(above sort by family name); on behalf of the guidelines writing group of secondary prevention for ischemic stroke of cerebrovascular disease group of neurologic branch of Chinese medical association.

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the incidence and risk of cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib in cancer patients.MethodsDatabases from PubMed, Web of Science and abstracts presented at ASCO meeting up to July 31, 2013 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective phase II and III trials evaluating bortezomib in cancer patients with adequate data on cardiotoxicity. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by using either random effects or fixed effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies.ResultsA total of 5718 patients with a variety of malignancies from 25 clinical trials were included in our analysis. The incidence of all-grade and high-grade cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib was 3.8% (95%CI: 2.6–5.6%) and 2.3% (1.6–3.5%), with a mortality of 3.0% (1.4–6.5%). Patients treated with bortezomib did not significantly increase the risk of all-grade (OR 1.15, 95%CI: 0.82–1.62, p = 0.41) and high-grade (OR 1.13, 95%CI: 0.58–2.24, p = 0.72) cardiotoxicity compared with patients treated with control medication. Sub-group analysis showed that the incidence of cardiotoxicity varied with tumor types, treatment regimens and phases of trials. No evidence of publication bias was observed.ConclusionsThe use of bortezomib does not significantly increase the risk of cardiotoxicity compared to control patients. Further studies are recommended to investigate this association and risk differences among different tumor types, treatment regimens and phases of trials.

Inflammation is increasingly reported to be associated with the prognosis of patients with cancers. And the prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) remains inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain a more reliable assessment of prognostic significance of NLR in PCa.A comprehensive literature research regarding the association of NLR and prognosis of PCa was performed through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science. The hazard ratios (HRs) and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, or recurrence-free survival were extracted and pooled using fix-effects model or random-effects model.A total of 14 studies that met our criterion were included in this meta-analysis. Our pooled results demonstrated that elevated NLR was not significantly associated with the poor OS (HR = 1.45; 95% CI 0.77–2.71; P = 0.248) or recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.89–2.02; P = 0.155) of patients with localized PCa. Although elevated NLR predicted poorer OS (HR = 1.57; 95% CI 1.41–1.74; P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 1.97; 95% CI 1.28–3.04; P = 0.002) of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Elevated NLR is a strong indicator of poorer prognosis of patients with mCRPC, whereas the NLR is not significantly associated with prognosis of patients with localized PCa. Therefore, NLR could be used in patients with mCRPC for risk stratification and decision making of individual treatment.