No abstract

Figure 1: The extraction phase analyses a line drawing to determine regions and lines. The modeling phase places stitches according to traditional embroidery techniques. The rendering phase dynamically generates a lighting-dependent and antialiased texture which is mapped onto a potentially deforming 3D object.

No abstract

No abstract

Figure 1: The extraction phase analyses a line drawing to determine regions and lines. The modeling phase places stitches according to traditional embroidery techniques. The rendering phase dynamically generates a lighting-dependent and antialiased texture which is mapped onto a potentially deforming 3D object.

No abstract

Background: Currently, the accepted standard management of limited-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), but the frequency of radiotherapy is controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis, which compared the efficacy and toxicity between twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (OD) CCRT, was performed to help clinicians make better decisions. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected by searching the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Google Scholar databases to assess antitumor effects (overall survival, OS; progression-free survival, PFS; overall response rate, ORR) and toxicity (adverse effects, AEs). Results: We screened 1499 articles and included 5 RCTs including 1421 patients. We found that BID CCRT improved OS (hazard ratio, HR = 0.88, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.78-0.99, p = 0.03), the 1-year OS rate (OSR-1y, risk ratio, RR = 1.07, 95%CI 1.01-1.13, p = 0.03), and OSR-4y (RR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.03-1.43, p = 0.02), with better trends in OSR-2y, OSR-3y, and OSR-5y, compared to OD CCRT. In addition, BID CCRT had a higher complete response (CR, RR = 1.31, 95%CI 1.01-1.70, p = 0.04) than OD CCRT. PFS (HR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.79-1.07, p = 0.29), annual PFS rate, ORR (RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.93-1.05, p = 0.72), and AEs for all grades (RR = 1.00, 95%CI 0.98-1.01, p = 0.57), and grades 3-5 (RR = 1.02, 95%CI 0.95-1.09, p = 0.60) were similar between the two arms. Conclusions: BID CCRT appears to be better than OD CCRT for limited-stage SCLC, with better antitumor effects (OS, OSR, and CR) and similar AEs. However, the high levels of AEs in both arms should be taken as a sign of caution. More large sample and high-quality RCTs need to be conducted to confirm our conclusions.

Background: Talc pleurodesis (TP) and indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) are used for the management of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Our meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of both treatments among patients with MPE. Methods: We acquired pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The endpoints included survival, pleurodesis rates, total drainage, further pleural interventions, hospital days, symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and complications. Results: We included four high-quality RCTs. Both treatments were effective among patients with MPE and no previous pleurodesis, with comparable survival and equivalent relief of breathlessness. Additionally, the TP group had higher pleurodesis rates, less total drainage, and fewer all-grade complications (including catheter blockage and cellulitis). However, patients in the TP group had more pleural procedures and relatively longer hospital stays. Additionally, no apparent difference was detected in QoL. Conclusions: TP has better pleurodesis rates, less total drainage, and fewer all-grade complications. However, TP has more pleural procedures and is not feasible for patients with trapped lungs. IPC has fewer further pleural interventions and shorter hospital stays. However, IPC has the nuisance of long-term in situ draining.