Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a progressive and chronic musculoskeletal condition that continues to be the leading cause of disability worldwide. Conventional treatment approaches for the management of KOA largely focus on symptom alleviation rather than halting or reversing disease progression. However, recent advancements have highlighted the integrated interplay of mechanical stress, inflammation, cellular senescence, and chondrocyte dysfunction in the progression of KOA, in turn prompting new therapeutic strategies. Therefore, emerging interventions such as regenerative medicine, gene therapy, senolytic, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMODs), and biologics have broadened the therapeutic options. Additionally, natural compounds demonstrated potential in KOA treatment with promising chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects.Moreover, digital technologies and clinical and molecular phenotyping enhanced early diagnosis, monitoring, and personalized management of the disease. Therefore, the current narrative review focuses on the molecular insights, clinical outcomes and prospects for the rapidly evolving landscape of current and emerging treatment approaches for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent, chronic joint disorder characterized by cartilage degradation, synovial inflammation, and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling, yet disease-modifying therapies remain elusive. Emerging evidence implicates ferroptosis, an iron-dependent form of regulated cell death driven by lipid peroxidation, and cellular senescence, characterized by growth arrest and a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), as central contributors to OA pathogenesis. Ferroptotic chondrocytes release reactive lipid species and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that induce paracrine senescence in neighboring cells, while senescent cells amplify oxidative stress and ferroptotic susceptibility, forming a self-perpetuating feed-forward loop that accelerates tissue degeneration. Histological, molecular, and in vivo studies demonstrate iron accumulation, lipid peroxidation, glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) depletion, and SASP factor secretion in human OA cartilage, synovium, and animal models, linking these processes to ECM breakdown and joint inflammation. Targeted interventions, alone or in combination, can disrupt this pathological loop, preserve chondrocyte viability, reduce SASP-mediated inflammation, and mitigate cartilage damage. Integration of biomarker-guided patient stratification, advanced imaging, and spatial transcriptomic profiling may enable precision-targeted, disease-modifying therapies. Therefore, elucidating the crosstalk between ferroptosis and senescence offers a conceptual and translational framework for shifting OA management from symptomatic relief toward preservation of joint integrity and long-term disease modification.

Background/Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. We investigated genomic determinants of clinical benefit from gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in advanced BTC. Methods: Clinical and genomic data using TruSight Oncology 500 were analyzed from patients treated with GAP (N=198) or GC (N=89) as first-line therapy. Results: With a median follow-up of 33.0 months, GAP modestly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.764; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591–0.989) without significant overall survival (OS) difference compared to GC. Genomic profiling revealed frequent alterations in TP53 (35.2%), KRAS (16.4%), SMAD4 (10.5%), and TNFRSF14 (10.5%), involving RTK/RAS (44.3%), TP53 (41.8%), and PI3K (20.2%) pathways. Single-gene mutations did not predict treatment benefit. However, pathway-level analysis identified PI3K pathway activation as significantly associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.148; 95% CI 1.478–3.124) and OS (HR 2.096; 95% CI 1.413–3.109) in patients receiving GAP, an effect not observed with GC. Importantly, GAP conferred clinical benefit only in patients without PI3K pathway activation, while no survival advantage was seen in those with such alterations (Pinteraction=0.023 for PFS, Pinteraction=0.003 for OS). Similar results were obtained in the independent validation cohort treated with GAP (N=103) or GC (N=64) for BTC. Conclusions Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing identified PI3K pathway activation as key molecular determinant that differentiates patient outcomes between GAP and GC treatments in advanced BTC.

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.

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.