ObjectiveTo summarize the new biomarkers of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and their research progress, so as to provide new ideas for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of DVT. MethodThe literature about biomarkers of DVT in recent 5 years was reviewed and summarized. ResultsAccording to the results of literature review, a variety of common DVT biomarkers such as serum microrna, fibrin monomer, neutrophil capture net, and E-selectin were sorted out, but most of them had not been used in clinical DVT management. At present, the clinical diagnosis of DVT required the combination of positive D-dimer test and positive imaging examination, and there was no single biomarker for the diagnosis of DVT. ConclusionsBiomarkers are valuable in the diagnosis and treatment of DVT, but their sensitivity and specificity need to be optimized. Therefore, finding biomarkers with more diagnostic value is one of the future directions. At the same time, we also can consider fully combined with a variety of existing biomarkers, to improve the efficiency to the diagnosis of DVT.
ObjectiveBy mining data from the Database of Colorectal Cancer (DACCA) at West China Hospital of Sichuan University, this study aims to evaluate the relationship between nutritional risk screening (NRS) 2002 scores at initial diagnosis and long-term survival in patients. MethodsThe DACCA database version from November 24, 2023, was selected to compare the clinicopathological data of patients with NRS2002 scores <3 and ≥3, and to explore the impact of NRS2002 scores on survival. ResultsA total of 723 patients were screened, with 585 (80.9%) had NRS2002 scores <3 and 138 (19.1%) had NRS2002 scores ≥3. All 723 patients were followed up, with a follow-up period ranging from 1 to 78 months and a median follow-up time of 34 months. The median survival time for patients with NRS2002 scores <3 was 35 months, while it was 31 months for those with NRS scores ≥3. During the follow-up period, 589 patients (81.5%) survived, including 515 (71.2%) tumor-free survivors and 74 (10.2%) survivors with tumors. There were 134 deaths (18.5%), including 126 cancer-related deaths (17.4%) and 8 non-cancer-related deaths (1.1%). Multivariate logistic regression results showed that after controlling for 6 factors including age, radical surgery, adjuvant therapy, hypertension, differentation, and TNM staging, NRS2002 score was not a factor affecting the survival of colorectal cancer patients (RR=0.98, P=0.875). ConclusionNRS2002 score is not a predictive factor for the survival of colorectal cancer patients, possibly because although patients may have nutritional risks preoperatively, the long-term impact on survival is minimal following surgery and postoperative recovery.
ObjectiveTo understand the impact of preoperative nutritional status on the postoperative complications for patients with low/ultra-low rectal cancer undergoing extreme sphincter-preserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. MethodsThe patients with low/ultra-low rectal cancer who underwent extreme sphincter-preserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy from January 2009 to December 2020 were retrospectively collected using the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA), and then who were assigned into a nutritional risk group (the score was low than 3 by the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002) and non-nutritional risk group (the score was 3 or more by the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002). The postoperative complications and survival were analyzed for the patients with or without nutritional risk. The postoperative complications were defined as early-term (complications occurring within 30 d after surgery), middle-term (complications occurring during 30–180 d after surgery), and long-term (complications occurring at 180 d and more after surgery). The survival indicators included overall survival and disease-specific survival. ResultsA total of 680 patients who met the inclusion criteria for this study were retrieved from the DACCA database. Among them, there were 500 (73.5%) patients without nutritional risk and 180 (26.5%) patients with nutritional risk. The postoperative follow-up time was 0–152 months (with average 48.9 months). Five hundreds and forty-three survived, including 471 (86.7%) patients with free-tumors survival and 72 (13.3%) patients with tumors survival. There were 137 deaths, including 122 (89.1%) patients with cancer related deaths and 15 (10.9%) patients with non-cancer related deaths. There were 48 (7.1%) cases of early-term postoperative complications, 51 (7.5%) cases of middle-term complications, and 17 (2.5%) cases of long-term complications. There were no statistical differences in the incidence of overall complications between the patients with and without nutritional risk (χ2=3.749, P=0.053; χ2=2.205, P=0.138; χ2=310, P=0.578). The specific complications at different stages after surgery (excluding the anastomotic leakage complications in the patients with nutritional risk was higher in patients without nutritional risk, P=0.034) had no statistical differences between the two groups (P>0.05). The survival curves (overall survival and disease-specific survival) using the Kaplan-Meier method had no statistical differences between the patients with and without nutritional risk (χ2=3.316, P=0.069; χ2=3.712, P=0.054). ConclusionsFrom the analysis results of this study, for the rectal cancer patients who underwent extreme sphincter-preserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy, the patients with preoperative nutritional risk are more prone to anastomotic leakage within 30 d after surgery. Although other postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes have no statistical differences between patients with and without nutritional risk, preoperative nutritional management for them cannot be ignored.