subject

Neoplasms

Neoplasms: explore 7 source-linked works published from 2025 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

PubMed2026

Prognostic significance of NLRP-3 expression in solid cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The inflammasome is a critical immunological sensor comprised of NLRP-3, ASC, and CASPASE-1. Mutations in NLRP-3 are prevalent in inflammatory diseases. However, the role of NLRP-3 in cancer is controversial. This study investigates whether NLRP-3 expression is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with solid cancers. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for articles reporting NLRP-3 expression and disease outcome data in cancer patients. RevMan Review Manager was used to calculate pooled hazard ratios and Mantel-Haenszel pooled odds ratios. RNA sequencing datasets from the TCGA Pan-Cancer (PANCAN) were used for external validation. RESULTS: Patients with higher NLRP-3 expression showed a significant association with larger tumor size, advanced tumor grade, TNM stage, and presence of metastasis. High NLRP-3 expression has a significant association with poor OS (HR:2.12, 95% CI = 1.49-3.03), p < 0.0001) and DFS (HR:1.86, 95% CI = 1.30- 2.65, p = 0.0007). Subgroup analysis showed that higher NLRP-3 expression is associated with worse OS in head and neck cancer (HR: 2.77, 95% CI = 1.88-4.09, p < 0.00001), colorectal cancers (HR:2.14, 95% CI= 1.59- 2.87, p < 0.00001), and pancreatic cancer patients (HR: 3.19, 95% CI = 1.73-5.91, p = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: High NLRP-3 expression is associated with advanced disease and poor outcomes in many solid tumours.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The clinical value of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to radiotherapy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have explored the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment for patients undergoing radiotherapy, studies systematically assessing the clinical value of such interventions are lacking. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant RCTs of cancers that received ICIs plus radiotherapy or radiotherapy. Eligible studies were those published in English as of 14 April 2024. Two independent reviewers screened the included studies and extracted relevant data, then selected the random or fixed-effects model based on the I2 statistic. The main outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs). Stratified analysis was performed based on cancer type, ICI type, and the timing of ICI addition. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024551008). RESULTS: 15 RCTs with 7947 patients were included. Pooled HRs were 0.865 (95% CI, 0.730-1.000; I2 = 72.1%) for OS and 0.799 (0.677-0.922; I2 = 82.0%) for PFS in cancer patients. In cancer types, adding immunotherapy to radiotherapy significantly improved patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (OS: 0.544 [0.371-0.717]; PFS: 0.527 [0.438-0.617]) and cervical cancer (OS: 0.722 [0.578-0.867] and PFS: 0.754 [95%CI, 0.621-0.887]). Regarding the ICIs schedule, adjuvant ICI therapy with pooled HRs was 0.742 (0.649-0.834) for OS and 0.638 (0.579-0.697) for PFS. In addition, the pooled ORs for the incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related and immune-related adverse events were 1.227 (1.059-1.421; I2 = 71.9%) and 2.217 (1.743-2.821; I2 = 74.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Adding immunotherapy to radiotherapy can provide significant clinical benefits for patients with NSCLC and cervical cancer, and the addition of these ICIs in the adjuvant stage is supported.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The effects of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in the psychological and physical health of cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: No prior systematic review has specifically evaluated the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in improving both psychological and physical outcomes among cancer populations. This study aims to assess MBCT's effects on cancer patients' mental and physical health. METHOD: Following PRISMA guidelines and with PROSPERO registration (CRD42023453581), we systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched up to June 2026. Eligible trials enrolled adults (≥ 18 years) with any cancer type/stage, compared MBCT delivered per standard manual against non-MBCT controls, and reported at least one validated measure of distress, depression, or anxiety; secondary outcomes included fatigue, quality of life, and mindfulness skills. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool; random-effects meta-analyses were performed in Stata 16. RESULTS: 11 RCTs comprising 1122 participants (mean age 54.8 years; 91% female) were included. MBCT produced large, significant reductions in psychological distress (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI-1.27 to-0.40), depression (SMD = -0.95, 95% CI -1.40 to-0.49), and anxiety (SMD = -0.86, 95% CI -1.22 to-0.51). It also markedly decreased fatigue (SMD = -0.83, 95% CI-1.10 to-0.56), improved quality of life (SMD = 0.56, 95% CI 0.22-0.88), and enhanced mindfulness skills (SMD = 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis is the first to exclusively synthesize RCT evidence of standardized MBCT in cancer care, demonstrating significant dual benefits for emotional and physical well-being while providing strong support for integrating MBCT into comprehensive oncology rehabilitation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Molecular Landscape and Advanced Diagnostic Technologies for BRAF Mutations in Cancer: From Quantitative PCR and ddPCR to CRISPR-Based Platforms.

