Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Colonoscopy, a widely used procedure for diagnosing and treating colonic diseases, induces transient gastrointestinal symptoms and alterations in the gut microbiota. This review comprehensively examines the evidence on alterations in the gut microbiota following colonoscopy and their possible mechanisms. Factors such as rapid colonic evacuation, increased osmolality, and mucus thinning caused by bowel preparation and exposure to oxygen during the procedure contribute to these alterations. Typically, the alterations revert to the baseline within a short time. However, their long-term implications remain unclear, necessitating further investigation. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure result in fewer alterations in the gut microbiota. Probiotic administration immediately after colonoscopy shows promise in reducing alterations and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the widespread use of probiotics remains controversial due to the transient nature of both the symptoms and gut microbial alterations following a colonoscopy. Probiotics may offer greater benefits to individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, probiotic administration may be a viable option for selected patients.

Colonoscopy, a widely used procedure for diagnosing and treating colonic diseases, induces transient gastrointestinal symptoms and alterations in the gut microbiota. This review comprehensively examines the evidence on alterations in the gut microbiota following colonoscopy and their possible mechanisms. Factors such as rapid colonic evacuation, increased osmolality, and mucus thinning caused by bowel preparation and exposure to oxygen during the procedure contribute to these alterations. Typically, the alterations revert to the baseline within a short time. However, their long-term implications remain unclear, necessitating further investigation. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure result in fewer alterations in the gut microbiota. Probiotic administration immediately after colonoscopy shows promise in reducing alterations and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the widespread use of probiotics remains controversial due to the transient nature of both the symptoms and gut microbial alterations following a colonoscopy. Probiotics may offer greater benefits to individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, probiotic administration may be a viable option for selected patients.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Colonoscopy, a widely used procedure for diagnosing and treating colonic diseases, induces transient gastrointestinal symptoms and alterations in the gut microbiota. This review comprehensively examines the evidence on alterations in the gut microbiota following colonoscopy and their possible mechanisms. Factors such as rapid colonic evacuation, increased osmolality, and mucus thinning caused by bowel preparation and exposure to oxygen during the procedure contribute to these alterations. Typically, the alterations revert to the baseline within a short time. However, their long-term implications remain unclear, necessitating further investigation. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure result in fewer alterations in the gut microbiota. Probiotic administration immediately after colonoscopy shows promise in reducing alterations and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the widespread use of probiotics remains controversial due to the transient nature of both the symptoms and gut microbial alterations following a colonoscopy. Probiotics may offer greater benefits to individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, probiotic administration may be a viable option for selected patients.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.