The incidence and mortality of lung cancer in China: a trend analysis and comparison with G20 based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BackgroundLung cancer is a significant health concern in China. There is limited available data of its burden and trends. This study aims to evaluate the trends of lung cancer across different age groups and genders in China and the Group of Twenty (G20) countries, explore the risk factors, and predict the future trends over a 20-year period.MethodsThe data were obtained from the GBD study 2019. The number of cases, age standardized rate (ASR), and average annual percentage changes (AAPC) were used to estimate the trend in lung cancer by age, gender, region and risk factor. The trend of lung cancer was predicted by autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model by the “xtarimau” command. The joinpoint regression analysis was conducted to identify periods with the highest changes in incidence and mortality. Additionally, the relationship between AAPCs and socio-demographic index (SDI) was explored.ResultsFrom 1990 to 2019, both the incidence and mortality of lung cancer in China and G20 significantly increased, with China experiencing a higher rate of increase. The years with the highest increase in incidence of lung cancer in China were 1998-2004 and 2007-2010. Among the G20 countries, the AAPC in incidence and mortality of lung cancer in the Republic of Korea was the highest, followed closely by China. Although India exhibited similarities, its AAPC in lung cancer incidence and mortality rates was lower than that of China. The prediction showed that the incidence in China will continue to increase. In terms of risk factors, smoking was the leading attributable cause of mortality in all countries, followed by occupational risk and ambient particulate matter pollution. Notably, smoking in China exhibited the largest increase among the G20 countries, with ambient particulate matter pollution ranking second.ConclusionLung cancer is a serious public health concern in China, with smoking and environmental particulate pollution identified as the most important risk factors. The incidence and mortality rates are expected to continue to increase, which places higher demands on China’s lung cancer prevention and control strategies. It is urgent to tailor intervention measures targeting smoking and environmental pollution to contain the burden of lung cancer

Case Report: A papillary thyroid microcarcinoma patient with skip lymph node metastasis and multiple distant metastasis

Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common type of thyroid cancer. Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) is defined as PTC with a diameter less than 1 centimeter. Most lymph nodes of PTC patients have metastasized to the central neck, and a few lymph nodes have metastasized to the lateral neck. Skip lymph node metastasis, that is, lateral cervical lymph node metastasis without central lymph node metastasis, is even less common. Additionally, distant metastasis of PTMC is also rare, mainly occurring in the lung and bone. Here, we reported a case of PTMC patient with skip lymph node metastasis and multiple distant metastasis. The patient presented with a huge shoulder mass and the primary tumor was found to originate from the thyroid. However, the patient only suffered with PTMC via postoperative pathological results, and interestingly, the patient only had skip lymph node metastasis. Thus, we should focus on PTMC patients with lateral cervical lymph nodes metastasis, especially those with skip metastasis. In addition, this case provides a new perspective for us to understand of skip lymph metastasis and distant metastasis of PTMC

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health