BRAF mutations are key oncogenic alterations across multiple malignancies, including melanoma, thyroid carcinoma, colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, glioma, and hairy cell leukemia. The most prevalent variant, BRAF-V600E, induces constitutive activation of the MAPK signaling pathway, promoting tumor progression and influencing therapeutic responsiveness. Accurate detection of BRAF alterations is therefore essential for molecular classification, prognostic assessment, treatment selection, and resistance surveillance. This review summarizes the molecular heterogeneity of BRAF mutations and critically evaluates current diagnostic methodologies. Conventional approaches such as allele-specific PCR and Sanger sequencing are compared with advanced quantitative platforms, including high-resolution melting analysis, droplet digital PCR, and next-generation sequencing, with emphasis on analytical sensitivity, mutation coverage, and clinical applicability. Emerging technologies such as CRISPR-based assays, rolling circle amplification systems, and nanoparticle-based biosensors and point-of-care diagnostic platforms are also discussed for their potential to enhance ultra-sensitive detection, particularly in liquid biopsy settings. These emerging tools are highlighted for their potential to enable ultra-sensitive, rapid, and decentralized mutation detection, particularly in liquid biopsy settings. Key challenges, including intratumoral heterogeneity, low allele-frequency variants, FFPE-associated artifacts, and clonal evolution under therapeutic pressure, are examined within a translational framework. In addition, we examine critical barriers to clinical implementation, including standardization, cost, and global accessibility of molecular diagnostics, and outline potential solutions through scalable technologies and decentralized testing strategies. We propose that optimal BRAF testing requires a mutation subclass-informed and clinically integrated strategy combining comprehensive baseline profiling with longitudinal molecular monitoring. Future diagnostic paradigms will likely integrate multi-omics data and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interpretation to refine precision oncology implementation. Looking forward, we propose that optimal BRAF testing will require integration of multi-omics profiling with AI-assisted interpretation, enabling automated variant classification, real-time clinical decision support, and improved prediction of therapeutic response and resistance.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Risk-Benefit of Phase 2 Monotherapy Trials in Adult Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Phase 2 (and phase 1 dose expansion, which we label phase 2 for the purposes of this study) cancer trials are the first direct tests of a new drug's efficacy. Because efficacy evidence is lacking, the therapeutic status of drug administration during ethical review is uncertain. We compared the efficacy and safety of cancer monotherapies in phase 2 with phase 3, where clinical equipoise underwrites a therapeutic status for drug administration. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov for phase 2 and 3 investigational monotherapy drug trials in six solid malignancies, with primary completion dates 2015-2020, inclusive. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction. Effects were estimated using an inverse-variance weighted random-effects model meta-analysis of proportions using the R package meta. We analyzed 130 phase 2 and 52 phase 3 trial arms, enrolling 6665 and 18,694 patients. The pooled objective response rate was 7% (95% CI 5%-11%) in phase 2 versus 24% in phase 3 (95% CI 17%-31%; p < 0.0001). The median PFS and OS were shorter in phase 2 compared to phase 3 (3.23 vs. 5.43 months, p < 0.0001; 9.46 vs. 14.44 months, p = 0.0001). The pooled rate of drug-related grade 3-4 adverse events was 30% (95% CI 23%-37%) in phase 2 and 25% (95% CI 19%-32%) in phase 3. Monotherapies delivered in phase 2 cancer trials present diminished risk-benefit compared with phase 3 and align with historic estimates for phase 1. Though there may be exceptions, risks for drug administration in phase 2 should generally be justified by appeals to research rather than therapeutic value.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Suicidality risk of cancer caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The increase in the number of global cancer cases is expected to lead to a greater caregiving burden. However, few studies have investigated the risk of suicidality among cancer caregivers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to explore the risk of suicidality among cancer caregivers. METHODS: For this systematic review, a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science databases, PsycINFO and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to 16 July 2025. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) for case-control and cross-sectional studies and the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for cohort studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were included (four cohort studies, one case-control study and two cross-sectional studies), and 638,188 study subjects and 4,203,957 nonexposed subjects. The meta-analyses revealed that the ORs was 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-2.49) in the case-control study, cross-sectional studies, and one cohort study which reported ORs, and the aHRs was 1.32 (95% CI: 1.16-1.50) in the three cohort studies. Caregivers of patients with highly aggressive cancers had a greater risk of suicidality (aHR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.48-1.86). Within the first 7 years following a patient's cancer diagnosis, the risk of suicidality among caregivers remained elevated (aHR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.04-1.94). CONCLUSION: The results indicate the need for both clinical and societal awareness to reduce the risk of suicidality among cancer caregivers, especially those with highly aggressive cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered prospectively in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) with the registration number (PROSPERO CRD420251011926) and date of registration(15/03/2025).

