scholarly journals XRCC3 Thr241Met Polymorphism and Clinical Outcomes of NSCLC Patients Receiving Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e69553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-yong Shen ◽  
Fan-zhen Lu ◽  
Yun Wu ◽  
Li-ting Zhao ◽  
Zhi-feng Lin
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Han ◽  
Jie Liu ◽  
Meili Sun ◽  
Zongpu Zhang ◽  
Chuanyong Liu ◽  
...  

Background. There is no definitive conclusion so far on the predictive values of ERCC1 polymorphisms for clinical outcomes of platinum-based chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We updated this meta-analysis with an expectation to obtain some statistical advancement on this issue.Methods. Relevant studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE databases from inception to April 2015. Primary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). All analyses were performed using the Review Manager version 5.3 and the Stata version 12.0.Results. A total of 33 studies including 5373 patients were identified. ERCC1 C118T and C8092A could predict both ORR and OS for platinum-based chemotherapy in Asian NSCLC patients (CT + TT versus CC, ORR: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67–0.94; OS: HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.01–1.53) (CA + AA versus CC, ORR: OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60–0.96; OS: HR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.06–1.75).Conclusions. Current evidence strongly indicated the prospect of ERCC1 C118T and C8092A as predictive biomarkers for platinum-based chemotherapy in Asian NSCLC patients. However, the results should be interpreted with caution and large prospective studies are still required to further investigate these findings.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Wei-Ting Wu ◽  
Tsung-Min Lee ◽  
Der-Sheng Han ◽  
Ke-Vin Chang

The association of sarcopenia with poor clinical outcomes has been identified in various medical conditions, although there is a lack of quantitative analysis to validate the influence of sarcopenia on patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease (LDSD) from the available literature. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with LDSD and examine its impact on clinical outcomes. The electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were systematically searched from inception through December 2020 for clinical studies investigating the association of sarcopenia with clinical outcomes in patients with LDSD. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out for data synthesis. This meta-analysis included 14 studies, comprising 1953 participants. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia among patients with LDSD was 24.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3%–34.3%). The relative risk of sarcopenia was not significantly increased in patients with LDSD compared with controls (risk ratio, 1.605; 95% CI, 0.321–8.022). The patients with sarcopenia did not experience an increase in low back and leg pain. However, lower quality of life (SMD, −0.627; 95% CI, −0.844–−0.410) were identified postoperatively. Sarcopenia did not lead to an elevated rate of complications after lumbar surgeries. Sarcopenia accounts for approximately one-quarter of the population with LDSD. The clinical manifestations are less influenced by sarcopenia, whereas sarcopenia is associated with poorer quality of life after lumbar surgeries. The current evidence is still insufficient to support sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications.


Author(s):  
Laura Corti ◽  
Greta Chiara Cermisoni ◽  
Alessandra Alteri ◽  
Luca Pagliardini ◽  
Guido Ambrosini ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document