Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. Different databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated. Seventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07–0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01–0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10–0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16–1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19–2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03–1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events. Mechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality.

Due to the phenotypic and molecular diversity of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC), it is still a challenge to determine patients’ prognosis. We aim to identify new prognostic markers for resected HCC patients. 274 patients were retrospectively identified and samples collected from Zhongshan hospital, Fudan University. We analyzed the gene expression patterns of tumors and compared expression patterns with patient survival times. We identified a “9-gene signature” associated with survival by using the coefficient and regression formula of multivariate Cox model. This molecular signature was then validated in three patients cohorts from internal cohort (n = 69), TCGA (n = 369) and GEO dataset (n = 80). We identified 9-gene signature consisting of ZC2HC1A, MARCKSL1, PTGS1, CDKN2B, CLEC10A, PRDX3, PRKCH, MPEG1 and LMO2. The 9-gene signature was used, combined with clinical parameters, to fit a multivariable Cox model to the training cohort (concordance index, ci = 0.85), which was successfully validated (ci = 0.86 for internal cohort; ci = 0.78 for in silico cohort). The signature showed improved performance compared with clinical parameters alone (ci = 0.70). Furthermore, the signature predicted patient prognosis than previous gene signatures more accurately. It was also used to stratify early-stage, HBV or HCV-infected patients into low and high-risk groups, leading to significant differences in survival in training and validation (P < 0.001). The 9-gene signature, in which four were upregulated (ZC2HC1A, MARCKSL1, PTGS1, CDKN2B) and five (CLEC10A, PRDX3, PRKCH, MPEG1, LMO2) were downregulated in HCC with poor prognosis, stratified HCC patients into low and high risk group significantly in different clinical settings, including receiving adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization and especially in early stage disease. This new signature should be validated in prospective studies to stratify patients in clinical decisions.