BackgroundRobotic-assisted laparoscopy is popularly performed for colorectal disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCS) and laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) for colorectal disease based on randomized controlled trial studies.MethodsLiterature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were performed to identify randomized controlled trial studies that compared the clinical or oncologic outcomes of RCS and LCS. This meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.2) that is provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The data used were mean differences and odds ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were adopted according to heterogeneity.ResultsFour randomized controlled trial studies were identified for this meta-analysis. In total, 110 patients underwent RCS, and 116 patients underwent LCS. The results revealed that estimated blood losses (EBLs), conversion rates and times to the recovery of bowel function were significantly reduced following RCS compared with LCS. There were no significant differences in complication rates, lengths of hospital stays, proximal margins, distal margins or harvested lymph nodes between the two techniques.ConclusionsRCS is a promising technique and is a safe and effective alternative to LCS for colorectal surgery. The advantages of RCS include reduced EBLs, lower conversion rates and shorter times to the recovery of bowel function. Further studies are required to define the financial effects of RCS and the effects of RCS on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) interaction with PD-L1 deliver immunosuppressive environment for tumor growth, and its blockade with directed monoclonal antibodies (anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1) has shown remarkable clinical outcome. Lately, their soluble counterparts, sPD-1 and sPD-L1, have been detected in plasma, and elevated levels have been associated with advanced disease, clinical stages, and worst prognosis for cancer patients. Elevated plasma levels of sPD-L1 have been correlated with worst prognosis in several studies and has displayed a persistent outlook. On the other hand, sPD-1 levels have been inconsistent in their predictive and prognostic ability. Pretherapeutic higher sPD-1 plasma levels have shown to predict advanced disease state and to a lesser extent worst prognosis. Any increase in sPD-1 plasma level post therapeutically have been correlated with improved survival for various cancers. In vitro and in vivo studies have shown sPD-1 ability to bind PD-L1 and PD-L2 and block PD-1/PD-L1 interaction. Local delivery of sPD-1 in cancer tumor microenvironment through local gene therapy have demonstrated an increase in tumor specific CD8+ T cell immunity and tumor growth reduction. It had also exhibited enhancement of T cell immunity induced by vaccination and other gene therapeutic agents. Furthermore, it may also lessen the inhibitory effect of circulating sPD-L1 and enhance the effects of mAb-based immunotherapy. In this review, we highlight various aspects of sPD-1 role in cancer prediction, prognosis, and anticancer immunity, as well as, its therapeutic value for local gene therapy or systemic immunotherapy in blocking the PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint interactions.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

BackgroundRadiation brain necrosis (RBN) is a serious complication in patients receiving radiotherapy for intracranial disease. Many studies have investigated the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in patients with RBN. In the present study, we systematically reviewed the medical literature for studies reporting the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab, as well as for studies comparing bevacizumab with corticosteroids.Materials and MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception through 1 March, 2020 for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in patients with RBN. Two investigators independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis.ResultsOverall, the present systematic review included 12 studies (eight retrospective, two prospective, and two randomized control trials [RCTs]) involving 236 patients with RBN treated who were treated with bevacizumab. The two RCTs also had control arms comprising patients with RBN who were treated with corticosteroids/placebo (n=57). Radiographic responses were recorded in 84.7% (200/236) of patients, and radiographic progression was observed in 15.3% (36/236). Clinical improvement was observed in 91% (n=127) of responding patients among seven studies (n=113). All 12 studies reported volume reduction on T1 gadolinium enhancement MRI (median: 50%, range: 26%–80%) and/or T2 FLAIR MRI images (median: 59%, range: 48%–74%). In total, 46 responding patients (34%) had recurrence. The two RCTs revealed significantly improved radiographic response in patients treated with bevacizumab (Levin et al.: p = 0.0013; Xu et al.: p < 0.001). Both also showed clinical improvement (Levin et al.: NA; Xu et al.: p = 0.039) and significant reduction in edema volume on both T1 gadolinium enhancement MRI (Levin et al.: p=0.0058; Xu et al.: p=0.027) and T2 FLAIR MRI (Levin et al.: p=0.0149; Xu et al.: p < 0.001). Neurocognitive improvement was significantly better after 2 months of treatment in patients receiving bevacizumab than in those given corticosteroids, as assessed by the MoCA scale (p = 0.028). The recurrence rate and side effects of the treatments showed no significant differences.ConclusionsPatients with RBN respond to bevacizumab, which can improve clinical outcomes and cognitive function. Bevacizumab appears to be more efficacious than corticosteroid-based treatment. The safety profile was comparable to that of the corticosteroids.