BackgroundThe possible advantages of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus open radical hysterectomy (RH) have not been well reviewed systematically. The aim of this study was to systematically review the comparative effectiveness between LRH and RH in the treatment of cervical cancer based on the evaluation of the Perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance, complications and long-term outcomes.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and BIOSIS databases. All original studies that compared LRH with RH were included for critical appraisal. Data were pooled and analyzed.ResultsA total of twelve original studies that compared LRH (n = 754) with RH (n = 785) in patients with cervical cancer fulfilled quality criteria were selected for review and meta-analysis. LRH compared with RH was associated with a significant reduction of intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = −268.4 mL (95 % CI −361.6, −175.1; p < 0.01), a reduced risk of postoperative complications (OR = 0.46; 95 % CI 0.34–0.63) and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference = −3.22 days; 95 % CI–4.21, −2.23 days; p < 0.01). These benefits were at the cost of longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 26.9 min (95 % CI 8.08–45.82). The rate of intraoperative complications was similar in the two groups. Lymph nodes yield and positive resection margins were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR 0.91, 95 % CI 0.48–1.71; p = 0.76) and 5-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95 % CI 0.56–1.68; p = 0.91).ConclusionsLRH shows better short term outcomes compared with RH in patients with cervical cancer. The oncologic outcome and 5-year survival were similar between the two groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Observational studies suggest an association between dietary fiber intake and risk of type 2 diabetes, but the results are inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating the associations of dietary fiber intake and risk of type 2 diabetes. Relevant studies were identified by searching EMBASE (from 1974 to April 2013) and PubMed (from 1966 to April 2013). The fixed or random-effect model was selected based on the homogeneity test among studies. In addition, a 2-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was performed. We identified 17 prospective cohort studies of dietary fiber intake and risk of type 2 diabetes involving 19,033 cases and 488,293 participants. The combined RR (95 % CI) of type 2 diabetes for intake of total dietary fiber, cereal fiber, fruit fiber and insoluble fiber was 0.81 (0.73-0.90), 0.77 (0.69-0.85), 0.94 (0.88-0.99) and 0.75 (0.63-0.89), respectively. A nonlinear relationship was found of total dietary fiber intake with risk of type 2 diabetes (P for nonlinearity < 0.01), and the RRs (95 % CI) of type 2 diabetes were 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.97 (0.87-1.07), 0.89 (0.80-0.99), 0.76 (0.65-0.88), and 0.66 (0.53-0.82) for 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 g/day. The departure from nonlinear relationship was not significant (P for nonlinearity = 0.72), and the risk of type 2 diabetes decreased by 6 % (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.93-0.96) for 2 g/day increment in cereal fiber intake. Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that the intakes of dietary fiber may be inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

BackgroundThe objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) with conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR).MethodsA search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Ovid databases was performed for studies published before July 2014 that compared the clinical and oncologic outcomes of R-LAR and L-LAR. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, a fixed or random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The clinical and oncologic outcomes evaluated included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, circumferential margin status, and number of lymph nodes collected.ResultsEight studies, including 324 R-LAR cases and 268 conventional L-LAR cases, were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed that R-LAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) = −1.03; 95 % confidence interval (CI) = −1.78, −0.28; P = 0.007), lower conversion rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.08; 95 % CI = 0.02, 0.31; P = 0.0002), lower rate of circumferential margin involvement (OR = 0.5; 95 % CI = 0.25, 1.01; P = 0.05), and lower overall complication rate (MD = 0.65; 95 % CI = 0.43, 0.99; P = 0.04) compared with L-LAR. There was no difference in operative time (MD = 28.4; 95 % CI = −3.48, 60.27; P = 0.08), the number of lymph nodes removed (MD = −0.63; 95 % CI = −0.78, 2.05; P = 0.38), and days to return of bowel function (MD = −0.15; 95 % CI = −0.37, 0.06; P = 0.17).ConclusionsR-LAR was shown to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower conversion rate, lower rate of circumferential margin involvement, and lower overall complication rate compared with L-LAR. There were no differences in operative time, the number of lymph nodes removed, and days to return of bowel function.

The relation between tumor mutation burden (TMB) and outcome of cancer patients receiving immunotherapy has been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of TMB in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. Databases including Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to identify potentially eligible studies until Sep 2018 without language limitation. Studies assessing high versus low TMB in predicting survival of various cancer patients were selected. The pooled analyses were conducted using hazard ratio (HR) of high versus low TMB for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR). The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary outcomes were PFS and ORR. A total of 45 studies consisting of 103078 cancer patients were included. The combined results showed that high TMB was associated with better OS (HR = 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI):0.30-0.53; p< .00001), PFS (HR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.26-0.53; p< .00001) and ORR (OR = 4.62; 95%CI: 2.90-7.34; p< .0001) when treated with immunotherapy. In studying patients with high TMB, these patients had improved OS (HR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.47-1.03; p= .07) when comparing immunotherapy to chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggested that the prognostic role of TMB was independent of cancer types and TMB detection methods (all p< .05). Our findings suggest that high TMB is associated with better survival in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. For cancer patients with high TMB, immunotherapy could be considered.