MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients with level IV inferior vena cava thrombi not extending into the atrium underwent transabdominal-transdiaphragmatic robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomy obviating cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (cardiopulmonary bypass-free group) by an expert team comprising urological, hepatobiliary, and cardiovascular surgeons. The central diaphragm tendon and pericardium were transabdominally dissected until the intrapericardial inferior vena cava were exposed and looped proximal to the cranial end of the thrombi under intraoperative ultrasound guidance. As controls, 14 patients who underwent robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomy with cardiopulmonary bypass (cardiopulmonary bypass group) and 25 patients who underwent open thrombectomy with cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest group) were included. Clinicopathological, operative, and survival outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: Eight robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomies were successfully performed without cardiopulmonary bypass, with 1 open conversion. The median operation time and first porta hepatis occlusion time were shorter, and estimated blood loss was lower in the cardiopulmonary bypass-free group as compared to the cardiopulmonary bypass group (540 vs 586.5 minutes, 16.5 vs 38.5. minutes, and 2,050 vs 3,500 mL, respectively). Severe complications (level IV-V) were also lower in the cardiopulmonary bypass-free group than in cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest groups (25% vs 50% vs 40%). Oncologic outcomes were comparable among the 3 groups in short-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Pure transabdominal-transdiaphragmatic robot-assisted inferior vena cava thrombectomy without cardiopulmonary bypass/deep hypothermic circulatory arrest represents as an alternative minimally invasive approach for selected level IV inferior vena cava thrombi.
METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 46 outpatient centres in China, Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the USA. Eligible participants were treatment-naive adults (aged ≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA of at least 500 copies per mL and plasma HBV DNA of at least 2000 IU/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily oral bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or dolutegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg, each with corresponding matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status (positive vs negative), HBV DNA (<8 vs ≥8 log10 IU/mL), and CD4 count (<50 vs ≥50 cells per μL) at screening. All investigators, participants, and staff providing treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to study treatment for 96 weeks. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) and plasma HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL (using the missing-equals-failure approach) at week 48, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. Coprimary endpoints were assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV-1 RNA or HBV DNA result while on study drug. Safety endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03547908.
FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2018 and March 16, 2021, 381 participants were screened, of whom 243 initiated treatment (121 in the receive bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group; 122 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, both endpoints met the criteria for non-inferiority: 113 (95%) of 119 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 111 (91%) of 122 participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (difference 4·1, 95% CI -2·5 to 10·8; p=0·21), and 75 (63%) of 119 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus 53 (43%) of 122 participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group had HBV DNA suppression (difference 16·6, 5·9 to 27·3; nominal p=0·0023). Drug-related adverse events up to week 96 occurred in 35 (29%) of 121 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 34 (28%) of 122 participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. One (1%) of 121 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group reported a serious adverse event (cryptococcal meningitis attributed to immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome) that was deemed to be treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION: Coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide is an effective therapy for adults with HIV-1 and HBV coinfection starting antiviral therapy.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
METHODS: An international, multicenter, and superiority randomized controlled trial included 320 intention-to-treat patients across 8 medical centers in China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Turkey from August 2023 to February 2024. The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years old with renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. RIRS was performed using either S-UAS or traditional UAS. The primary outcome was the immediately stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included SFR 3 months after operation, operating time, hospital stay, auxiliary procedures, complications (using the Clavien-Dindo grading system), and improvement in the Quality of Life (QoL) score. Differences between proportions [risk difference (RD)]/means [mean difference (MD)] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05952635.
FINDINGS: The S-UAS group demonstrated a significantly higher immediately SFR (81.3% versus 49.4%; RD 31.9%; 95% CI 22.5%-41.7%; p = 0.004) compared to the traditional UAS group, as determined by the one-side superiority test. Additionally, the S-UAS group exhibited a higher SFR at 3 months post-operation (87.5% versus 70.0%; RD 17.5%; 95% CI 8.7%-26.3%; p
OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision-making program and analyze multi-institutional outcomes of RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ninety patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with level II IVCT were included from eight Chinese urological centers, and underwent RAC-IVCT (30 patients) or RAT-IVCT (60 patients) from June 2013 to January 2019.
SURGICAL PROCEDURE: The surgical strategy was based on IVCT imaging characteristics. RAT-IVCT was performed with standardized cavotomy, thrombectomy, and IVC reconstruction. RAC-IVCT was mainly performed in patients with extensive IVC wall invasion when the collateral blood vessels were well-established. For right-sided RCC, the IVC from the infrarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was stapled. For left-sided RCC, the IVC from the suprarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was removed and caudal IVC reconstruction was performed to ensure the right renal vein returned through the IVC collaterals.
MEASUREMENTS: Clinicopathological, operative, and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All procedures were successfully performed without open conversion. The median operation time (268 vs 190 min) and estimated blood loss (1500 vs 400 ml) were significantly greater for RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT (both p < 0.001). IVC invasion was a risk factor for progression-free and overall survival at midterm follow-up. Large-volume and long-term follow-up studies are needed.
CONCLUSIONS: RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT represents an alternative minimally invasive approach for selected RCC patients with level II IVCT. Selection of RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT is mainly based on preoperative IVCT imaging characteristics, including the presence of IVC wall invasion, the affected kidney, and establishment of the collateral circulation.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we found that robotic surgeries for level II inferior vena cava thrombus were feasible and safe. Preoperative imaging played an important role in establishing an appropriate surgical plan.
METHODS: A self-administered anonymised questionnaire, constructed in English and translated in six more languages, was distributed through reputed international professional bodies and academic institutions worldwide. The questionnaire included items on demographic characteristics, type of practice, and questions designed to explore practitioners' perspective on the future of their CL practice over the next five years.
RESULTS: A total of 2408 valid responses were analysed. Multifocal CLs for presbyopia, CLs for myopia control, use of daily disposable (DD) CLs for occasional wear, and biocompatible materials to improve comfort were identified as promising areas of opportunities by practitioners (all 8/10). Respondents from North America, and Europe valued DDCLs for occasional wear moderately more favourable (Median: 9/10 for all) as compared to colleagues in Asia (Median: 8/10, 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.