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Systematic meta-analysis of the toxicities and side effects of the targeted drug lenvatinib.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib, an effective targeted drug for various cancers, has clinical medication safety concerns due to its toxicities and side effects. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated lenvatinib-induced any adverse events (any AEs) and nine aspects: vascular toxicities related to the circulatory system (vascular toxicities, blood system, and heart), toxicities of the skin and its appendages (skin/subcutaneous tissue and taste system), toxicities of the respiratory system (respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal and respiratory tract), toxicities of the nervous system (nervous system and general), toxicities of the digestive system (gastrointestinal and liver), toxicities of the urinary system, toxicities of the endocrine and metabolic system (endocrine and metabolism/nutrition), toxicities of the musculoskeletal system, and other severe toxicities. Toxicities and side effects were stratified by severity into any and ≥3 grades for analysis. PATIENTS/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for lenvatinib cancer clinical studies (cohort studies and randomized controlled trials) from inception to December 31, 2024; toxicity and side effect data were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Nine high-quality studies were included, showing that lenvatinib is effective in cancers but has notable toxicities. Taking hypertension as an example, for any grade, the risk ratio (RR) was 2.34 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [2.09, 2.62], a Z-value of 14.74, and a P-value <0.00001; for grade ≥3, the RR was 2.60 with a 95% CI of [2.21, 3.06], a Z-value of 11.44, and a P-value <0.00001. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib is effective for cancer but toxic, and this study supports its rational clinical use.

Humans↗

Compare source metadata on this page

Work	Published	Source identifier	Source
Prognostic significance of NLRP-3 expression in solid cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-08-20	PMID 42625285	pubmed
The clinical value of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to radiotherapy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-08-18	PMID 42613912	pubmed
The effects of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in the psychological and physical health of cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.	2026-08-11	PMID 42667881	pubmed
Molecular Landscape and Advanced Diagnostic Technologies for BRAF Mutations in Cancer: From Quantitative PCR and ddPCR to CRISPR-Based Platforms.	2026-06-12	PMID 42285341	pubmed
Risk-Benefit of Phase 2 Monotherapy Trials in Adult Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.	2026-05-12	PMID 42117884	pubmed
Suicidality risk of cancer caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.	2026-02-02	PMID 41630549	pubmed
Systematic meta-analysis of the toxicities and side effects of the targeted drug lenvatinib.	2025-12-24	PMID 41439769	pubmed

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.