Search

BACKGROUND: Some observational studies found that dyslipidaemia is a risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid-lowering drugs may lower NAFLD risk. However, it remains unclear whether dyslipidaemia is causative for NAFLD. This Mendelian randomisation (MR) study aimed to explore the causal role of lipid traits in NAFLD and evaluate the potential effect of lipid-lowering drug targets on NAFLD. METHODS: Genetic variants associated with lipid traits and variants of genes encoding lipid-lowering drug targets were extracted from the Global Lipids Genetics Consortium genome-wide association study (GWAS). Summary statistics for NAFLD were obtained from two independent GWAS datasets. Lipid-lowering drug targets that reached significance were further tested using expression quantitative trait loci data in relevant tissues. Colocalisation and mediation analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the results and explore potential mediators. FINDINGS: No significant effect of lipid traits and eight lipid-lowering drug targets on NAFLD risk was found. Genetic mimicry of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) enhancement was associated with lower NAFLD risks in two independent datasets (OR(1) = 0.60 [95% CI 0.50–0.72], p(1) = 2.07 × 10(−8); OR(2) = 0.57 [95% CI 0.39–0.82], p(2) = 3.00 × 10(−3)). A significant MR association (OR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58–0.87], p = 1.20 × 10(−3)) and strong colocalisation association (PP.H(4) = 0.85) with NAFLD were observed for LPL expression in subcutaneous adipose tissue. Fasting insulin and type 2 diabetes mediated 7.40% and 9.15%, respectively, of the total effect of LPL on NAFLD risk. INTERPRETATION: Our findings do not support dyslipidaemia as a causal factor for NAFLD. Among nine lipid-lowering drug targets, LPL is a promising candidate drug target in NAFLD. The mechanism of action of LPL in NAFLD may be independent of its lipid-lowering effects. FUNDING: Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2022-4-4037). CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS, grant number: 2021-I2M-C&T-A-010).

BACKGROUND Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) have been considered as indicators for prognosis in various cancers. However, the prognostic values of NLR and PLR have never been tested in gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) with hepatic involvement. OBJECTIVE The aim of the current study was to assess the prognostic significance of NLR, PLR, and other candidate biomarkers in GBC with liver involvement. METHODS Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were utilized to pinpoint the cut-off values for NLR, PLR, and Monocyte-Lymphocyte Ratio (MLR). Univariate analyses were employed to estimate the impact of NLR, PLR, MLR, and other inflammatory indexes on median survival. Multivariate analyses were used to verify the independent prognostic predictors. RESULTS Eighty four patients were enrolled from 2009 to 2017. The cut-off values for NLR, PLR, and MLR were 3.20, 117.75, and 0.25, respectively. Univariate analyses revealed that TNM stage, NLR, PLR, MLR, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and carcinoembryonic antigen were significantly associated with decreased survival in GBC with hepatic involvement. Advanced TNM stage (P< 0.001) and elevated preoperative NLR (P= 0.002) were significantly associated with lower median survival periods, as revealed by multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that preoperative NLR may be an independent prognostic factor in evaluating prognosis in GBC with liver involvement.

Some inflammatory biomarkers are associated with the post-surgical prognosis in cancer patients. However, their clinical importance in gallbladder cancer has rarely been explored. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of surgical intervention and the effectiveness of preoperative test on neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) for predicting the prognosis in gallbladder cancer patients. In this study, a total of 255 gallbladder cancer patients were retrospectively selected. For each patient, we recorded his/her treatment algorithm (with or without surgery) and their preoperative inflammatory biomarkers, as well as their detailed survival information for 5 years. A total of 216 patients received surgical intervention and the other 39 chose conservative treatment. The median survival time was 4.6 months for non-surgical group (P

Neratinib is a novel pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown promising activity against several types of malignancies, especially HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. The objective of the current study was to provide a comprehensive insight into the efficacy and safety profiles of neratinib-based therapies. Comprehensive literature searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science electronic databases were performed for all relevant clinical trials. Adverse events (AEs) of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were summarized and event rates were calculated. For controlled trials, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to determine the role of neratinib in AEs. A random-effects model was applied if heterogeneity was observed (I2 ≥ 50%), otherwise a fixed-effects model was used. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were extracted for hazard ratio (HR) calculation, and survival outcomes were measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Twenty-three studies and 4896 patients were included in the analysis. The most frequently occurring all-grade AEs in neratinib monotherapy were diarrhea (83.9%), nausea (37.9%), and abdominal pain (28.4%). The most common AEs for grades 3 or 4 were diarrhea (25.1%), dyspnea (5.6%), and abnormalities in liver enzyme levels (4.2%). Diarrhea, the most common AE, can be mitigated by prophylactic loperamide. Neratinib demonstrated promising clinical activity as monotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer; however, in contrast, the effect became much less significant among HER2-mutated breast cancer patients. Notably, neratinib-based combination therapy achieved a higher response rate than neratinib monotherapy. Neratinib-based therapies led to a higher frequency of some AEs, although these were mostly tolerable. Most studies demonstrated that neratinib provides a benefit in survival outcome. When combined with other anticancer agents, neratinib may hold promise for treating breast cancer with central nervous system metastases.

Cancer-related inflammation and systemic inflammatory markers have been widely recognized as an essential part in tumor multiplication, invasion, and metastasis of tumor cells. This study aimed to estimate and compare the prognostic value of various biomarkers on overall survival (OS) in patients with gallbladder cancer patients. We performed a retrospective study of 159 patients received different therapies in West China Hospital from 2009 to 2014. The preoperative biomarker data, including neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet–lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte–lymphocyte ratio (MLR), lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase, as well as other clinical information, were obtained from electronic record. And the receiver operating characteristic curves were used to analyze the optimal cut-off values of them. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard model analysis were applied to evaluate the association between markers and OS. The optimal cut-off value was 4.39 for NLR, 181.85 for PLR, 0.30 for MLR, and 3.02 for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Kaplan–Meier analysis and univariate Cox analysis both demonstrated the significant prognostic value of NLR, MLR, and CEA. However, PLR failed to be a significant predictor of OS. The multivariate Cox analysis showed that preoperative NLR and CEA were independent prognostic factors for OS. Advanced tumor/node/metastasis stage, enhanced pretherapeutic NLR, and CEA were significantly associated with worse OS of gallbladder cancer patients. Furthermore, NLR was a better prognostic factor than CEA in advanced T (T3–T4) stage patients, while CEA was better for early T (T1–T2) stage, early N (N0–N1) stage, and early M (M0) stage patients.