Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Detection of Low-Risk or High-Risk Adenomas, Compared with no Adenoma, at Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Antonelli ◽  
A Duvvuri ◽  
V Thoguluva Chandrasekar ◽  
M Spadaccini ◽  
A Repici ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 158 (6) ◽  
pp. S-643-S-644
Author(s):  
Abhiram Duvvuri ◽  
Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar ◽  
Anvesh Narimiti ◽  
Chandra S. Dasari ◽  
Venkat Nutalapati ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Chen ◽  
Dongru Chen ◽  
Huancai Lin

Abstract Background Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels. Methods Six electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings. Results In total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15–0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18–0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10–0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05–0.37). Conclusion Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3551-3551
Author(s):  
Maya Khalil ◽  
Tea Reljic ◽  
Jessica El-Asmar ◽  
Mehdi Hamadani ◽  
Taiga Nishihori ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Despite availability of novel therapies, namely JAK inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, for treatment of myelofibrosis, the disease remains incurable unless eligible patients are offered an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT). Available data supporting allo-HCT in myelofibrosis are limited to single-arm prospective or retrospective studies (including data from registries) or single-center case series. No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has ever been conducted comparing the impact of dose-intensity of the conditioning regimen on post-transplant outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review/meta-analysis of the published literature using PubMed and EMBASE from date of inception until 12/16/2015. We restricted inclusion criteria to studies published only as peer-reviewed manuscripts which included more than 10 patients. Patients and methods: Our search strategy identified 907 publications, but only 29 (n=2,128 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on treatment benefits (overall response rate (ORR), complete (CR) or partial response (PR), overall survival (OS)) and harms (grade 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), 3-4 acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), and graft failure) whenever available. We also assessed outcomes based on disease-risk stratification whenever possible. For the purposes of our analysis, low-risk encompassed (low-risk Lille/Dupriez/DIPSS), intermediate-risk (intermediate-risk Lille/Dupriez/int-1 DIPSS), and high-risk (high-risk Lille/Dupriez/Int-2 or high-DIPSS). All results are reported as pooled proportions. Results: When using reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens, 7 prospective (n=281 patients) and 11 retrospective (n=532 patients) studies were identified. Pooled (rates) outcomes of RIC prospective studies were as follow: ORR=65% (95%CI=26-95%), CR=51% (95%CI=18-84%), OS= 69% (95%CI=58-80%), grade 2-4 acute GVHD= 37% (95%CI=27-48%), grade 3-4 acute GVHD= 22% (95%CI=7-44%), chronic GVHD= 38% (95%CI=22-55%), NRM= 23% (95%CI=12-37%), and graft failure= 6% (95%CI=1-12%). Pooled outcomes of RIC retrospective studies were as follow: ORR= 100% (95%CI=86-100%), CR=100% (95%CI=86-100%), OS= 51% (95%CI=43-58%), grade 2-4 acute GVHD= 35% (95%CI=30-39%), grade 3-4 acute GVHD=19% (95%CI=11-29%), chronic GVHD= 47% (95%CI=41-52%), NRM= 20% (95%CI=13-27%), and graft failure= 15% (95%CI=9-22%). For myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens, 0 prospective and 5 retrospective (n=132 patients) studies were identified. Outcomes were as follow: ORR= 40% (95%CI=21-61%), CR=40% (95%CI=21-61%), OS=56% (95%CI=42-70%), grade 2-4 acute GVHD= 46% (95%CI=26-66%), grade 3-4 acute GVHD=13% (95%CI=4-26%), chronic GVHD= 57% (95%CI=26-86%), NRM= 26% (95%CI=16-38%), and graft failure= 9% (95%CI=0-32%). Furthermore, Survival outcomes based on disease-risk stratification showed OS rates of 78% (95%CI=69-86%) for low-risk, 60% (95%CI=48-70%) for intermediate-risk, and 42% (95%CI=36-48%) for high-risk cases. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the need of a RCT to help better understand the effect of dose-intensity of allo-HCT regimens (RIC vs. MAC) on outcomes, this systematic review/meta-analysis highlights encouraging OS rates of 51-69% when using RIC regimens with resulting pooled NRM rates of 20-23%. Rates of grade 2-4 acute and chronic GVHD appear, unsurprisingly, lower with RIC regimens; but high rates of graft failure remain a serious concern in myelofibrosis regardless of the intensity of the conditioning regimen. Disclosures Hamadani: Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nishihori:Signal Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document