUSION: Under modern radiotherapy techniques, IMNI can safely and effectively bring clinical benefits to N1-2 breast cancer patients, but its role in N0, N3 breast cancer patients remains to be further studied.