Background: Hearing loss (HL) is one of the most common sensory disorders, affecting over 5-8% of the world's population. Approximately half of HL cases are attributed to genetic factors. In hereditary deafness, about 75-80% is inherited through autosomal recessive inheritance, and common pathogenic genes include GJB2 and SLC26A4. Pathogenic variants in the SLC26A4gene are the leading cause of hereditary hearing loss in humans, second only to the GJB2 gene. Variants in the SLC26A4gene cause hearing loss, which can be non-syndromic autosomal recessive deafness (DFNB4, OMIM #600791) associated with enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) or Pendred syndrome (Pendred, OMIM #605646). DFNB4 is characterized by sensorineural hearing loss combined with EVA or less common cochlear malformation defect. Pendred syndrome is characterized by bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with EVA and an iodine defect that can lead to thyroid goiter. Currently, it is known that EVA is associated with variants in the SLC26A4 gene and is a penetrant feature of SLC26A4-related HL. Predominant mutations in these genes differ significantly across populations. For instance, predominant SLC26A4 mutations differ among populations, including p.T416P and c.1001G>A in Caucasians, p.H723R in Japanese and Koreans, and c.919-2A>G in Han Taiwanese and Han Chinese. On the other hand, there has been no study of hearing loss related to SLC26A4 gene variants among Mongolians, which is the basis of our research. Aim: We aimed to identify the characteristics of the SLC26A4 gene variants in Mongolian people with Enlarged vestibular aqueduct and Mondini malformation. Materials and Methods: In 2022-2024, We included 13 people with hearing loss and enlarged vestibular aqueduct, incomplete cochlea (1.5 turns of the cochlea with cystic apex- incomplete partition type II- Mondini malformation) were examined by CT scan of the temporal bone in our study. WES (Whole exome sequencing) analysis was performed in the Genetics genetic-laboratory of the National Taiwan University Hospital. Results: Genetic analysis revealed 26 confirmed pathogenic variants of bi-allelic SLC26A4 gene of 8 different types in 13 cases, and c.919-2A>G variant was dominant with 46% (12/26) in allele frequency, and c.2027T>A (p.L676Q) variant 19% (5/26), c.1318A>T(p.K440X) variant 11% (3/26), c.1229C>T (p.T410M) variant 8% (2/26) ) , c.716T>A (p.V239D), c.281C>T (p.T94I), c.1546dupC, and c.1975G>C (p.V659L) variants were each 4% (1/26)- revealed. Two male children, 11 years old (SLC26A4: c.919-2A>G) and 7 years old (SLC26A4: c.919-2A>G:, SLC26A4: c.2027T>A (p.L676Q))had history of born normal hearing and progressive hearing loss. Conclusions 1. 26 variants of bi-allelic SLC26A4 gene mutation were detected in Mongolian people with EVA and Mondini malformation, and c.919-2A>G was the most dominant allele variant, and rare variants such as c.1546dupC, c.716T>A (p.V239D) were detected. 2. Our study shows that whole-exome sequencing (WES) can identify gene mutations that are not detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or NGS analysis.

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.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients who failed antiviral therapy are at increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the potential role of metformin and statins, medications for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperlipidemia (HLP), in reducing HCC risk among these patients. Methods: We included CHC patients from the T-COACH study who failed antiviral therapy. We tracked the onset of HCC 1.5 years post-therapy by linking to Taiwan’s cancer registry data from 2003 to 2019. We accounted for death and liver transplantation as competing risks and employed Gray’s cumulative incidence and Cox subdistribution hazards models to analyze HCC development. Results: Out of 2,779 patients, 480 (17.3%) developed HCC post-therapy. DM patients not using metformin had a 51% increased risk of HCC compared to non-DM patients, while HLP patients on statins had a 50% reduced risk compared to those without HLP. The 5-year HCC incidence was significantly higher for metformin non-users (16.5%) versus non-DM patients (11.3%; adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.51; P=0.007) and metformin users (3.1%; aSHR=1.59; P=0.022). Statin use in HLP patients correlated with a lower HCC risk (3.8%) compared to non-HLP patients (12.5%; aSHR=0.50; P<0.001). Notably, the increased HCC risk associated with non-use of metformin was primarily seen in non-cirrhotic patients, whereas statins decreased HCC risk in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Conclusions Metformin and statins may have a chemopreventive effect against HCC in CHC patients who failed antiviral therapy. These results support the need for personalized preventive strategies in managing HCC risk.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract and is characterized by alternating periods of inflammation and remission. Although UC incidence is lower in Taiwan than in Western countries, its impact remains considerable, demanding updated guidelines for addressing local healthcare challenges and patient needs. The revised guidelines employ international standards and recent research, emphasizing practical implementation within the Taiwanese healthcare system. Since the inception of the guidelines in 2017, the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease has acknowledged the need for ongoing revisions to incorporate emerging therapeutic options and evolving disease management practices. This updated guideline aims to align UC management with local contexts, ensuring comprehensive and context-specific recommendations, thereby raising the standard of care for UC patients in Taiwan. By adapting and optimizing international protocols for local relevance, these efforts seek to enhance health outcomes for patients with UC.