MATERIALS & METHODS: In total 141 local series of DLBCL cases from UKM Medical Centre were retrospectively studied.
RESULTS: Of these cases, we classified our patients into two subtypes: 32.7% (37/113) GCB and non-GCB 67.3% (76/113) by Hans algorithm and the results showed strong agreement with the results by Choi algorithm (κ = 0.828, P<0.001). Survival analysis indicated significant difference in between GCB and non-GCB subtypes (P=0.01), elevated serum LDH (P=0.016), age more than 60-year-old (P=0.021) and the presence of B symptoms (P=0.04). We observed 12% DLBCL cases were CD5 positive and 81.8% of them died of the disease (P=0.076). Analysis on the dual expression of MYC/BCL2 revealed that there is no significant difference in DE and non-DE groups (P=0.916). FISH study reported there were 9.22% (13/141) rearranged cases observed in our population at which highest frequency of BCL6 gene rearrangement (76.9%), followed by MYC (15.4%) and BCL2 (7.7%); no BCL10 and MALT-1 gene rearrangement found regardless of using TMAs or whole tissue samples. More cases of MYC protein overexpression observed compared to MYC translocation.
CONCLUSION: Relatively lower frequency of GCB tumours and low gene rearrangement rates were observed in Malaysian population. A national study is therefore warranted to know better the immunogenotypic characteristics of DLBCL in Malaysia and their implications on the survival.
METHODS: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR).
RESULTS: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study.
IMPACT: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes.
DESIGN: Single blinded, international, multicenter randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Tertiary and University hospitals.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients (n=10,600) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft will be randomized to receive either volatile anesthetic as part of the anesthetic plan, or total intravenous anesthesia.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point of the study will be one-year mortality (any cause). Secondary endpoints will be 30-day mortality; 30-day death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (composite endpoint); cardiac mortality at 30day and at one year; incidence of hospital re-admission during the one year follow-up period and duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay. The sample size is based on the hypothesis that volatile anesthetics will reduce 1-year unadjusted mortality from 3% to 2%, using a two-sided alpha error of 0.05, and a power of 0.9.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether the simple intervention of adding a volatile anesthetic, an intervention that can be implemented by all anesthesiologists, can improve one-year survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
METHOD: All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors measuring≤2cm at the University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia) from 1993 to 2013 were included. Mortality of patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy were compared and adjusted for possible confounders using propensity score.
RESULTS: Of 6732 breast cancer patients, 341 (5.1%) had small (≤2cm), node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors at diagnosis. Among them, only 214 (62.8%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival was 88.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.0%-94.2%) for patients receiving chemotherapy and 89.6% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.1%) for patients without chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was not associated with survival following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor size, tumor grade, HER2 status, lympho-vascular invasion, type of surgery and radiotherapy administration. However, chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival advantage (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14-0.91) in a subgroup of women with high-grade tumors.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit in women with T1N0M0, hormone receptor negative breast cancer except in those with high-grade tumors.
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.
METHODS: Data pertaining to 4,501 colorectal carcinoma patients were extracted from the national colorectal registry and analysed. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare the survival rate between patients with intestinal obstruction and those without intestinal obstruction. The p-values<0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Simple Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate the crude hazard ratio of mortality from colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: Intestinal obstruction was reported in more than 13% of patients. The 3-year survival rate after treatment was 48.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.9 to 52.8) for patients with intestinal obstruction (n=593) and 54.9% (95% CI, 53.1 to 56.6) for patients without intestinal obstruction (n=3,908). The 5-year survival rate for patients with intestinal obstruction was 37.3% (95% CI, 31.9 to 42.8), which was lower than that of patients without intestinal obstruction (45.6%; 95% CI, 43.5 to 47.7). After adjusting the hazard ratio for other prognostic variables, intestinal obstruction had a statistically significant negative correlation with the survival rate of colorectal cancer patients, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.22 (p=0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of intestinal obstruction is associated with a lower survival rate among colorectal cancer patients.