The present research was conducted through the research fund of Dankook University in 2006. Rectal recurrence of gastric cancer is uncommon. A few cases have been reported, with the majority of them associated with peritoneal recurrence. A 71-year-old man visited our hospital complaining of bowel habit changes and fecal incontinence. He had undergone radical subtotal gastrectomy and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer 9 years earlier. Colonoscopy showed a rigidly constricted and erythematous rectum. Abdominopelvic CT showed diffuse rectal wall thickening with enhancement. PET-CT showed a hot uptake in the corresponding area on abdominopelvic CT scan, with no evidence of distant metastasis. We performed transanal full thickness biopsy and confirmed a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma pathologically similar to the former gastric cancer. The patient was diagnosed with solitary rectal recurrence simulating linitis plastica, without gastric remnant recurrence. We report this case with a review of the literature.
Adenocarcinoma ; Aged ; Biopsy ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant ; Colonoscopy ; Fecal Incontinence ; Financial Management ; Gastrectomy ; Gastric Stump ; Humans ; Linitis Plastica ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Rectum ; Recurrence ; Stomach Neoplasms

The introduction of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) in the beginning of 21st century has revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the small intestine. In contrast to capsule endoscopy, the other main diagnostic modality of the small bowel diseases, DAE has the unique advantages of observing the region of interest in detail and enabling tissue acquisition and therapeutic intervention. As DAE becomes an essential procedure in daily clinical practice, there is an increasing need for correct guidelines on when and how to perform it and what technical factors should be considered. In response to these needs, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases developed an expert consensus statement on the performance of DAE by reviewing the current evidence. This expert consensus statement particularly focuses on the indications, choice of insertion route, therapeutic intervention, complications, and relevant technical points.

Neoplasms of the major duodenal papilla or the ampulla of Vater are rare but are clinically important since they are premalignant. Recently endoscopic snare papillectomy for the ampullary adenoma is being increasingly performed. The procedure is now regarded as a clinically effective treatment, however, various complications such as bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and pancreatitis have been reported. To our knowledge, biliary stricture of this case has not been reported as a complication of endoscopic snare papillectomy for ampullary adenoma. Also, secondary common bile duct stone was formed by biliary stasis associated with biliary stricture in our case. We performed the balloon dilation at the biliary stricture site and could remove the stone successfully by endoscopic method.
Adenoma* ; Ampulla of Vater ; Cholangitis ; Cholestasis ; Common Bile Duct* ; Constriction, Pathologic* ; Hemorrhage ; Pancreatitis ; SNARE Proteins*

Background/Aims: There have been little research on the cancer risks of patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) in Korea. We aimed to investigate the clinical features of PJS patients and their cancer incidence rate. Methods: Patients with PJS from nine medical centers were enrolled. In those patients diagnosed with cancer, data obtained included the date of cancer diagnosis, the tumor location, and the cancer stage. The cumulative risks of gastrointestinal cancers and extra-gastrointestinal cancers were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 96 PJS patients were included. The median age at diagnosis of PJS was 23.4 years. Cancer developed in 21 of the 96 patients (21.9%). The age of PJS diagnosis was widely distributed (0.9 to 72.4 years). The most common cancers were gastrointestinal cancer (n = 12) followed by breast cancer (n = 6). The cumulative lifetime cancer risk was calculated to be 62.1% at age 60. The cumulative lifetime gastrointestinal cancer risk was 47.1% at age 70. The cumulative lifetime extra- gastrointestinal cancer risk was 40.3% at age 60. Conclusions PJS onset may occur at any age and the risks of gastrointestinal and extra-gastrointestinal cancer are high. Thorough surveillance of PJS patients for malignancies is vital.

The introduction of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) in the beginning of the 21st century has revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the small intestine. In contrast to capsule endoscopy, the other main diagnostic modality of small bowel diseases, DAE has the unique advantages of allowing the observation of the region of interest in detail and enabling tissue acquisition and therapeutic intervention. As DAE becomes an essential procedure in daily clinical practice, there is an increasing need for correct guidelines on when and how it is to be performed and what technical factors should be taken into consideration. In response to these needs, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases has developed an expert consensus statement on the performance of DAE by reviewing current evidence. This expert consensus statement particularly focuses on the indications, choice of insertion route, therapeutic intervention, complications, and relevant technical points.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.