SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Invasive growth”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

277 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Do wound protectors reduce contamination in total shoulder arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial.

HYPOTHESIS: Cutibacterium acnes is the most frequent cause of shoulder prosthetic joint infection with skin edges as a source of wound contamination. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a wound protector device decreases the deep wound bacterial colonization in primary shoulder arthroplasty. The secondary purpose was to assess the effect of device usage on deltopectoral muscle and cephalic vein injury. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 100 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups: a wound protector group and a control group. Five patients withdrew from the study, leaving 48 patients in the wound protector group and 47 controls. Three deep wound culture swabs were taken after final arthroplasty implantation. The surgeon also graded deltoid, pectoralis major, and cephalic vein injury on a 0-3 scale based on modification to the Tscherne classification of soft tissue injury. The primary outcome of this study was positive culture results for C acnes. Secondary outcomes included total bacterial culture positivity as well as soft tissue injury grades. A subanalysis removing likely contaminant positive cultures (growth >7 days and 1 colony only) was also performed. Comparisons between groups were made using Fisher exact test for categorical outcomes and t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: The use of a wound protector did not result in any significant differences compared with controls in the rate of positive cultures for C acnes (15% vs. 21%, P = .593) or all bacteria (15% vs. 26%, P = .304). Removing likely contaminant positive cultures did not demonstrate any significant difference in culture positivity (9% vs. 17%, P = .355, for C acnes; 9% vs. 19%, P = .231, for all bacterial species). The wound protector group had better soft tissue injury scores for the deltoid muscle (P < .001) and pectoralis muscle (P < .001). No difference in cephalic vein injury was noted between the 2 groups (P > .05). No difference in surgical time was noted. CONCLUSION: The use of a surgical wound protector device in total shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly decrease bacterial colonization of the deep wound. However, soft tissue damage to the deltoid and pectoralis muscle was less severe in the wound protector group. These findings suggest that this device reduces iatrogenic soft tissue injury.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The Childhood Cancer and Leukemia International Consortium (CLIC): Expanding global collaboration in pediatric cancer etiology research.

