Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose@#Compared with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA), intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) is expected to provide some benefits, including a shorter operation time and less intraoperative bleeding. Nevertheless, the benefits of ICA have mainly been evaluated in nonrandomized studies. Owing to the recent update of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of right hemicolectomy (RHC), the need to measure the actual effect by synthesizing the outcomes of these studies has emerged. @*Methods@#We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (from inception to January 30, 2023) for studies that applied ICA and ECA for RHC with MIS. We included 7 RCTs. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, length of incision, and postoperative outcomes such as ileus, anastomosis leakage, length of hospitalization, and postoperative pain were compared between ICA and ECA. @*Results@#A total of 740 patients were included in the study. Among them, 377 and 373 underwent ICA and ECA, respectively.There were significant differences in age (P = 0.003) and incision type (P < 0.001) between ICA and ECA. ICA was associated with a significantly longer operation time (P = 0.033). Although the postoperative pain associated with ICA was significantly lower than that associated with ECA on postoperative day 2 (POD 2) (P = 0.003), it was not different on POD 3 between the groups. Other perioperative outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. @*Conclusion@#In this meta-analysis, ICA did not significantly improve short-term outcomes compared to ECA; other advantages to overcome ICA’s longer operation time are not clear.

Laboratory information management system for COVID-19 non-clinical efficacy trial data / 한국실험동물학회지

Background@#As the number of large-scale studies involving multiple organizations producing data has steadily increased, an integrated system for a common interoperable format is needed. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a number of global efforts are underway to develop vaccines and therapeutics. We are therefore observing an explosion in the proliferation of COVID-19 data, and interoperability is highly requested in multiple institutions participating simultaneously in COVID-19 pandemic research. @*Results@#In this study, a laboratory information management system (LIMS) approach has been adopted to systemically manage various COVID-19 non-clinical trial data, including mortality, clinical signs, body weight, body temperature, organ weights, viral titer (viral replication and viral RNA), and multiorgan histopathology, from multiple institutions based on a web interface. The main aim of the implemented system is to integrate, standardize, and organize data collected from laboratories in multiple institutes for COVID-19 non-clinical efficacy testings. Six animal biosafety level 3 institutions proved the feasibility of our system. Substantial benefits were shown by maximizing collaborative high-quality non-clinical research. @*Conclusions@#This LIMS platform can be used for future outbreaks, leading to accelerated medical product development through the systematic management of extensive data from non-clinical animal studies.

Comparison of the Efficacy between First-Line Treatment Regimens for Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive and HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose@#Endocrine therapy is the first-line treatment recommended for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer without visceral crisis. However, this recommendation has not been followed clinically because of efficacy issues. In this study, the survival of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer was evaluated based on the following first-line treatment regimens: the combination of palbociclib plus letrozole, conventional endocrine therapy, or chemotherapy. @*Methods@#Medical records were reviewed for this retrospective analysis. Patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared based on first-line treatment regimens. @*Results@#A total of 184 patients were included in the analysis. The first-line treatments were palbociclib plus letrozole in 46 patients (25.0%), endocrine therapy in 40 patients (21.7%), and chemotherapy in 98 patients (53.3%). The PFS of the palbociclib plus letrozole group was significantly longer than that of the endocrine therapy (hazard ratio=3.43, p<0.001) and chemotherapy (hazard ratio=2.88, p=0.001) groups. No significant difference was observed between the endocrine therapy and chemotherapy groups (p=0.430). The OS of the palbociclib plus letrozole group was significantly longer than that of the endocrine therapy (hazard ratio=5.34, p=0.009) and chemotherapy (hazard ratio 4.23, p=0.043) groups. No significant difference was observed between the endocrine therapy and chemotherapy groups (p=0.451). @*Conclusion@#The combination regimen of palbociclib and letrozole could be recommended as the first-line treatment of choice in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.