Early and mid-stage esophageal cancer can achieve a particular effect through surgeries or comprehensive treatment based on surgery. Once the esophageal cancer progresses to the advanced stage, it is still lack of effective remedy for the disease, and the patient's prognosis is poor. Immunotherapy has developed rapidly in recent years, bringing dawn to patients with advanced esophageal cancer. On July 31, 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved KEYTRUDA (Merck) for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and it became the first milestone drug for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. In the paper, we will review the progress of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer on the basis of current clinical researches, which might provide ideas for further studies in the immunotherapy for esophageal cancer.
Objective To review and evaluate the basic contents and development of the current global clinical guidelines for lung cancer practice so as to provide useful information for domestic study. Methods Six databases including PubMed (to June 2008) and relevant websites (both in Chinese and English) were searched. Articles were screened according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The number of clinical guidelines was counted and the quality of guidelines was also assessed. Results A total of 208 articles were found to be clinical guideline-related and 133 were finally included. Of those, 78 were original versions and 55 were updated versions. And 86 articles mentioned guideline development methodology. The guidelines were issued by 14 countries/regions, mainly by USA (39.85%), Canada (24.81%) and France (8.27%). The earliest one was published by USA in 1984. 125 guidelines were issued by oncological or thoracic institutions, and the other 8 were not issued by specialized institutions or not specified. The 133 articles were classified into 3 major clinical categories: synthesis (24), multi-subject (21) and single-subject (88). As for quality evaluation, the average score of all guidelines was 72.09 (full score 100). The highest average score was found in 1996 which was 83.50, and the lowest in 1997 (66.80). The guidelines issued by France had the highest average score (79.80), and Japan, with the lowest average score (48.00). The average score of 4 categories of lung cancer were 73.54 (non-smallcell lung cancer), 65.74 (lung cancer), 74.72 (small-cell lung cancer), and 76.00 (bronchogenic lung cancer), respectively. Conclusion The number of clinical guidelines showed an increasing trend. Most guidelines were issued by developed countries. The subjects included in the synthetic guidelines showed an expanding trend covering about 20 subjects from prevention to palliative care. A trend of multi-country contribution to the guidelines development and revision was noted. Researches became more focused on different types and stages. Evidence-based methodology was accepted globally in the clinical guideline development, but unfortunately very few applied the method of health technology assessment. China issued only 2 original guidelines, which were based on literature review and expert opinions, respectively. Due to the limitation of language restriction, inaccessibility of full-text articles and unavailability of authorized and specific quality evaluation protocols, the conclusions of this study should be interpreted with caution.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of pancreatic cancer guidelines using evidence-based methods based on the global burden of pancreatic cancer, so as to explore its status, region distribution, characteristics of coverage themes, and difference of therapies recommended by the guidelines of various quality, and to provide references for clinical decisionmaking. MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2013), CBM, CNKI, and VIP, as well as the website of National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), and National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were systematically searched for pancreatic cancer treatment guidelines. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE Ⅲ) was applied to assess methodological quality of included guidelines. ResultsA total of 14 relevant guidelines (including five evidence-based guidelines) were included involving seven countries of four continents (Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania) and four international academic organizations. There were only two domains, namely "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentations" which got high average scores (more than 60%) among all 14 guidelines. The mean AGREE domain scores in guidelines varied with areas, and the quality of five evidence-based guidelines was superior to that established by consensus. According to the outcomes of AGREE Ⅲ, 11 guidelines were weakly recommended, while 3 were not recommended due to poor methodological quality. The subjects of 14 guidelines covered six treatment categories, including chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, support therapy, radiotherapy, and interventional therapy. ConclusionThe overall methodological quality of pancreatic cancer guidelines is not high among different countries or regions. The quality of evidence-based guidelines is superior to that established by consensus. Chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and support therapy were reccommended as predominant choice by these guidelines.
The 2025 American Thyroid Association Guidelines for the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer in Adults, supported centrally by evidence-based medical evidence, has introduced systematic updates to the diagnostic pathways, treatment regimens, and follow-up strategies for thyroid cancer. Its content not only covers multidisciplinary fields such as internal medicine, surgery, radiology, and pathology, but also fully incorporates perspectives from patient populations—further enhancing the alignment of the guidelines with clinical practice and achieving comprehensive coverage of the whole-course management for differentiated thyroid cancer. In the field of surgical management, the guidelines focus primarily on four core areas: the scientific definition of thyroid resection scope, the rational planning of lymph node dissection scope, the precise protection of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and the whole-course preservation of parathyroid function. For these key aspects, the guideline has put forward specific and guiding recommendations based on rigorous evidence-based medical evidence and multidisciplinary team consensus. This article integrates the expert interpretation findings from the 2024 American Thyroid Association annual meeting, providing a prospective organization and summary of the key clinical practice points and basis for updates in its surgical management chapter.