Childhood cancers are rare, but incidence has risen modestly in countries with robust registration, partly reflecting improved diagnosis. In high-income countries, cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in children. Marked inequities in incidence, survival, and research capacity underscore the need for large-scale collaboration to identify environmental, genetic, and contextual determinants of risk. The Childhood Cancer and Leukemia International Consortium (CLIC) was established in 2007 to study the etiology of childhood leukemia and later expanded in 2019 to include other childhood cancers, principally solid tumors. CLIC pools harmonized, individual-level data from case-control and cohort studies, obtained through interviews, record linkage (insurance claims, registries), or geographic information systems, and integrates germline genomic data where available. Membership has grown from 13 studies in 9 countries to 57 studies in 21 countries; recruitment spans the early 1960s to the present and encompasses approximately 150,000 cases across all tumor types and 300,000 controls with clinical, demographic, and exposure data, centralized via harmonized data dictionaries at the Data Coordination Center, established in 2014 at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and supported by a secure analysis platform. Pooled analyses across diverse populations have implicated parental age, prenatal vitamin or folic acid use, mode of delivery, fetal growth, selected congenital anomalies, occupational or household exposures (e.g., pesticides), paternal smoking, and markers of early-life immune modulation (e.g., breastfeeding, daycare attendance) in leukemia risk, informing carcinogen evaluation and prevention. The integration of genetic ancestry and germline susceptibility data is clarifying ancestry-related differences in leukemia biology and outcomes, while confirming risk loci with population-specific effects. CLIC is now adding polygenic risk scores and exposomic data to refine etiologic subtyping and identify modifiable pathways, while broadening representation from underserved regions through partnership-building and capacity-strengthening.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR and Concurrent TP53 Mutations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Combination therapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its clinical benefit-risk profile remains a focus of ongoing debate. Identifying patients most likely to derive benefit from such regimens remains an unmet clinical need. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of first-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy with osimertinib monotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 17 sites in China. Between March 25, 2021, and July 11, 2024, a total of 294 eligible patients with treatment-naive, stage IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 and EGFR-sensitizing mutations were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy (pemetrexed and carboplatin every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy of osimertinib plus pemetrexed; n = 146) or osimertinib monotherapy (n = 148). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Among 294 enrolled patients, the median age was 57 years (range, 26-79 years), and 159 (54.1%) were female. The data cutoff date was November 11, 2025. At a median follow-up of 25.1 months for the osimertinib-chemotherapy group and 26.1 months for the osimertinib monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib plus chemotherapy than with osimertinib monotherapy (34.0 vs 15.6 months; difference, 18.4 months [95% CI, 9.9-22.3]; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.60]; P < .001). This benefit was consistent across prespecified subgroups, including those with brain metastases and L858R mutations. The overall survival data remained immature (30.6% maturity); however, a trend toward overall survival benefit with combination therapy was observed. The incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was higher in the combination group, with no new safety signal identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC harboring concurrent TP53 mutations. These findings provided a clinical rationale for individualized combination strategies in the management of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04695925.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70 years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5 months vs. threshold < 12.0 months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold ≥ 50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold < 5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold ≥ 75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45 days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of ≥ 95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3 months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Neurological effects of encapsulated dexamethasone sodium phosphate in children aged 6-9 years with ataxia telangiectasia (NEAT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ataxia telangiectasia is a rare, multisystem disorder with progressive cerebellar neurodegeneration and no approved treatments. The efficacy of corticosteroids, including erythrocyte encapsulated dexamethasone sodium phosphate (eDSP), which have been studied for two decades in this disease, has not yet been proven in randomised trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of eDSP in children aged 6-9 years with ataxia telangiectasia. METHODS: NEAT was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, conducted at 20 sites across nine countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and USA). Eligible participants were children aged 6 years or older weighing at least 15 kg, with a genetic diagnosis of ataxia telangiectasia and presence of neurological symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the eDSP or placebo group via an independent interactive web response system and were stratified by age (6-9 years or ≥10 years), sex, and region (USA vs other countries). All participants, investigators, sponsors, and raters were masked to treatment assignments. eDSP was given intravenously every 21-30 days for six doses. All randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and safety populations; the primary and secondary efficacy analyses were conducted in participants aged 6-9 years in the ITT population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in Rescored Modified International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (RmICARS) score between baseline and month 6, and a mixed-model-repeated-measures analysis was used. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06193200, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 24, 2024, and Dec 17, 2025, we screened 125 participants for eligibility, of whom 105 (84%) were randomly assigned to the eDSP group (n=51 [49%]) or the placebo group (n=54 [51%]) and received at least one dose of treatment. The mean age was 8·5 years (SD 1·9) in the eDSP group and 8·6 years (2·3) in the placebo group (overall age range 6-17 years). In the eDSP group, 24 (47%) of 51 participants were girls and 27 (53%) were boys and, in the placebo group, 26 (48%) of 54 were girls and 28 (52%) were boys. Of ITT participants aged 6-9 years, 38 (95%) of 40 in the eDSP group and 41 (95%) of 43 in the placebo group completed the study. Compared with the placebo group, no significant differences were identified in change in RmICARS score from baseline to 6 months in participants aged 6-9 years: least squares mean difference -1·30 (95% CI -2·77 to 0·18; p=0·085). Adverse events were reported in 47 (92%) of 51 participants in the eDSP group and in 50 (93%) of 54 participants in the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were vomiting, pyrexia, pruritus, nasopharyngitis, cough, headache, and fatigue. There were no reports of treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths. Safety laboratory parameters did not identify adverse effects on growth, metabolism, bone mineral density, or endocrine function in any of the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved, because the effect of eDSP on neurological symptoms did not reach statistical significance. The favourable safety profile of eDSP, previously described in a large study of children with ataxia telangiectasia, was confirmed in this trial. The eDSP programme, comprising two randomised studies and treating the largest cohort of patients with ataxia telangiectasia to date, underscores the need for rigorously designed trials of sufficient duration to detect sustained clinical benefit. FUNDING: Quince Therapeutics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I² = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I² = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (≥ 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans↗