Objective: To compare the effects of eccentric cycling (ECC), concentric cycling (CON), and standard care (CTL) on cardiopulmonary capacity, respiratory health, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Thirty-one CKD patients were divided into the CTL, CON, and ECC groups. The CON and ECC groups participated in 8-week, 24-session cycling programs. Outcomes were assessed through cardiopulmonary exercise tests, respiratory function tests, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument questionnaire. Results: The ECC group achieved significant improvements in maximal oxygen uptake, while the CTL group showed a decline. For oxygen uptake efficiency slope, significant changes were observed only in the ECC group, with a group-by-time interaction effect compared to CTL. Furthermore, the ECC group demonstrated the most significant increase in diaphragm movement and a significant increase in diaphragm thickness, with comparisons indicating that ECC outperformed both CTL and CON. Regarding QoL, the ECC group exhibited significantly greater improvements in Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary, with statistically significant differences compared with the CTL and CON groups. Conclusion ECC is a low-effort, high-benefit exercise modality that significantly enhances cardiopulmonary fitness, respiratory function, and QoL in patients with CKD.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

6-gingerol, a bioactive compound from ginger, has demonstrated promising anticancer properties across various cancer models by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and invasion. In this study, we explore its mechanisms against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a notably aggressive and treatment-resistant brain tumor. We found that 6-gingerol crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than curcumin, enhancing its potential as a therapeutic agent for brain tumors. Our experiments show that 6-gingerol reduces cell proliferation and triggers apoptosis in GBM cell lines by disrupting cellular energy homeostasis. This process involves an increase in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) and a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, primarily due to the downregulation of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Additionally, 6-gingerol reduces ERK phosphorylation by inhibiting EGFR and RAF, leading to G1 phase cell cycle arrest. These findings indicate that 6-gingerol promotes cell death in GBM cells by modulating MnSOD and ROS levels and arresting the cell cycle through the ERFR-RAF-1/MEK/ ERK signaling pathway, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM and setting the stage for future clinical research.

6-gingerol, a bioactive compound from ginger, has demonstrated promising anticancer properties across various cancer models by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and invasion. In this study, we explore its mechanisms against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a notably aggressive and treatment-resistant brain tumor. We found that 6-gingerol crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than curcumin, enhancing its potential as a therapeutic agent for brain tumors. Our experiments show that 6-gingerol reduces cell proliferation and triggers apoptosis in GBM cell lines by disrupting cellular energy homeostasis. This process involves an increase in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) and a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, primarily due to the downregulation of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Additionally, 6-gingerol reduces ERK phosphorylation by inhibiting EGFR and RAF, leading to G1 phase cell cycle arrest. These findings indicate that 6-gingerol promotes cell death in GBM cells by modulating MnSOD and ROS levels and arresting the cell cycle through the ERFR-RAF-1/MEK/ ERK signaling pathway, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM and setting the stage for future clinical research.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

6-gingerol, a bioactive compound from ginger, has demonstrated promising anticancer properties across various cancer models by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and invasion. In this study, we explore its mechanisms against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a notably aggressive and treatment-resistant brain tumor. We found that 6-gingerol crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than curcumin, enhancing its potential as a therapeutic agent for brain tumors. Our experiments show that 6-gingerol reduces cell proliferation and triggers apoptosis in GBM cell lines by disrupting cellular energy homeostasis. This process involves an increase in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) and a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, primarily due to the downregulation of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Additionally, 6-gingerol reduces ERK phosphorylation by inhibiting EGFR and RAF, leading to G1 phase cell cycle arrest. These findings indicate that 6-gingerol promotes cell death in GBM cells by modulating MnSOD and ROS levels and arresting the cell cycle through the ERFR-RAF-1/MEK/ ERK signaling pathway, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM and setting the stage for future clinical research.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and worsened quality of life (QOL). Advanced esophageal cancer is often accompanied by malnutrition and poor QOL; chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains the mainstay of treatment.We evaluated nutrition and QOL pre- and post-CRT immediately before and during the pandemic. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant or definitive CRT between April 2019 and December 2020 were enrolled. Disease severity, treatment timing, and outcomes were compared for cohorts treated pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19. Nutritional status was measured with the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). QOL was measured with the Mandarin Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the esophageal site-specific module (QLQ-OES18). In the pandemic cohort, pre-/post-CRT paired analyses were performed. Results: Eighty-four patients were enrolled. The median diagnosis to treatment interval lengthened during COVID-19 (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days, p=0.04). Among the patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic, nutritional status improved significantly following CRT (p=0.003). In the EORTC QLQ-C30, post-CRT scores for global health status (p<0.01) and emotional functioning (p<0.01) showed significant improvement. Additionally, symptom scores, including fatigue (p=0.02) and nausea and vomiting (p=0.02), decreased. However, financial difficulties worsened after CRT (p=0.02). In the EORTC QLQ-OES18, post-CRT symptom scores for eating (p<0.01), reflux (p=0.03), and pain (p<0.01) showed significant improvement. Conclusion Despite COVID-19-related delays, CRT enhanced nutrition, global health, and symptom control in esophageal cancer, although financial burdens increased. Integrating socioeconomic support with oncologic care is vital during health crises.