ObjectivesChemotherapy and radiotherapy generally cause serious adverse side effects in cancer patients, thereby affecting subsequent treatment. Numerous studies have shown that taking probiotics is an option for preventing and treating these side effects. In this investigation, a meta-analysis of the effects of oral probiotics on side effects brought on by radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy treatment will be carried out.MethodsTwo researchers independently and carefully reviewed all pertinent studies that were published before June 30, 2022 and were accessible on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science. Moreover, the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Utilizing Review Manager software version 5.4, data were retrieved from eligible studies to evaluate their merits and determine odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (RevMan 5.4).Results2 097 patients from 16 randomized controlled trials were extracted, and standard meta-analysis methods were used to examine the data. Compared with the placebo groups, oral probiotics significantly reduced the side effects caused by radiotherapy and chemotherapy on various types of cancer, such as head and neck cancer, pelvic and abdominal cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, etc. (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20 – 0.48; P < 0.005). Further analysis found that the incidence of diarrhea in patients with pelvic and abdominal cancers (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.16 - 0.65; P < 0.005) and the frequency of oral mucositis in patients with head and neck tumors were also significantly lower (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.18 - 0.43; P < 0.005) after the oral administration of probiotics. This suggests that probiotics have a positive influence on the treatment of side effects after chemoradiotherapy. Additionally, a funnel plot revealed that there was no significant publication bias in this study.ConclusionsProbiotics may help to reduce the occurrence of cancer therapy-related side effects, especially oral mucositis in head and neck tumors and diarrhea in patients with pelvic and abdominal tumors. However, given the small number of clinical trials involved, additional randomized, double-blind, multicentric trials in a larger population are required. This paper may assist researchers in improving trial design in the selection of probiotic strains and selecting appropriate patients who may benefit from probiotic treatments.
ObjectiveCervical cancer screening is very important in the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer. In China, the cervical screening strategy needs to be improved. To explore a suitable cervical screening strategy in China, we evaluated the performance of the human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 mRNA (Aptima HPV (AHPV)) assay in primary screening and different triage strategies for women undergoing routine cervical screening.MethodsA total of 10,002 women aged 35 to 65 years of age were recruited in Liaoning Province and Qingdao City, China. Specimens were tested by liquid-based cytology (LBC) and the AHPV assay, and women who tested positive on any test were referred for colposcopy. Genotyping was performed on all high-risk HPV (HR-HPV)-positive samples. Test characteristics were calculated based on histological review.ResultsWe identified 109 women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+), including six with cervical cancer. The sensitivity of AHPV was clearly higher than that of LBC (92.7 [95% CI: 87.2, 97.2] vs. 67.9 [95% CI: 59.6, 76.1], p < 0.001). The specificity of AHPV was 93.0 (95% CI: 92.5, 93.5), which was lower than that of LBC (95.2 [95% CI: 94.8, 95.6], p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the positive predictive value of AHPV and LBC (13.5 [95% CI: 11.2, 16.2] vs. 14.3 [95% CI: 11.4, 17.6], p = 0.695). The difference of area under the curve (AUC) values between the AHPV test (0.928 [95% CI: 0.904, 0.953]) and LBC test (0.815 [95% CI: 0.771, 0.860]) in detecting HSIL+ was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Finally, among the three triage strategies, both the sensitivity (73.4 [95% CI: 65.1, 81.7]) and AUC (0.851 [95% CI: 0.809, 0.892]) of AHPV genotyping with reflex LBC triage were the greatest.ConclusionIn summary, the AHPV assay is both specific and sensitive for detecting HSIL+ and may be suitable for use in primary cervical cancer screening in China. AHPV genotyping with reflex LBC triage may be a feasible triage strategy.
There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and drawbacks of various radiation protocols for the treatment of left-sided breast cancer. To address this issue, we conducted a Bayesian network analysis. First, we searched several electronic databases for eligible literature. Next, we pooled the data from twelve studies concerning three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), combined with either deep inspiratory breath-holding (DIBH) or free-breathing (FB) modalities. The integrated cardiac and pulmonary dosimetric indexes for all included treatments were compared using Bayesian networks. A direct meta-analysis indicated that for the two methods of 3D-CRT and IMRT, DIBH technology was more effective than FB in reducing the radiation dose to the heart and lungs. Additionally, according to the network results, DIBH was superior to FB in all six treatment options, regardless of whether the plan was 3D-CRT, IMRT, or VMAT. Besides, the combined data indicated that the FB-3D-CRT regimen had the weakest dosimetric advantage of all the treatments. Excluding FB-3D-CRT, each of the other five treatments had its own specific benefits. This is the first Bayesian study of several radiotherapy regimens for breast cancer patients on the left side, and the findings can be used to select appropriate radiotherapy programs for breast cancer patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.