Background and objectives Research about the effect of surgery in geriatric patients with early stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is limited, and it remains a subject of much debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of surgery on the survival of elderly patients with T1‐3N0M0 PDAC and to further investigate the prognosis of these patients undergoing different surgical methods. Methods Patients aged ≥65 with T1‐3N0M0 PDAC diagnosed in 2004–2016 were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The imbalance of baseline characteristics was reduced by propensity score matching. We used the log‐rank tests to evaluate overall survival (OS) and cancer‐specific survival (CSS) among different groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was utilized to explore prognostic factors in PDAC. Results In total, 6363 patients were enrolled. After matching, 1110 patients were paired. We found that surgery could provide better survival (p < 0.001). Moreover, compared with those who underwent partial resection or larger resection, patients who underwent local tumor destruction had poorer OS and CSS (p < 0.001). However, no statistically significant survival differences were shown between the partial resection group and the larger resection group (p < 0.001). Conclusion Surgical intervention could confer a survival benefit to elderly patients with early stage PDAC. Additionally, these patients could benefit from more radical operations, and radical operations with reasonable extents are advocated rather than too aggressive methods.

Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the most common gynecological malignancies, ranking fourth in both incidence and mortality in women worldwide. Early screening and treatment are of great significance in reducing the incidence and mortality of CC. Due to the complex molecular mechanisms of tumor progression, the predictive power of traditional clinical information is limited. In this study, an effective molecular model is established to assess prognosis of patients with CC and guide clinical treatment so as to improve their survival rate. Three high quality datasets (GSE138080, GSE52904, GSE67522) of expression profiling were obtained from gene expression omnibus (GEO) database. Another mRNA expression and clinicopathological data of CC were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset. The bioinformatic analyses such as univariate analysis, multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model (Cox) analysis and lasso regression analysis were conducted to select survival-related differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and further establish a prognostic gene signature. Moreover, the performance of prognostic gene signature was evaluated based on Kaplan–Meier curve and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and tumor immunity analysis were carried out to elucidate the molecular mechanisms and immune relevance. A 4-gene signature comprising procollagen-lysine, 2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 (PLOD2), spondin1 (SPON1), secreted phosphoprotein 1 (SPP1), ribonuclease H2 subunit A (RNASEH2A) was established to predict overall survival (OS) of CC. The ROC curve indicated good performance of the 4-gene signature in predicting OS of CC based on the TCGA dataset. The 4-gene signature classified the patients into high-risk and low-risk groups with distinct OS rates of CC. Univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the 4-gene signature was an independent factor affecting the prognosis of patients with CC. Our study developed a 4-gene signature capable of predicting the OS of CC. The findings may be beneficial to individualized clinical treatment and timely follow-up for patients with CC.

Purpose The aim of this study was to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter (DBC) and dinoprostone as labor-inducing agents just for multipara at term. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted among multipara at term with a Bishop score < 6 who needed planned labor induction from January 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020 in Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei province, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They were divided into DBC group and dinoprostone group, respectively. Baseline maternal data, maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis. Total vaginal delivery rate, rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal fetal heart rate(FHR) were regarded as the primary outcome variables. The difference between groups was considered statistically significant when p value < 0.05. Results A total of 202 multiparas was included for analysis (95 women in DBC group vs 107 women in dinoprostone group). There were no significant differences in total vaginal delivery rate and rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h between groups. Uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR occurred exclusively in dinoprostone group. Conclusion DBC and dinoprostone seem to be equally effective, while, DBC seems to be safer than dinoprostone.

Background: The aim of this study was to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter (DBC) and dinoprostone and as labor-inducing agents for multipara at term. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among multipara at term with a Bishop score <6 who needed planned labor induction from January 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020 in Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei province, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They were divided into DBC group and dinoprostone group respectively according to the method of labor induction. Baseline maternal data and perinatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis. Total vaginal delivery rate, rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal fetal heart rate(FHR) and rate of fetal distress were regarded as the primary outcome variables. The diffrerence between groups was considered statistically significant when p value <0.05. Results: A total of 202 pregnant women was included for analysis (95 women in DBC group vs 107 women in dinoprostone group). There were no significant differences in total vaginal delivery rate and rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h between groups (93.7% vs 86.9% and 75.8% vs 71%, p＞0.05). Uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR occurred exclusively in dinoprostone group (0% vs 5.6%, p＜0.05). The rate of amniotic fluid fecal staining and prenatal fever in dinoprostone group was higher than in DBC group (p＜0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of fetal distress between in the two groups (4.2% vs 10.3%, p＞0.05). Both groups were similar in neonatal outcomes including birth weight, neonatal asphyxia and neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU). Conclusions: DBC and dinoprostone seem to be equally effective in labor induction for multipara at term, and DBC seems to be safer than dinoprostone during induction in multipara at term as it causes lower rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR.

Purpose The aim of this study was to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter (DBC) and dinoprostone as labor-inducing agents just for multipara at term. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted among multipara at term with a Bishop score < 6 who needed planned labor induction from January 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020 in Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei province, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They were divided into DBC group and dinoprostone group respectively. Baseline maternal data, maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis. Total vaginal delivery rate, rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal fetal heart rate(FHR) were regarded as the primary outcome variables. The diffrerence between groups was considered statistically significant when p value < 0.05. Results A total of 202 multipara was included for analysis (95 women in DBC group vs 107 women in dinoprostone group). There were no significant differences in total vaginal delivery rate and rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h between groups. Uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR occurred exclusively in dinoprostone group. Conclusion DBC and dinoprostone seem to be equally effective, and DBC seems to be safer than dinoprostone as it causes lower rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR.