Background: A total esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction is the mainstream procedure for esophageal cancer. Colon interposition and free jejunal flap for esophageal reconstruction are the alternative choices when the gastric tube is not available. However, to date, a solution for the high anastomosis leakage rates among these three types of conduits has not been reported. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to investigate the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL) among the three procedures to determine the best esophageal substitute or the future direction for improving the conventional gastric pull-up (GPU). Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included esophageal cancer patients receiving esophagectomy and excluded patients with other cancer. The random effect model was used in this network meta-analysis. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for the quality assessment of studies in the network meta-analysis, and funnel plots were used to evaluate publication bias. The primary outcome is anastomosis leakage; the secondary outcomes are stricture formation, length of hospital stays, and mortality rate. Results: Nine studies involving 1613 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. The trend results indicated the following. Regarding anastomosis leakage, free jejunal flap was the better procedure; regarding stricture formation, colon interposition was the better procedure; regarding mortality rate, free jejunal flap was the better procedure; regarding length of hospital stay, gastric pull-up was the better treatment. Discussion: Overall, if technically accessible, free jejunal flap is a better choice than colon interposition when gastric conduit cannot be used, but further study should be conducted to compare groups with equal supercharged patients. In addition, jejunal flap (JF) cannot replace traditional gastric pull-up (GPU) due to technical complexities, more anastomotic sites, and longer operation times. However, the GPU method with the supercharged procedure would be a possible solution to lower postoperative AL. The limitation of this meta-analysis is that the number of articles included was low; we aim to update the result when new data are available. Funding: None. Registration: N/A.

The risk of cancer and dementia increases with age, raising complex questions about whether it is appropriate to continue cancer treatment in older patients. There is emerging research suggesting the association between cancer and dementia. However, the mechanistic underpinnings are still under investigation. Progress has already been made toward understanding the cognitive effects associated with cancer therapy. Such associations raise awareness about the need to establish better prevention methods and early screening in clinical practice. Additionally, recent studies have suggested possible therapeutic strategies for better preserving cognitive function and reducing the risk for dementia before patients start cancer treatment. We review the current literature and summarize the incidence and mechanisms of cognitive impairment in patients with lung cancer, breast cancer, head and neck cancer, gastric cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and brain tumor/brain metastasis following different kinds of therapies. Possible risk factors are suggested to identify the early onset of cognitive changes in cancer patients and provide more insight into the pathophysiological process of dementia.

Background: Preservation of organ function is important in cancer treatment. The ‘watch-and-wait’ strategy is an important approach in management of esophageal cancer. However, clinical imaging cannot accurately evaluate the presence or absence of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. As a result, using radiomics to predict complete pathological response in esophageal cancer has gained in popularity in recent years. Given that the characteristics of patients and sites vary considerably, a meta-analysis is needed to investigate the predictive power of radiomics in esophageal cancer. Patients and Methods: PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct this study. PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for literature review. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated by the radiomics quality score. I² score and Cochran’s Q test were used to evaluate heterogeneity between studies. A funnel plot was used for evaluation of publication bias. Results: A total of seven articles were collected for this meta-analysis. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of the seven selected articles for predicting pathological complete response in eosphageal cancer patient was quite high, achieving a pooled value of 0.813 (95% confidence intervaI=0.761-0.866). The radiomics quality score ranged from −2 to 16 (maximum score: 36 points). Three out of the seven studies used machine learning algorithms, while the others used traditional biostatistics methods. One of the seven studies used morphology class features, while four studies used first-order features, and five used second-order features. Conclusion: Using radiomics to predict complete pathological response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer is feasible. In the future, prospective, multicenter studies should be carried out for predicting pathological complete response in patients with esophageal cancer.

Introduction: Ultrasound-guided tracheostomy (UGT) and bronchoscope-guided tracheostomy (BGT) have been well compared. However, the differences in benefits between UGT and landmark tracheostomy (LT) have not been addressed and, in particular, lack a detailed meta-analysis. We aimed to compare the first-pass success, complication rate, major bleeding rate, and tracheostomy procedure time between UGT and LT. Methods: In a systematic review, relevant databases were searched for studies comparing UGT with LT in intubated patients. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of first-pass success. The secondary outcomes were the OR of complications, OR of major bleeding, and standardized mean difference (SMD) of the total tracheostomy procedure time. Results: The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and one nonrandomized controlled study (NRS), comprising 474 patients in total. Compared with LT, UGT increased first-pass success (OR: 4.287; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.308 to 7.964) and decreased complications (OR: 0.422; 95% CI: 0.249 to 0.718). However, compared with LT, UGT did not significantly reduce major bleeding (OR: 0.374; 95% CI: 0.112 to 1.251) or the total tracheostomy placement time (SMD: -0.335; 95% CI: -0.842 to 0.172). Conclusions: Compared with LT, real-time UGT increases first-pass success and decreases complications. However, UGT was not associated with a significant reduction in the major bleeding rate. The total tracheostomy placement time comparison between UGI and LT was inconclusive.

Background: Recurrent intracranial aneurysm carries a risk of rupture and retreatment is often necessary. However, there is no consensus on the best retreatment modality of choice. Flow diverter has emerged as a promising option for this population in recent years. Given its high cost, patient selection to optimize outcomes is very important. Purpose: To identify patient factors predisposing to failure of flow diverter retreatment. Method: We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid/Medline, and ClinicalTrial.gov from 2000 to 2021. Studies regarding flow diverter retreatment of recurrent aneurysms were analyzed if they meet the inclusion criteria. Results: A total of twenty-six studies were identified. Among 374 patients retreated with flow diverters, about 0.86 [0.81; 0.92] were successfully occluded and only 0.06 [0.02; 0.10] had unfavorable neurological outcomes. Major complications included intracranial hemorrhage (n = 7), ischemic stroke or thromboembolic event (n = 12), and death (n = 2). In-stent stenosis was reported in 10 of the cases. Saccular aneurysms are associated with a higher occlusion rate while aneurysm location, size, status, and prior treatment modality have no significant impact on retreatment efficacy. Conclusions: We demonstrated that flow diverter is an effective retreatment strategy except in patients with non-saccular aneurysms. It should be considered as a first-line option for patients with recurrent intracranial aneurysm.