Association between PFAS and risk of constipation.

Association between PFAS and risk of constipation.</p

ORs (95% CI) from multiple logistic regression analysis models of associations between PFHxS and risk of constipation in different subgroups.

ORs (95% CI) from multiple logistic regression analysis models of associations between PFHxS and risk of constipation in different subgroups.</p

Fig 4 -

Restricted cubic spline (RCS) models for the relationship between PFHxS (a), PFOA (b) and the risk of constipation.</p

Diagram of the mechanism by which PFAS causes a decrease in constipation.

Diagram of the mechanism by which PFAS causes a decrease in constipation.</p

ORs (95% CI) from multiple logistic regression analysis models of associations between PFOA and risk of constipation in different subgroups.

ORs (95% CI) from multiple logistic regression analysis models of associations between PFOA and risk of constipation in different subgroups.</p

Distribution of PFAS.

BackgroundThe impact of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on constipation, as mediated through gastrointestinal absorption and perturbations to the intestinal microecology, remains poorly understood.ObjectiveThis study seeks to explain the relationship between PFAS and constipation.MethodsA total of 2945 adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005–2010 were included in this study. Constipation was defined using the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) based on stool consistency. The relationship between PFAS and constipation was evaluated using weighted logistic regression and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis, while adjusting for confounding variables.ResultsThe weighted median concentration of total PFAS (ΣPFAS) was significantly lower in individuals with constipation (19.01 μg/L) compared to those without constipation (23.30 μg/L) (p 0.05). The RCS analysis demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between PFAS levels and constipation.ConclusionThe findings of this study provide evidence of a significant inverse correlation between serum concentrations of PFAS, particularly PFOA and PFHxS, and constipation.</div

Participant flowchart for the examination of association between PFAS exposure and constipation in adult participants of the NHANES Survey (2005–2010).

Participant flowchart for the examination of association between PFAS exposure and constipation in adult participants of the NHANES Survey (2005–2010).</p

Weighted characteristics of participants with constipation and without constipation in the NHANES database, NHANES 2005–2010.

Weighted characteristics of participants with constipation and without constipation in the NHANES database, NHANES 2005–2010.</p

Is IMRT Superior or Inferior to 3DCRT in Radiotherapy for NSCLC? A Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>There are no adequate data to determine whether intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of IMRT and 3DCRT in the treatment of NSCLC.</p><p>Methods</p><p>No exclusions were made based on types of study design. We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to April 30, 2015. The overall survival (OS) and relative risk (RR) of radiation pneumonitis and radiation oesophagitis were evaluated. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted data. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot using Egger’s test results.</p><p>Results</p><p>From the literature search, 10 retrospective studies were collected, and of those, 5 (12,896 patients) were selected for OS analysis, 4 (981 patients) were selected for radiation pneumonitis analysis, and 4 (1339 patients) were selected for radiation oesophagitis analysis. Cox multivariate proportional hazards models revealed that 3DCRT and IMRT had similar OS (HR = 0.96, P = 0.477) but that IMRT reduced the incidence of grade 2 radiation pneumonitis (RR = 0.74, P = 0.009) and increased the incidence of grade 3 radiation oesophagitis (RR = 2.47, P = 0.000).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>OS of IMRT for NSCLC is not inferior to that of 3DCRT, but IMRT significantly reduces the risk of radiation pneumonitis and increases the risk of radiation oesophagitis compared to 3DCRT.</p></div

Meta-analysis result of radiation pneumonitis and radiation esophagitis.

Meta-analysis result of radiation pneumonitis and radiation esophagitis.</p