RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) and cholangiocarcinoma are aggressive forms of cancer developed in the gallbladder and biliary tracts which are related to the liver. This systematic review aimed to highlight the significant association between gallbladder, biliary cancers, and arsenic exposure. METHODS: An extensive search was conducted in Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. We included studies that assessed arsenic levels in gallbladder cancer patients, without restrictions on age, sex, or language. Biological samples, such blood, bile, gallbladder tissue, gallstones, and hair were obtained, and arsenic levels were measured. Also, arsenic water and soil concentrations were collected. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included in our review. These studies included 2234 non-gallbladder carcinoma patients and 22 585 gallbladder carcinoma cases. The participant demographics showed a gender distribution of 862 males and 1845 females, with an age range of 20-75 years. The average body mass index (BMI) was 19.8 kg/m2 for nongallbladder carcinoma patients and 20.1 kg/m2 for gallbladder carcinoma cases. The selected studies examined arsenic concentrations across various biological samples, including blood, hair, gallstones, and bile. Blood arsenic levels ranged from 0.0002 to 0.3893 µg/g and were significantly associated with increased gallbladder carcinoma risk in several studies. Hair also demonstrated a significant correlation, with arsenic concentrations ranging from 0.0002 to 6.9801 µg/g. CONCLUSION: There is a strong link between arsenic exposure and gallbladder cancer or cholangiocarcinoma. Even chronic exposure to low-moderate amounts could lead to gallbladder carcinoma. These findings stress the need for more comprehensive and dedicated studies, to control arsenic water/soil levels and seek other preventive measures for this high mortality disease.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is rich in factors that play a role in stem cell recruitment, inflammation modulation, and angiogenesis. With numerous preclinical and clinical studies exploring PRP as a potential treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), this study focused on assessing the effectiveness of intracorporeal PRP injection for ED patients based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intracorporeal injection of PRP in treating ED through a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. METHODS: This study adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted on online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) to identify RCTs comparing PRP with a placebo for ED treatment. The primary outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) domain and the change in the IIEF domain from baseline. The results were combined as a standardized mean difference between the PRP and placebo groups. RESULTS: Three RCTs comprising 230 patients were included. The overall effect favored PRP over placebo: total patients attaining minimal clinically important difference in the IIEF domain (odds ratio [OR], 5.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.05 to 15.55; P = .0008), IIEF change from baseline (mean difference [MD], 2.99; 95% CI, 1.74 to 4.24; P = .00001), PSV (MD, 9.34; 95% CI, 0.84 to 17.84; P = .03), end-diastolic volume (standardized MD, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.83; P = .003), Sexual Encounter Profile question 3 (standardized MD, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.12; P = .00001), and visual analog scale score (MD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.53 to -0.08; P = .008). CONCLUSION: PRP appears to be a safe and effective treatment for mild-to-moderate ED. However, further support from high-quality RCTs is needed to strengthen these findings.
