Studies on vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) have yielded uncertain results regarding clinical outcomes and recurrence rates. To compare the clinical outcomes of vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for idiopathic ERM. Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI databases, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov, published until July 2016, were searched to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes following vitrectomy with ERM and ILM peeling and with only ERM peeling, for treating idiopathic ERM. Studies with sufficient data were selected. Pooled results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling with regard to postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and ERM recurrence rate. Eleven retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 756 eyes were identified. This demonstrated that the postoperative BCVA within 12 months was significantly better in the non-ILM peeling group (MD = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.08; P = 0.0460), but that the patients in the ILM peeling group had significantly better postoperative BCVA after 18 months (MD = −0.13, 95% CI: −0.23 to −0.04; P = 0.0049) than did those in the non-ILM peeling group. The non-ILM peeling group exhibited a higher reduction in postoperative CRT (MD = 51.55, 95% CI:−84.23 to −18.88; P = 0.0020) and a higher recurrence rate of ERM (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.16 to 0.72; P = 0.0048) than did the ILM peeling group. However, the improvement rates of BCVA (RR = 1.03, 95% CI:0.72 to 1.47; P = 0.8802) and postoperative CRTs (MD = 18.15, 95% CI:−2.29 to 38.60; P = 0.0818) were similar between the two groups. Vitrectomy with ILM peeling results in better visual improvement in long-term follow-ups and lower ERM recurrence rates, and vitrectomy with only ERM peeling is more efficacious in reduction of CRT than is vitrectomy with ILM peeling.

Cataracts are one of the most common eye diseases that can cause blindness. Discovering susceptibility factors in the proteome that contribute to cataract development would be helpful in gaining new insights in the molecular mechanisms of the cataract process. We used label-free nanoflow ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry to compare aqueous humor protein expressions in cataract patients with different cataract risk factors such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and smoking and in controls (with cataract) without risk exposure. Eight patients with diabetes and who smoked (with double risk factors), five patients with diabetes and five patients who smoked (both with a single risk factor), and nine aged-matched cataract controls patients (non-risk exposure) were enrolled. In total, 136 aqueous humor proteins were identified, of which only alpha-2-Heremans–Schmid (HS)-glycoprotein was considered to be significantly risk-associated because it was differentially expressed in these three groups and exhibited increased expression with increasing risk factors. Significant changes in the aqueous humor level of alpha-2-HS-glycoprotein between DM and control samples and between smoking and control samples were confirmed using ELISA. The alpha-2-HS-glycoprotein, called fetuin-a, could be a potential aqueous biomarker associated with DM and smoking, which were cataract risk factors.

While high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remain integral to the primary treatment of newly diagnosed transplant-elble multiple myeloma (MM) patients, the challenge of disease progression persists. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tandem ASCT compared to single ASCT. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing tandem ASCT with single ASCT in patients with newly diagnosed MM. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases for studies published up to January 2024. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), and treatment-related mortality (TRM). We used a random-effects model to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies involving 5057 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tandem ASCT was associated with a significantly higher CRR compared to single ASCT (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03–1.71, I2 = 15%), but no significant differences were observed in PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42–1.34, I2 = 14%), OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33–1.10, I2 = 27%), or the ORR (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59–1.08, I2 = 33%). However, tandem ASCT was associated with a significantly higher risk of TRM (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.00–3.18, I2 = 0%). Tandem ASCT improves the CRR but does not provide significant benefits in terms of PFS, OS, or ORR compared to single ASCT in patients with newly diagnosed MM. Moreover, tandem ASCT is associated with a higher risk of TRM. The decision to pursue tandem ASCT should be made on an individual basis, carefully weighing the potential benefits and risks in light of each patient’s unique clinical situation. Future research should focus on identifying patient subgroups most likely to benefit from tandem ASCT and exploring strategies to optimize the efficacy and safety of this approach in the context of novel agent-based therapies.

In the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the comparative effectiveness of different cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) remains unclear due to the absence of head-to-head randomized trials. We aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of abemaciclib versus palbociclib. We performed a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study using the TriNetX Analytics Network database (2014-2025). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). To ensure robust findings, the analysis was supported by multiple sensitivity tests, including restricted mean survival time (RMST) to provide a model-free effect measure, and E-value analysis to quantify the potential impact of unmeasured confounding. From 15,830 eligible patients, we created a matched cohort of 2768 patients on abemaciclib and 2768 on palbociclib. After a median follow-up of 33.7 months for the abemaciclib group and 44.2 months for the palbociclib group, treatment with abemaciclib was associated with significantly longer median OS (6.0 vs. 5.0 years; HR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.72-0.90; p < 0.001). The RMST analysis confirmed a significant survival benefit of 5.96 months over the follow-up period (p < 0.001). Abemaciclib was associated with lower rates of neutropenia but higher rates of diarrhea. The survival advantage was consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses. In this large, real-world cohort study, first-line abemaciclib was associated with a significant overall survival benefit compared to palbociclib for patients with HR+/HER2-mBC. This finding was robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. These results provide valuable evidence to inform treatment decisions in the absence of direct randomized trial data.

Background/Objectives: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has transformed outcomes in relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, but long-term cognitive outcomes remain poorly understood. We compared the incidence and time course of cognitive impairment and associated neurological complications after CAR-T therapy compared with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: This retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study utilized the TriNetX US Collaborative Network (January 2014–April 2025). To ensure concurrent comparisons, ASCT recipients were restricted to an index date beginning in August 2017 or later. CAR-T recipients were matched 1:1 to ASCT recipients for demographics, disease, comorbidities, prior and concomitant treatments, and laboratory parameters. The primary endpoint was time to cognitive impairment, as defined by ICD-10 codes. Results: After comparing 3067 CAR-T patients (median follow-up 634 days) with 3067 ASCT patients (median follow-up 713 days), CAR-T recipients had a higher risk of cognitive impairment (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.39–1.80; p < 0.001). Because the risks were not proportional (Schaenfeld p < 0.001), the difference was also expressed as restricted median survival time (RMST): CAR-T recipients spent approximately 25 and 53 days fewer days without cognitive impairment at 1 and 2 years, respectively (both p < 0.001). The risk was greatest at 30 days (HR 4.22; 95% CI 3.23–5.53), but remained elevated in control analyses at 30 and 90 days that excluded the acute ICANS window (HR 1.30 and 1.25, respectively; both p < 0.05). Neurological dysfunction, particularly encephalopathy (HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.73–2.40), was more common after CAR-T. Conversely, CAR-T was associated with a reduced risk of secondary acute myeloid leukemia (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.38–0.55; p < 0.001). Conclusions: CAR-T therapy is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment that persists beyond the acute phase. As these are observational, code-based data, they should be interpreted as associations rather than evidence of a specific mechanism, and they highlight the need for informed consent discussions, long-term neurocognitive monitoring, and the development of neuroprotective strategies.

After publication, the authors identified several errors in the manuscript, including inconsistencies between the manuscript’s reported results and the corresponding figures, a missing citation, and incorrect reference citations