Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, necessitating the identification of novel therapeutic targets. The E3 ubiquitin ligase WW domain-containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 2 (WWP2) has been implicated in various cancers, yet its specific role and underlying molecular mechanisms in CRC are poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate the functional role of WWP2 in CRC progression and to elucidate its regulatory mechanisms. Methods: WWP2 expression was evaluated in CRC patient tissues and cell lines using immunohistochemistry, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, and western blotting. The biological functions of WWP2 were assessed using in vitro assays for cell proliferation, migration, and invasion following adenovirus-mediated overexpression. The molecular mechanism was investigated by analyzing the protein expression levels of p53 and its downstream target, p21, via western blot. An in vivo xenograft mouse model was used to confirm the oncogenic role of WWP2. Results: WWP2 expression was significantly upregulated in CRC tissues. Overexpression of WWP2 promoted CRC cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. Mechanistically, increased WWP2 expression led to a marked reduction in the protein levels of the tumor suppressor p53. Consequently, the expression of the p53 downstream target, the cell cycle inhibitor p21, was also suppressed. In the xenograft model, WWP2 overexpression significantly enhanced tumor growth. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that WWP2 functions as an oncogene in CRC. It promotes cancer progression by destabilizing the tumor suppressor p53 and downregulating p21. This study highlights the WWP2-p53-p21 axis as a potential novel therapeutic target for CRC.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the potential role of copine-1 (CPNE1), a calcium-dependent membrane-binding protein encoded by the CPNE1 gene, in colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite previous research on the involvement of copine family members in various solid tumors, the specific role of CPNE1 in CRC remains poorly understood. Methods: We conducted clinicopathological analysis and functional studies to explore the impact of CPNE1 in human CRC.We examined the expression levels of CPNE1 in CRC patients and correlated it with invasive depth, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, lymphatic invasion, and TNM stage. Additionally, we performed experiments to assess the functional consequences of CPNE1 knockdown in CRC cells, including proliferation, colony formation, migration, invasion, and the expression of key regulators involved in the cell cycle and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Furthermore, we evaluated the effects of CPNE1 knockdown on tumor growth using a xenograft mouse model. Results: High expression of CPNE1 was significantly associated with advanced tumor features in CRC patients. CPNE1 knockdown in CRC cells led to impaired abilities in proliferation, colony formation, migration, and invasion. Furthermore, CPNE1 silencing resulted in the suppression of protein expression related to the cell cycle and EMT. In the xenograft mouse model, CPNE1 knockdown inhibited tumor growth. Conclusion CPNE1 plays a crucial role in promoting tumorigenesis and metastasis in human CRC. By regulating the cell cycle and EMT, CPNE1 influences critical cellular processes at the membrane-cytoplasm interface. These results provide valuable insights into the potential development of novel therapeutic strategies for CRC targeting CPNE1.

Objectives: . We aimed to assess the genetic differences between cases of early-stage tongue cancer that were positive or negative for lymph node metastasis. Methods: . In total, 35 cases of tongue cancer with RNA sequencing data were enrolled in this study. The gene expression profile of the following two groups was compared: N0 group (T stage 1 or 2 with N0 stage) and N+ group (T stage 1 or 2 with N+ stage). Using the R and limma packages in the Bioconductor program, we extracted the differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Gene ontology and pathway enrichment analysis were performed using the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integration Discovery (DAVID) online tool. Immune cell infiltration was analyzed using the CIBERSORT online program. Immunochemical staining of the cancer tissue was evaluated and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data were analyzed to validate the identified DEGs. Results: . No significant differences were found in the infiltration of 22 types of immune cells. Among a total of 51 identified DEGs, 14 genes were significantly upregulated, while 37 genes were significantly downregulated (P<0.01; fold change >2). Pathway analysis revealed significant associations with the arachidonic acid metabolism-related pathway, calcium signaling, and the muscle contraction pathway. The following DEGs were the most significantly different between the two groups: DEFB4A, SPRR2B, DEFB103B, SPRR2G, DEFB4B, and FAM25A. TCGA data showed that DEFB4A and DEFB103B were more highly expressed in the N0 group than in the N+ group, although the difference did not achieve statistical significance. Immunochemical staining of cancer tissue revealed significantly higher expression of defensin in the N0 group. Conclusions . Defensin (DEFB4A, DEFB103B, DEFB4B) may be a novel biomarker for early regional metastasis in T1/2 tongue cancer.

Purpose: There have been few reports on comparison between sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy in Korean metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We sought to analyze the treatment trends of metastatic ccRCC by comparing the effects and adverse events of sunitinib and pazopanib. Materials and Methods: Data of 357 metastatic RCC patients who received the sunitinib or pazopanib as the first-line targeted therapy from the Daegyeong Oncology Study Group database was obtained and analyzed. Among these patients, patients who only clear cell type was confirmed after needle biopsy or nephrectomy were included, and patients who underwent target therapy for less than 3 months were excluded. Results: Of 251 patients who met the inclusion criteria, sunitinib and pazopanib group were identified in 156 (62%) and 95 patients (38%), respectively. Pazopanib group was older (66 years vs. 61 years, p=0.001) and more symptomatic (65% vs. 52%, p=0.037) and had more patients with Karnofsky performance status <80 (20% vs. 11%, p=0.048) and fewer number of organ metastases (p=0.004) compared to sunitinib group. There was no significant difference in disease control rate (88.5% vs. 87.3%, p=0.744), the median progression-free survival (19 months vs. 15 months, p=0.444) and overall survival (25 months vs. 19 months, p=0.721) between sunitinib and pazopanib. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events with sunitinib and pazopanib were anemia (5%) and hand-foot syndrome (3%), respectively. There was no significant difference between sunitinib and pazopanib in number of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (15% vs. 11%, p=0.275). However, there were more patients who discontinued treatment due to only adverse events in sunitinib group compared to pazopanib group (12% vs. 3%, p=0.020). Conclusions In Korean metastatic ccRCC, pazopanib tended to be used in patients with poorer health status compared to sunitinib. Sunitinib and pazopanib had no significant difference in treatment effect and survival, but pazopanib had more tolerable adverse events.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is reported less frequently in adults than in children. The most common site of involvement in adults is the bone, accounting for 30-50% of cases. The gastrointestinal tract is very rare, accounting for approximately 2%. We present a case of Langerhans cell histiocytosis that simultaneously invaded multiple organs, including the stomach and colon, in an adult. A 37-year-old woman with no underlying disease complained of chest discomfort and a palpable right submandibular mass. A right Level II neck mass and mediastinal LN enlargement were confirmed on the pharynx and chest CT scan. Multiple subepithelial masses with central ulceration and erosion were observed in the corpus and fundus on the esophagogastroduodenoscopy and in the right colon on the colonoscopy. The histopathology findings were the same in each tissue biopsied from the stomach, colon, and right neck lymph nodes. Langerhans cells with classical reniform nuclei and prominent eosinophils invaded the normal glands, and S100 and CD1a were positive in the immunohistochemical stain. Gastrointestinal involvement of LCH in adults is rare, asymptomatic,and can involve multiple digestive organs simultaneously, so upper endoscopy and colonoscopy should be considered for a diagnosis.