METHODS: POISE-2 was a blinded, randomized trial of patients having non-cardiac surgery. Patients were assigned to perioperative aspirin or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included: vascular occlusive complications (a composite of amputation and peripheral arterial thrombosis) and major or life-threatening bleeding.
RESULTS: Of 10 010 patients in POISE-2, 603 underwent vascular surgery, 319 in the continuation and 284 in the initiation stratum. Some 272 patients had vascular surgery for occlusive disease and 265 had aneurysm surgery. The primary outcome occurred in 13·7 per cent of patients having aneurysm repair allocated to aspirin and 9·0 per cent who had placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 1·48, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 3·09). Among patients who had surgery for occlusive vascular disease, 15·8 per cent allocated to aspirin and 13·6 per cent on placebo had the primary outcome (HR 1·16, 0·62 to 2·17). There was no interaction with the primary outcome for type of surgery (P = 0·294) or aspirin stratum (P = 0·623). There was no interaction for vascular occlusive complications (P = 0·413) or bleeding (P = 0·900) for vascular compared with non-vascular surgery.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the overall POISE-2 results apply to vascular surgery. Perioperative withdrawal of chronic aspirin therapy did not increase cardiovascular or vascular occlusive complications. Registration number: NCT01082874 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
METHODS: The APODDC set up a group of experts in the field of clinical cancer genomics to (i) understand the current NGS landscape for metastatic cancers in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region; (ii) discuss key challenges in the adoption of NGS testing in clinical practice; and (iii) adapt/modify the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for local use. Nine cancer types [breast cancer (BC), gastric cancer (GC), nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), ovarian cancer (OC), prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)] were identified, and the applicability of NGS was evaluated in daily practice and/or clinical research. Asian ethnicity, accessibility of NGS testing, reimbursement, and socioeconomic and local practice characteristics were taken into consideration.
RESULTS: The APODDC recommends NGS testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Routine NGS testing is not recommended in metastatic BC, GC, and NPC as well as cholangiocarcinoma and HCC. The group suggested that patients with epithelial OC may be offered germline and/or somatic genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1), BRCA2, and other OC susceptibility genes. Access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors is required for NGS to be of clinical utility in prostate cancer. Allele-specific PCR or a small-panel multiplex-gene NGS was suggested to identify key alterations in CRC.
CONCLUSION: This document offers practical guidance on the clinical utility of NGS in specific cancer indications from an Asian perspective.
METHODS: The present aims to examine the impact of CFH rs1061170 (Y402H), C2 rs9332739 (E318D), and C3 rs2230199 (R102G) gene polymorphisms and AMD risk, in addition, Deleterious missense SNPs in CFH, C2, and C3 were analyzed for stability, conservation, and structural impact using multiple computational approaches. Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases between the years Jan 2020 and 30 April 2026 and covered a total of nine case-control articles.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations of CFH rs1061170 and C3 rs2230199 polymorphisms with AMD susceptibility under specific genetic models (p
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of GC followed by EBV-CTL versus GC alone as first-line treatment of R/M NPC patients. Thirty clinical sites in Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and the USA were included. Subjects were randomized to first-line GC (four cycles) and EBV-CTL (six cycles) or GC (six cycles) in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02578641.
RESULTS: A total of 330 subjects with NPC were enrolled. Most subjects in both treatment arms received four or more cycles of chemotherapy and most subjects in the GC + EBV-CTL group received two or more infusions of EBV-CTL. The central Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) facility produced sufficient EBV-CTL for 94% of GC + EBV-CTL subjects. The median OS was 25.0 months in the GC + EBV-CTL group and 24.9 months in the GC group (hazard ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.56; P = 0.194). Only one subject experienced a grade 2 serious adverse event related to EBV-CTL.
CONCLUSIONS: GC + EBV-CTL in subjects with R/M NPC demonstrated a favorable safety profile but no overall improvement in OS versus chemotherapy. This is the largest adoptive T-cell therapy trial reported in solid tumors to date.
METHODS: A total of 1402 ACLF patients, enrolled in the APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) with 90-day follow-up, were analyzed. An ACLF score was developed in a derivation cohort (n = 480) and was validated (n = 922).
RESULTS: The overall survival of ACLF patients at 28 days was 51.7%, with a median of 26.3 days. Five baseline variables, total bilirubin, creatinine, serum lactate, INR and hepatic encephalopathy, were found to be independent predictors of mortality, with AUROC in derivation and validation cohorts being 0.80 and 0.78, respectively. AARC-ACLF score (range 5-15) was found to be superior to MELD and CLIF SOFA scores in predicting mortality with an AUROC of 0.80. The point scores were categorized into grades of liver failure (Gr I: 5-7; II: 8-10; and III: 11-15 points) with 28-day cumulative mortalities of 12.7, 44.5 and 85.9%, respectively. The mortality risk could be dynamically calculated as, with each unit increase in AARC-ACLF score above 10, the risk increased by 20%. A score of ≥11 at baseline or persisting in the first week was often seen among nonsurvivors (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The AARC-ACLF score is easy to use, dynamic and reliable, and superior to the existing prediction models. It can reliably predict the need for interventions, such as liver transplant, within the first week.