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus on central venous catheters. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases and Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Medive.cn websites were searched to collect clinical guidelines and consensus related to central venous catheters. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and used evaluation tools AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 34 central venous catheter guidelines and consensus were included. The average score for each field of AGREE II was 53.73% for scope and purpose, 39.26% for participants, 39.57% for rigor, 46.76% for clarity, 30.23% for application and 49.18% for editorial independence. Items 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 (100.00%) had the highest reporting rate in the RIGHT evaluation items, followed by items 19a (97.05%), 2/19b (94.11%), 20 (91.17%), 7b/11a (88.23%), and 7a (85.29%). The reporting rate of the remaining items was below 60%. Subgroup analysis results showed that the average score and RIGHT score of the guidance class in the four fields of AGREE Ⅱ (rigor, clarity, application and editorial independence) were higher than those of the consensus class. Guidelines and consensus formulated based on evidence-based medicine methods were higher than those formulated based on expert opinions or reviews in the three fields of AGREE II (rigor, application and editorial independence). The average scores of foreign guidelines and consensus in 6 fields and RIGHT scores of AGREE Ⅱ were higher than those of domestic guidelines and consensus. Conclusion The AGREE Ⅱ of 6 fields average score and RIGHT score in foreign guidelines are higher than those in domestic guidelines.
Objective To investigate the awareness of rational use of drug (RUD) on medical workers in hospitals of different ranks, the establishment and execution of relevant strategies in hospitals of different ranks, and the main factors affecting RUD on medical workers, so as to provide references for the generalization of RUD. Methods A certain number of different ranks of hospitals in Chengdu and Zigong were randomly selected by the convenience sample method. Medical workers in each hospital were selected through face-to-face interviews with a self-designed questionnaire. Monte Carlo Chi-square analysis was applied on the hospital ranks and formulation of RUD guidelines, and logistic regression analysis was performed on the awareness of RUD knowledge of the respondents. Results Among 700 questionnaires distributed, 672 were retrieved (response rate 96.0%). The numbers of respondents who were familiar with the Pharmaceutical Affairs Councils (PACs) as well as the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees (PTCs) were 217 (32.29%) and 83 (12.35%), respectively. The number of respondents who understood the concept of essential medicine was 502 (74.71%). A total of 441 (61.16%) medical workers had been trained on RUD, 199 (29.61%) medical workers denied there were PTCs in their hospitals, and 60.71% of the medical workers mentioned that the use of drug was monitored and controlled with the feedback in their hospitals. The result of logistic regression analysis indicated that the professional title (P=0.038), awareness of essential medicine (Plt;0.001) and participation of RUD training (P=0.008) were the factors influencing the awareness of RUD. Conclusion Both management and education should be executed at the same time to elevate the level of rational use of drug. In order to increase the level of RUD we should complete monitoring institution and improving RUD awareness of workers. Additionally enhancing the rationality of medication should be performed by establishing guidelines of treatment or medication. Improving personal knowledge, scientific information and medication custom should be performed by standardizing regulations, strengthening management, emphasizing education and promoting communication between doctors and patients.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were electronically searched and major guideline websites such as GIN, NICE, NGC and Yimaitong were also searched to collect guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer from inception to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then evaluated the quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II and RIGHT instruments.ResultsA total of 26 esophageal cancer guidelines and consensus were included. The mean scores for each domain of AGREE II was 49.63% for scope and purpose, 25.16% for stakeholder involvement, 23.42% for rigor of development, 49.25% for clarity of presentation, 16.91% for applicability, and 21.07% for editorial independence. The item with the highest reporting rate among the RIGHT evaluation items was 5 (84.62%), followed by 1a (80.77%), 1c (65.38%), 13a (65.38%), and 4 (61.54%), and the remaining items were all reported below 50%. Results of subgroup analysis showed that the guidelines and consensus developed based on the evidence-based medicine method had higher average scores in the six domains of AGREE II and the RIGHT score than the guidelines and consensus developed based on expert opinions or reviews. The foreign guidelines and consensus had higher average scores in the three domains of AGREE II (formulation rigor, clarity, editorial independence) and the RIGHT score than the domestic guidelines.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines and consensus on esophageal cancer is low, with the guidelines and consensus in China even lower, requiring further improvement. It is suggested that the guideline developers should refer to the standards such as AGREE II and RIGHT to develop high-quality guidelines and promote their application, so as to better guide the standardized diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer.