Survival comparison between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy for node-negative esophageal squamous cell cancer: an ambispective cohort study.

It is controversial whether there is a survival difference between open esophagectomy (OE) and thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for esophageal cancer (EC). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the differences in survival and safety between two surgical approaches in patients with node-negative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This ambispective cohort study included 1104 patients with node-negative ESCC who received OE or TE treatment at a Grate-A tertiary hospital in Henan Province between January 2015 and December 2016. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoint was surgical safety. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to analyze the effect of surgical approaches on OS and DFS, and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match confounding factors between two groups. Patients were followed up ranged from 1.03 to 91.60 months, with a median follow-up time of 67.37 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed statistically significant differences between OE and TE in OS (70.05% vs 83.73%, P < 0.001) and DFS (67.15% vs 77.76%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, multivariate Cox regression analysis also demonstrated significant differences in long-term survival between the two groups (OS, HR (95% CI): 0.54 (0.41, 0.70); DFS, HR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.54, 0.86)). TE was associated with a reduction in intraoperative bleeding (median: 100 ml vs. 200 ml, P < 0.001), and an increase in the number of lymph nodes dissection (median: 23 vs. 28, P < 0.001). Similar results were found after PSM. In a selected cohort of patients with node-negative ESCC, TE surgical treatment was safer and had better long-term survival outcomes compared to OE. This provided corresponding clinical guidance to enhance survival benefits for patients. In the future, we hope to further explore the reasons for TE achieving higher survival rates.

Jia X ，Ren T ，Chen P ，Xin X ，Zhang Y ，Yang Y ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Multicentre randomized clinical trial on robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (REVATE trial).

Surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma involves dissecting lymph nodes along the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This is technically challenging and injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve may lead to vocal cord palsy, which increases the risk of pulmonary complications. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted oesophagectomy (RAO) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (VAO) for dissection of lymph nodes along the left RLN. Patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who were scheduled for minimally invasive McKeown oesophagectomy were allocated randomly to RAO or VAO, stratified by centre. The primary endpoint was the success rate of left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection. Success was defined as the removal of at least one lymph node without causing nerve damage lasting longer than 6 months. Secondary endpoints were perioperative and oncological outcomes. From June 2018 to March 2022, 212 patients from 3 centres in Asia were randomized, and 203 were included in the analysis (RAO group 103; VAO group 100). Successful left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection was achieved in 88.3% of the RAO group and 69% of the VAO group (P < 0.001). The rate of removal of at least one lymph node according to pathology was 94.2% for the RAO and 86% for the VAO group (P = 0.051). At 1 week after surgery, the RAO group had a lower incidence of left recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy than the VAO group (20.4 versus 34%; P = 0.029); permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rates at 6 months were 5.8 and 20% respectively (P = 0.003). More mediastinal lymph nodes were dissected in the RAO group (median 16 (i.q.r. 12-22) versus 14 (10-20); P = 0.035). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups and there were no in-hospital deaths. In patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, RAO leads to more successful left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection than VAO, including a lower rate of short- and long-term recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. Registration number: NCT03713749 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Chao YK ，Li Z ，Jiang H ，Wen YW ，Chiu CH ，Li B ，Shang X ，Fang TJ ，Yang Y ，Yue J ，Zhang X ，Zhang C ，Liu YH ... -  《-》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Prognostic Impact of Squamous Cell Carcinoma Antigen During Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) is widely used as a tumor marker for esophageal cancer. In this study, we investigated the relationship between SCC and long-term outcomes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Between 2010 and 2018, 124 patients with ESCC who underwent MIE after NAC (cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil) were included. Patients were divided into low and high groups based on their pre-NAC SCC level, according to the cut-off value determined using a receiver operating characteristic curve. These two patient groups were further divided into subgroups by receiver operating characteristics according to whether SCC was low or high after NAC. For overall survival (OS), the cut-off value for SCC pre-NAC was 0.9 ng/ml. Ninety-six patients were in the high SCC group (≥0.9 ng/ml) and 28 patients were in the low SCC group (<0.9 ng/ml) prior to NAC. The patients were then divided into pre-NAC/post-NAC SCC subgroups accordingly: low/low SCC (n=7), low/high SCC (n=21), high/low SCC (n=53), and high/high SCC (n=43). The 5-year OS rates were 100%, 66.7%, 50.9%, and 32.6%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis for OS, a high/high pre-NAC/post-NAC SCC status was an independent prognostic factor for poorer OS, along with pathological N stage. For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with NAC followed by MIE, a high SCC level prior to NAC which was also high after NAC was an independent prognostic factor and might contribute to deciding the need for adjuvant therapy.

Torigoe R ，Oshikiri T ，Goto H ，Koterazawa Y ，Sawada R ，Ikeda T ，Harada H ，Urakawa N ，Hasegawa H ，Kanaji S ，Yamashita K ，Matsuda T ，Kakeji Y ... -  《-》