Mutations in the synaptic nuclear envelope protein 1 (SYNE1) gene are associated with substantial clinical heterogeneity. Here, we report the first case of SYNE1 ataxia in Taiwan due to two novel truncating mutations. Our patient, a 53-year-old female, exhibited pure cerebellar ataxia with c.1922del in exon 18 and c. C3883T mutations in exon 31. Previous studies have indicated that the prevalence of SYNE1 ataxia among East Asian populations is low. In this study, we identified 27 cases of SYNE1 ataxia from 22 families in East Asia. Of the 28 patients recruited in this study (including our patient), 10 exhibited pure cerebellar ataxia, and 18 exhibited ataxia plus syndromes. We could not find an exact correlation between genotypes and phenotypes. Additionally, we established a precise molecular diagnosis in our patient’s family and extended the findings on the ethnic, phenotypic, and genotypic diversity of the SYNE1 mutational spectrum.

Objective: A meta-analysis of locus-based genome-wide association studies recently identified a relationship between AXIN1 and Parkinson’s disease (PD). Few studies of Asian populations, however, have reported such a genetic association. The influences of rs13337493, rs758033, and rs2361988, three PD-associated genetic variants of AXIN1, were investigated in the present study because AXIN1 is related to Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Methods: A total of 2,418 individuals were enrolled in our Taiwanese cohort for analysis of the genotypic and allelic frequency. Polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis was employed for rs13337493 genotyping, and the Agena MassARRAY platform (Agena Bioscience, San Diego, CA, USA) was used for rs758033 and rs2361988 genotyping in 672 patients with PD and 392 controls. Taiwan Biobank data of another 1,354 healthy controls were subjected to whole-genome sequencing performed using Illumina platforms at approximately 30× average depth. Results: Our results revealed that rs758033 {odds ratios [OR] (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 0.267 [0.064, 0.795], p = 0.014} was associated with the risk of PD, and there was a trend toward a protective effect of rs2361988 (OR [95% CI] = 0.296 [0.071, 0.884], p = 0.026) under the recessive model. The TT genotype of rs758033 (OR [95% CI] = 0.271 [0.065, 0.805], p = 0.015) and the CC genotype of rs2361988 (OR [95% CI] = 0.305 [0.073, 0.913], p = 0.031) were less common in the PD group than in the non-PD group. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the rs758033 and rs2361988 polymorphisms of AXIN1 may affect the risk of PD in the Taiwanese population.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Tubulin beta 4A class IVa (TUBB4A) spectrum disorders include autosomal dominant dystonia type 4 or hypomyelination with atrophy of the basal ganglia and cerebellum (H-ABC syndrome). However, in rare cases, only mild hypomyelination in the cortex with no basal ganglia atrophy may be observed. We report a case of a family with TUBB4A mutation and complicated hereditary spasticity paraplegia (HSP). We performed quadro whole-exome sequencing (WES) on the family to identify the causative gene of progressive spastic paraparesis with isolated hypomyelination leukodystrophy. We identified a novel TUBB4A p.F341L mutation, which was present in all three affected patients but absent in the unaffected father. The affected patients presented with adult-onset TUBB4A disorder, predominant spastic paraparesis with/without ataxia, and brain hypomyelination with no cognitive impairment or extrapyramidal symptoms. In the literature, HSP is considered a TUBB4A spectrum disorder.

Purpose: Numerous studies have produced conflicting findings regarding the efficacy of statins in prostate cancer treatment. Our objective was to examine the correlation between statin usage and clinical outcomes in Taiwanese men with de novo metastatic prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We identified patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer from the Chang Gung Research Database spanning the years 2007 to 2020. To minimize confounding bias, we employed the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. Clinical outcomes were assessed using IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the association between mortality and clinical factors. Results: The study cohort comprised 1,716 statin users and 276 non-users. Patients who used statins exhibited a longer median overall survival (85.4 months compared to 58.2 months; p=0.001) and cancer-specific survival (112.6 months compared to 75.7 months; p<0.001) compared to non-users. The median time to the development of castration-resistant status was similar between statin users and non-users (p=0.069). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, after IPTW adjustment, demonstrated that statin use was associated with improved overall survival. Conclusions Our study indicates that the use of statins following a de novo metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis enhances survival outcomes. However, statins did not appear to delay the onset of castration-resistant status. Further large-scale and long-term studies are warranted to investigate the biological effects of statins in men with prostate cancer.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients who failed antiviral therapy are at increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the potential role of metformin and statins, medications for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperlipidemia (HLP), in reducing HCC risk among these patients. Methods: We included CHC patients from the T-COACH study who failed antiviral therapy. We tracked the onset of HCC 1.5 years post-therapy by linking to Taiwan’s cancer registry data from 2003 to 2019. We accounted for death and liver transplantation as competing risks and employed Gray’s cumulative incidence and Cox subdistribution hazards models to analyze HCC development. Results: Out of 2,779 patients, 480 (17.3%) developed HCC post-therapy. DM patients not using metformin had a 51% increased risk of HCC compared to non-DM patients, while HLP patients on statins had a 50% reduced risk compared to those without HLP. The 5-year HCC incidence was significantly higher for metformin non-users (16.5%) versus non-DM patients (11.3%; adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.51; P=0.007) and metformin users (3.1%; aSHR=1.59; P=0.022). Statin use in HLP patients correlated with a lower HCC risk (3.8%) compared to non-HLP patients (12.5%; aSHR=0.50; P<0.001). Notably, the increased HCC risk associated with non-use of metformin was primarily seen in non-cirrhotic patients, whereas statins decreased HCC risk in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Conclusions Metformin and statins may have a chemopreventive effect against HCC in CHC patients who failed antiviral therapy. These results support the need for personalized preventive strategies in managing HCC risk.