Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

The human papillomavirus (HPV)-18 E7 (E7) oncoprotein is a major transforming protein that is thought to be involved in the development of cervical cancer. It is well-known that E7 stimulates tumour development by inactivating pRb. However, this alone cannot explain the various characteristics acquired by HPV infection. Therefore, we examined other molecules that could help explain the acquired cancer properties during E7-induced cancer development. Using the yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) method, we found that the Elk-1 factor, which is crucial for cell proliferation, invasion, cell survival, anti-apoptotic activity, and cancer development, binds to the E7. By determining which part of E7 binds to which domain of Elk-1 using the Y2H method, it was found that CR2 and CR3 of the E7 and parts 1–206, including the ETS-DNA domain of Elk-1, interact with each other. As a result of their interaction, the transcriptional activity of Elk-1 was increased, thereby increasing the expression of target genes EGR-1, c-fos, and E2F. Additionally, the colony forming assay revealed that overexpression of Elk-1 and E7 promotes C33A cell proliferation. We expect that the discovery of a novel E7 function as an Elk-1 activator could help explain whether the E7 has novel oncogenic activities in addition to p53 inactivation. We also expect that it will offer new methods for developing improved strategies for cervical cancer treatment.

Melanogenesis is the production of melanin from tyrosine by a series of enzyme-catalyzed reactions, in which tyrosinase and DOPA oxidase play key roles. The melanin content in the skin determines skin pigmentation. Abnormalities in skin pigmentation lead to various skin pigmentation disorders. Recent research has shown that the expression of EMP2 is much lower in melanoma than in normal melanocytes, but its role in melanogenesis has not yet been elucidated. Therefore, we investigated the role of EMP2 in the melanogenesis of MNT1 human melanoma cells. We examined TRP-1, TRP-2, and TYR expression levels during melanogenesis in MNT1 melanoma cells by gene silencing of EMP2. Western blot and RT-PCR results confirmed that the expression levels of TYR and TRP-2 were decreased when EMP2 expression was knocked down by EMP2 siRNA in MNT1 cells, and these changes were reversed when EMP2 was overexpressed. We verified the EMP2 gene was knocked out of the cell line (EMP2 CRISPR/Cas9) by using a CRISPR/Cas9 system and found that the expression levels of TRP-2 and TYR were significantly lower in the EMP2 CRISPR/Cas9 cell lines. Loss of EMP2 also reduced migration and invasion of MNT1 melanoma cells. In addition, the melanosome transfer from the melanocytes to keratinocytes in the EMP2 KO cells cocultured with keratinocytes was reduced compared to the cells in the control coculture group. In conclusion, these results suggest that EMP2 is involved in melanogenesis via the regulation of TRP-2 expression.

Advanced or metastatic breast cancer affects multiple organs and is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Cancer metastasis is associated with epithelial-mesenchymal metastasis (EMT). However, the specific signals that induce and regulate EMT in carcinoma cells remain unclear. PRR16/Largen is a cell size regulator that is independent of mTOR and Hippo signalling pathways. However, little is known about the role PRR16 plays in the EMT process. We found that the expression of PRR16 was increased in mesenchymal breast cancer cell lines. PRR16 overexpression induced EMT in MCF7 breast cancer cells and enhances migration and invasion. To determine how PRR16 induces EMT, the binding proteins for PRR16 were screened, revealing that PRR16 binds to Abl interactor 2 (ABI2). We then investigated whether ABI2 is involved in EMT. Gene silencing of ABI2 induces EMT, leading to enhanced migration and invasion. ABI2 is a gene that codes for a protein that interacts with ABL proto-oncogene 1 (ABL1) kinase. Therefore, we investigated whether the change in ABI2 expression affected the activation of ABL1 kinase. The knockdown of ABI2 and PRR16 overexpression increased the phosphorylation of Y412 in ABL1 kinase. Our results suggest that PRR16 may be involved in EMT by binding to ABI2 and interfering with its inhibition of ABL1 kinase. This indicates that ABL1 kinase inhibitors may be potential therapeutic agents for the treatment of PRR16-related breast cancer.

Purpose: To report a case of a successful secondary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in failed penetrating keratoplasty. Case summary: A 46-year-old male with keratoconus in both of his eyes underwent penetrating keratoplasty in his right eye 30 years ago and in his left eye 14 years ago. From one and a half year ago, the patient’s visual acuity decreased in his left eye due to graft failure. For treatment, secondary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty was performed. Partial detachment of Descemet membrane was observed at 13 days after the operation, and an additional air injection was performed. At 8 months after the operation, the patient’s uncorrected visual acuity improved to 0.5 and the cornea maintained its clearance without rejection. Conclusions Secondary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty was successfully performed in a patient with failed penetrating keratoplasty.