Achalasia is characterized by peristaltic failure and incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. The incidence and prevalence of achalasia increase with age, although achalasia can affect all age groups. The pathophysiology of achalasia involves the loss of inhibitory ganglion cells in the myenteric plexus of the esophagus. Its main symptoms include dysphagia, chest pain, regurgitation, and weight loss. The method of diagnosing achalasia has evolved from conventional manometry in the 1970s to high-resolution manometry in the 2010s. High-resolution manometry based on spatiotemporal plots can diagnose achalasia more precisely than conventional manometry. Moreover, novel parameters such as integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) (according to the Chicago classification) have increased diagnostic accuracy. However, cases of achalasia presenting with normal IRP have been reported. Therefore, the novel Chicago classification version 4.0 has adopted additional tests. These tests include the stress test for esophageal motor disorders, timed barium esophagography, and test using a functional lumen imaging probe that measures the distensibility of the esophagogastric junction. Achalasia was previously treated using surgical myotomy, balloon dilation, and botulinum toxin injection. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently become the mainstay treatment. POEM has a higher clinical success rate and a lower complication rate than surgical myotomy. Esophageal cancer and pulmonary conditions such as aspiration pneumonia are possible complications of achalasia. In this review, the current knowledge regarding achalasia together with novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies are discussed.

Histone modifications are key epigenetic regulatory features that have important roles in many cellular events. Lysine methylations mark various sites on the tail and globular domains of histones and their levels are precisely balanced by the action of methyltransferases (‘writers’) and demethylases (‘erasers’). In addition, distinct effector proteins (‘readers’) recognize specific methyl-lysines in a manner that depends on the neighboring amino-acid sequence and methylation state. Misregulation of histone lysine methylation has been implicated in several cancers and developmental defects. Therefore, histone lysine methylation has been considered a potential therapeutic target, and clinical trials of several inhibitors of this process have shown promising results. A more detailed understanding of histone lysine methylation is necessary for elucidating complex biological processes and, ultimately, for developing and improving disease treatments. This review summarizes enzymes responsible for histone lysine methylation and demethylation and how histone lysine methylation contributes to various biological processes.
Biological Processes ; Epigenomics ; Histone Code ; Histones* ; Lysine* ; Methylation* ; Methyltransferases ; Tail ; Writing*

A pyloric gland adenoma is a rare neoplasm that occurs most frequently in the stomach and should be removed because of its precancerous potential. Although there have been case reports of pyloric gland adenomas in extragastric areas such as the duodenum, pancreas, and bile duct, esophageal pyloric gland adenoma has never been reported in Korea. Herein, we report a case of esophageal pyloric gland adenoma that was successfully treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Background/Aims: There is limited knowledge regarding the management of duodenal subepithelial lesions (SELs) owing to a lack of understanding of their natural course. This study aimed to assess the natural course of asymptomatic duodenal SELs and provide management recommendations. Methods: Patients diagnosed with duodenal SELs and followed up for a minimum of 6 months were retrospectively investigated. Results: Among the 443,533 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2008 and 2020, duodenal SELs were identified in 0.39% (1,713 patients). Among them, 396 duodenal SELs were monitored for a median period of 72.5 months (interquartile range, 37.7–111.3 mo). Of them, 16 SELs (4.0%) showed substantial changes in size or morphology at a median follow-up of 35.1 months (interquartile range, 21.7–51.4 mo). Of these SELs with substantial changes, tissues of two SELs were acquired using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: one was a lipoma and the other was non-diagnostic. Three SELs were surgically or endoscopically removed; two were diagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and one was a lipoma. An initial size of 20 mm or larger was associated with substantial changes during follow-up (p = 0.016). Conclusions While the majority of duodenal SELs may not exhibit substantial interval changes, regular follow-up with endoscopy may be necessary for cases with an initial size of 20 mm or larger, considering a possibility of malignancy.