Current approaches to regulating osteoarthritis primarily focus on symptom management; however, these methods often have significant side effects and may not be suitable for long-term care. As an alternative to conventional treatments, injecting stem cells into knee joint cartilage is a promising option for repairing damaged cartilage. In this review, we outline the general procedure for stem cell treatment of knee joint cartilage regeneration, emphasizing the potential of intra-articular stem cell injections as a therapeutic option for osteoarthritis. We examined and summarized patient evaluation and preparation for knee joint stem cell therapy, stem cell harvesting, stem cell preparation, injection procedures for stem cell therapy, post-injection care and monitoring, potential outcomes of stem cell therapy, and considerations and risks associated with stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell injections for knee joint cartilage damage represent a promising frontier in orthopedic care. They offer potential benefits such as pain and inflammation reduction, promotion of cartilage repair and regeneration, and the possibility of avoiding more invasive treatments such as knee surgery. Ongoing collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory organizations is crucial for advancing this field and translating scientific discoveries into effective clinical applications.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Current approaches to regulating osteoarthritis primarily focus on symptom management; however, these methods often have significant side effects and may not be suitable for long-term care. As an alternative to conventional treatments, injecting stem cells into knee joint cartilage is a promising option for repairing damaged cartilage. In this review, we outline the general procedure for stem cell treatment of knee joint cartilage regeneration, emphasizing the potential of intra-articular stem cell injections as a therapeutic option for osteoarthritis. We examined and summarized patient evaluation and preparation for knee joint stem cell therapy, stem cell harvesting, stem cell preparation, injection procedures for stem cell therapy, post-injection care and monitoring, potential outcomes of stem cell therapy, and considerations and risks associated with stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell injections for knee joint cartilage damage represent a promising frontier in orthopedic care. They offer potential benefits such as pain and inflammation reduction, promotion of cartilage repair and regeneration, and the possibility of avoiding more invasive treatments such as knee surgery. Ongoing collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory organizations is crucial for advancing this field and translating scientific discoveries into effective clinical applications.

Current approaches to regulating osteoarthritis primarily focus on symptom management; however, these methods often have significant side effects and may not be suitable for long-term care. As an alternative to conventional treatments, injecting stem cells into knee joint cartilage is a promising option for repairing damaged cartilage. In this review, we outline the general procedure for stem cell treatment of knee joint cartilage regeneration, emphasizing the potential of intra-articular stem cell injections as a therapeutic option for osteoarthritis. We examined and summarized patient evaluation and preparation for knee joint stem cell therapy, stem cell harvesting, stem cell preparation, injection procedures for stem cell therapy, post-injection care and monitoring, potential outcomes of stem cell therapy, and considerations and risks associated with stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell injections for knee joint cartilage damage represent a promising frontier in orthopedic care. They offer potential benefits such as pain and inflammation reduction, promotion of cartilage repair and regeneration, and the possibility of avoiding more invasive treatments such as knee surgery. Ongoing collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory organizations is crucial for advancing this field and translating scientific discoveries into effective clinical applications.

The aim of this study was to evaluate emodin, a natural trihydroxyanthraquinone compound found in the roots and barks of several plants including rhubarb and buckthorn, might attenuate epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced airway MUC5AC mucin gene expression. The human pulmonary mucoepidermoid NCI-H292 cells were pretreated with for 30 min and then stimulated with EGF for the following 24 h. The effect of emodin on EGF-induced mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway was examined. As a result, emodin blocked the expression of MUC5AC mucin mRNA and production of mucous glycoprotein via suppressing the phosphorylation of EGF receptor (EGFR), phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) 1 and 2 (MEK1/2), phosphorylation of p38 MAPK, phosphorylation of ERK 1/2 (p44/42), and the nuclear expression of specificity protein-1 (Sp1). These findings imply that emodin has a potential to mitigate EGF-stimulated mucin gene expression by inhibiting the EGFR-MAPK-Sp1 signaling pathway, in NCI-H292 cells.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Purpose: Varlitinib is a pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) inhibitor targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and HER4. We present a phase Ib/II study of a combination of varlitinib and weekly paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Materials and Methods: Patients whose tumors with EGFR and HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry (≥ 1+) were enrolled. Varlitinib and paclitaxel were investigated every 4 weeks. After determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in phase Ib, a phase II study was conducted to evaluate the antitumor activity. Results: RP2D was treated with a combination of varlitinib (300 mg twice daily) and paclitaxel. Among 27 patients treated with RP2D, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 4.9) and 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.8), respectively, with a median follow-up of 15.7 months. Among 16 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 31% and 88%, respectively. Patients with strong HER2 expression (n=8) had a higher ORR and longer OS, whereas those with strong EGFR expression (n=3) had poorer outcomes. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade were neutropenia (52%), diarrhea (27%), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase elevation (22%), and nausea (19%). No treatment-related deaths or unexpected AEs resulting from treatment cessation were observed in patients with RP2D. Conclusion A combination of varlitinib and paclitaxel displayed manageable toxicity and modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing AGC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.