PURPOSE No combined immunotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy have been investigated in exclusively programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced cervical cancer (CA). We investigated the efficacy and safety of sintilimab plus anlotinib as second-line or later therapy for PD-L1–positive recurrent or metastatic (R/M) CA. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with PD-L1–positive (Combined Positive Score ≥ 1) R/M CA who progressed after at least one prior systemic chemotherapeutic regimen or could not tolerate chemotherapy were eligible for the phase II trial. The patients received 200 mg sintilimab once on day 1 and 10 mg anlotinib once daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was investigator-confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and disease control rate. Biomarkers were explored. RESULTS Forty-two patients were enrolled. The ORR was 54.8% (95% CI, 38.7 to 70.2). In 39 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 59.0% (95% CI, 42.1 to 74.4); the disease control rate was 94.9% (95% CI, 82.7 to 99.4). The median PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 14.6). The median overall survival was not reached. Furthermore, 85.8% of the patients experienced treatment-related adverse events. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were hypothyroidism (33.3%), elevated aspartate aminotransferase levels (21.4%), and hypertension (19.0%). Patients with altered PIK3CA, PI3K-AKT signaling, or KMT2D had a higher ORR, whereas those with altered STK11 and/or JAK2 had a significantly shorter PFS. CONCLUSION Sintilimab plus anlotinib as second-line or later therapy is efficacious and safe for patients with advanced CA who have failed prior chemotherapy.

No abstract

Purpose. To compare the effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) versus neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on motor recovery of the upper limb in subacute stroke patients. Materials and Methods. Fifty patients within six months poststroke were randomly assigned to the CCFES group ( n = 25 ) and the NMES group ( n = 25 ). Both groups underwent routine rehabilitation plus 20-minute stimulation on wrist extensors per day, five days a week, for 3 weeks. Fugl-Meyer Assessment of upper extremity (FMA-UE), action research arm test (ARAT), Barthel Index (BI), and surface electromyography (sEMG) were assessed at baseline and end of intervention. Results. After a 3-week intervention, FMA-UE and BI increased in both groups ( p < 0.05 ). ARAT increased significantly only in the CCFES group ( p < 0.05 ). The changes of FMA-UE, ARAT, and BI in the CCFES group were not greater than those in the NMES group. The improvement in sEMG response of extensor carpi radialis by CCFES was greater than that by NMES ( p = 0.026 ). The cocontraction ratio (CCR) of flexor carpi radialis did not decrease in both groups. Conclusions. CCFES improved upper limb motor function, but did not show better treatment effect than NMES. CCFES significantly enhanced the sEMG response of paretic extensor carpi radialis compared with NMES, but did not decrease the cocontraction of antagonist.